SUBE SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein was sent up for trial under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, vide Judgement dated 20.12.2001, the appellant was convicted under Section 304(1) IPC. On 22.12.2001, he was sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further SI for six months. The appellant challenges his conviction and sentence under Section 304(1) of the IPC.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are that on 22.11.2000, an information was received at PS Najafgarh regarding a quarrel at A-2 Block, Dharampura Extension, Najafgarh, New Delhi. Copy of DD was handed over to ASI Chander Kanta, who started for the spot. In the meanwhile, he received another DD which informed him that the injured had died. Upon reaching the spot, ASI Chander Kanta found the dead body of Raju lying in the bedroom of his house A-2, New Dharampura, Najafgarh, New Delhi. One Anuradha Sharma met the ASI whose statement was recorded. She stated that at about 1.30 p. m. , she was standing outside her house when Ravinder Kumar and Rupesh were talking with deceased Raju outside her house. The appellant Sube Singh came there and started having a scuffle with deceased Raju. The appellant gave him kick and fist blows on account of which he fell down. She also added that at that time, the deceased Raju was in a drunken condition. People separated them and they went away. After some time, she again heard noise and when she reached near Standard Sweet, Roshanpura, she found that the appellant had beaten the deceased with iron rod and the deceased was lying on the road. She tried to snatch the iron rod from the hands of the appellant but did not succeed. The appellant thereafter went away and deceased Raju was taken to his house by one Ved Prakash. Later on, she came to know that Raju had died. On the basis of her statement, a Rukka was sent to the Police Station and FIR was registered. According to the prosecution, upon the disclosure statement of the appellant, the pipe Ex. P-1, with which he had beaten the deceased, was recovered. Post mortem report was also collected from the concerned Doctor. After necessary investigations, the challan was filed.

(3.) The prosecution examined 14 PWs out of whom, 5 PWs were produced as eye witnesses to the incident. They are, PW-3 Rupesh, PW-4 Ravinder Kumar, PW-5 Anuradha Sharma, PW-10 Ved Prakash and PW-11 Nikesh. All these witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. They were cross- examined by learned APP but they did not admit that in their presence, the appellant had caused any injury to the deceased. PW-22 Kishan, the minor son of the deceased, who was aged about 8 years at the time of the making of the statement deposed that just before his death, he had seen his father at the sweet shop, who told him that the appellant had given him beatings with two iron rods. He identified the appellant as the same person about whom his father had mentioned to him. Besides PW-22, the prosecution also examined PW-1 Dr. R. K. Sharma, who proved on record the post mortem report Ex. PW-1/A. According to him, the cause of death was shock due to massive internal haemorrhage because of rupture of liver and spleen. The intracranial haemorrhage hastened the death. PW-2 Dr. T. V. Rajan, Medical Officer had admitted the patient and found the injuries on his person. PW-6 Subhash was the elder brother of the deceased. He had identified the dead body. In his cross-examination, he admitted that his brother was in the habit of taking alcohol. PW-7 Gyan Chand is another brother of the deceased who had received the dead body after post mortem. He also admitted that his brother was in the habit of taking alcohol. PW-8 Anu is the widow of the deceased. She stated that her son PW-22 had told her that the appellant had given beatings to his father. She also admitted that her husband was in the habit of taking alcohol but added that on the date of the incident, the appellant had forcibly given him alcohol. She stated that her son PW-22 was about seven years old. PW-9 had given some first aid to the appellant who had told him that he had received injuries due to fall. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by learned APP. He denied that the appellant had told him that he had received injuries on his hand during quarrel with the deceased. PW-12 Virender Kumar is also a brother of the deceased. He was a witness to the recovery of the iron pipe on the disclosure of the appellant but he did not support the prosecution case. PW-13 Head Constable Ram Prakash proved DD entries Exhibits PW13/A and 13/B. PW-14 Head Constable Satya Pal Singh proved copy of the FIR Ex. PW14/A. PW-15. ASI Chander Kanta had reached the spot after received the DD entries and recorded the statement of Smt. Anuradha Sharma Ex. PW-5/A. His endorsement thereon was PW-15/A. PW-16 Constable Multan Ram had gone to the spot along with PW-15. PW-17, Constable Chandan Singh is the Police photographer. He proved on record the photographs of the spot. PW-18 SI Jagbir Singh had conducted some investigations. PW-19 ASI Kuldeep Singh is finger print expert. He could not get any chance print on the spot nor from any article. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that chance prints can be traced on an iron pipe. PW-20 Constable Satish Kumar had delivered special report to the area Magistrate. PW-21 Constable Baljeet Singh had handed over the dead body to the relatives after post mortem. PW-22 Kishan is the son of the deceased. PW-23 Constable Rajbir Singh is the witness to the recovery of the iron pipe on the disclosure of the appellant. He proved on record the seizure memos Ex. PW-12/A, PW-24 SI Madan Lal, draftsman, had prepared the site plan and PW-25, Inspector R. P. Tiwari had completed the investigations and filed the challan.