PARITAM SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Pritam Singh has filed this appeal against his conviction un ler section 304, Part 1, I. P. C. and against the sentence of 7 years' rigorous imprisonment passed against him.

(2.) The appellant along with three other persons, namely, Ranjit Singh alias Jita, Mmgat Ram and Kishan Lal, was prosecuted in the Court of the Additional Session Judge, Delhi, for an offence under ssc- tion 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code The prosecution case a^ai.ist them was that they as well as the deceased Shiv Charan were residents of Hudson Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. On 24th March, 1971 in the evening. Rani, daughter of Babu Lal brother of the deceased, agei about 14 years, was sweeping the open space outside her house when the appellant and his brother Jita, who were present outside their house at that time, made some indecent remarks to the girl. Those remarks were heard by her brother 0m Prakash and he reprimanded the appellant and Jita for making such indecent remarks. There was an altercation between 0m Parkash on the one hand and the appellant and Jita on the other hand. The residents of the locality intervenced and settled the matter. On 26th March 1971 at about 5.30 or 6 P.M., 0m Parkash happened to go to the shop of Ram Singh Pakorawala which was at a distance of about 30 or 40 yards from the shop of Ved Prakash, the son of Babu Lal. The appellant and the other three co-accused surrounded 0m Parkash. The appellant was armed with a knife at that time. Fearing an attack by them, 0m Prakash ran towards the shop of Ved Prakash, but he was chased by all the accused. The deceased, who was also present at the shop of Ved Prakash at that time, questioned the accused as to why they were chasing 0m Prakash. Mangat Ram and KishanLal then instigated the appellant ar.dJita to attack the deceased. Thereupon, Jita caught hold of the deceased from behind and the appellant slabbed the deceased with his knife on the face, chest, abdoment and the temporal region of the head. Just then, Ramesh, son of the deceased, who happened to see this incident, brought a lathi from his house and dealt a blow with the,lathi on the head of the appellant as a result of which the appellant fell down on the ground.. The other accused then ran away. Babu Lal, Ramesh and Savitri, the mother of Ramesh.then caught hold of the appellant.and snatched away the knife from his hand. Babu Lal went to the police station taking the knife with him and lodged a report at the police station and also produced the knife with which the appellant was alleged to have stabbed the deceased. By the time the police,arrived at the scene of offence, the deceased had already been removed to the hospital and was declared to be dead by the doctor who examined him. The appellant was arrested immediately and the clothes he was wearing were also seized as they were found to be blood-stained. He was also sent to the hospital for medical examination as he was found to be having some injuries on his person. The other accused were also arrested on the same day. The knife which was produced by Babu Lal at the .police station was sent to the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist Their report showed that it was stained with human blood of the same group as that of the deceased. This, in short, is the prosecution case against the appellant and the other co-accused.

(3.) The prosecution examined 17 witnesses and the affidavits of some other witnesses were filed in the trial Court. P Ws. I to 5 and 7 are the alleged eye-witnesses to the incident on 26th March 1971. They testified to the facts already stated and they denied the suggestion that when Jita was found coming out of the latrine, they surrounded him and attacked him with lathis and that when the appellant intervened to save Jita, they attacked the appellant also with lathis and that in the exercise of his right of private defence, the appellant, .had picked up a knife from a shop nearby .and had brandished it and ,that he accidentally caused injuries to the deceased. P. W. 6 is Rani the daughter of P. W. I, and she narrated the incident that took place on 24th March 1971. She was corroborated by P. Ws, 1, 2 and 7. These witnesses denied the suggestion made on behalf of the accused that Rani was carrying on an affair with Jita and that on 24th March 1971, she had tried to pass on a letter to Jita which was, however, intercepted by 0m Prakash and that her relations including Public Witness -I. and the deceased had assembled outside the house of the appellant and Jita with a view to attack them and that when the neighbours intervened, they went away saying that they would take revenge against Jita.