SATISH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MANGAL , one of the appellant, has expired and the present appeal has been pressed on behalf of Satish and Subhash who are aggrieved by their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 ( for short ,,IPC) for murder of Maya Devi. The appellants were also convicted under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC for having caused simple injuries to Kitab Singh. The impugned conviction arises out of FIR No. 410/96, P.S. Sultan Puri, which became subject matter of Sessions Case No. 394/96.

(2.) BY order on sentence dated 30th September, 1999, both the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ - each under Section 302 IPC, and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months each. For the offence under Section 324 IPC, they have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each.

(3.) SHASHI Kumar (PW -4) in respect of the occurrence of 18th April, 1996 has testified that at about 11.30 A.M., Maya Devi and Kitab Singh (PW -1) had gone towards Budh Bazar Road where they were accosted by the appellants Satish and Subhash, Mangal (deceased) and Raj Kumar (proclaimed offender). Mangal (deceased) caught hold of his wife Maya Devi and the appellant Satish caused injuries on his wife with a knife, whereas Raj Kumar (proclaimed offender) caught hold of Kitab Singh (PW -1) and the appellant Subhash inflicted injuries on him with a knife. He claimed that he had raised alarm and thereupon the appellants along with Mangal (deceased) and Raj Kumar (proclaimed offender) ran away. However, in the cross -examination, PW -4 had stated that the incident had taken place on the main road and he was informed by a third person about the quarrel as he was in his own house. The said occurrence had taken place 5 -7 minutes after Maya Devi had left the house. He did not intervene or rescue the injured Kitab Singh (PW -1) or his wife Maya Devi, and when he reached the spot, 10 -15 persons were already present. It, therefore, appears that Shashi Kumar (PW -4) was not a witness to the actual occurrence and had reached the spot immediately after the occurrence, when he heard noise and was informed about the quarrel by a third person, as deposed in his cross -examination. However, this would not deviate and negate the testimony of Kitab Singh (PW -1), the injured eye witness who was certainly present at place and time of occurrence. The presence of PW -1 was also proved and established beyond doubt in view of his MLC, Ex.PW13/A, recorded at DDU Hospital at 1.10 PM. The MLC of Kitab Singh (PW -1) records that the patient was conscious and oriented and had suffered an incised wound of one inch on the right side of chest. Other wounds were also indicated in the said MLC. History of assault has been mentioned as a cause of the said injuries received by the patient. The averments made by Kitab Singh (PW -1) that the appellant Satish had broken his foot does not appear to be correct as this is not borne out from the MLC Ex. PW13/A. The MLC also records that some of the injuries were caused by a sharp weapon, while others were blunt in nature. Other possible exaggerations in the statement of Kitab Singh (PW -1) have been discussed below.