SATYA DEV PANDEY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Satyadev Pandey (A-1) and Ramji Pandey (A-2) impugn a judgment dated 05.08.2000 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.282/1997 arising out of FIR No.697/1996 registered at Police Station Patel Nagar whereby they were convicted under Sections 308/323/34 IPC. By an order dated 09.08.2000 they were awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for five years with fine Rs. 10,000/- each under Section 308/34 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for one year with fine Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 323/34 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) Allegations against the appellant were that on 15.08.1996 at about 03.30 P.M. at House No.2099/6A, Gali No.15, Pahari, Prem Nagar, Delhi, they in furtherance of common intention inflicted injuries to Krishan Dev Singh, Nand Kumari and Kaushal. The police machinery came into motion when DD No.30B (Mark 'A) was recorded at Police Station Patel Nagar at 03.57 P.M. on getting information from PCR about a quarrel at House No.2103, Gali No.15, Prem Nagar. The investigation was assigned to HC Pritpal Singh who with Ct.Bhim Sain went to the spot i.e. House No.2099/6A, Gali No.15, Pahari, Prem Nagar, Delhi, and came to know that the injured had already been taken to DDU hospital. Kaushal Kumar who was injured in the occurrence was shifted to RML hospital. The Investigating Officer collected their MLCs and lodged First Information Report after recording Krishan Dev Singh's statement (Ex.PW1/A). During investigation, statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The appellants were apprehended and arrested. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in the court in which A-1 and A-2 were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses. In their 313 statements, the appellants pleaded false implication. DW-1 (Krishan Murari Tiwari) and DW-2 (Dhruva Singh) were examined in defence. On appreciating the evidence and after considering the submissions of the parties, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment convicted both the appellants for the offences mentioned previously. It is significant to note that the trial court did not take cognizance against Jashoda who was kept in Column No.2 in the charge-sheet. In the order on charge dated 12.01.1999, the Trial Court left the question open as Additional Public Prosecutor intended to move application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. No such application was moved during trial. It is further relevant to note that the Trial Court deprecated Investigating Officer for not proceeding against Shiv-Poojan who was implicated by the prosecution witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor again expressed his willingness to move an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after the evidence was recorded in the court. However, no such application was ever moved during trial.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell into grave error in relying upon the testimonies of interested witnesses who had inflicted injuries to the accused persons and against whom a complaint case was pending in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate in which they were summoned. The prosecution was unable to establish genesis of the quarrel and was not able to establish that the appellants used to supply electricity to the complainant or other neighbours. Vital discrepancies, omissions and improvements in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were ignored without valid reasons. The prosecution witnesses narrated inconsistent version as to the role of the appellants; the exact place of occurrence; the exact timings and the manner in which the incident took place. Counsel adopted alternative argument to take lenient view in the event of dismissal of appeal as the appellants had already remained in custody for more than four months for the incident occurred in 1996. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that the testimony of all the eye-witnesses including that of PW-4 (Kaushal Singh) who was deaf and dumb is consistent and minor contradictions or improvements which do not affect the core of the prosecution case are not of that magnitude to discard their version in entirety.