BHUDEV PAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to a judgment dated 23.08.2011 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 44/08 arising out of FIR No. 607/07 PS Punjabi Bagh by which the appellants Bhudev Pal @ Boby (A-1) and Sunil (A-2) were convicted under Sections 304 (II)/323/452/34 IPC. By an order 27.08.2011, they were sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine Rs. 5,000/- each under Section 304 (II)/34 IPC; RI for one year with fine Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 323/34 IPC; RI for three years with fine Rs. 5,000/- each under Section 452/34 IPC. The substantive sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) Shorn of details, the prosecution case as unfolded during trial was that on 27.08.2007, at around 10.00 P.M. at house No.L-27/1, Railway Colony, Shakur Basti, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, the appellants in furtherance of common intention with their associate Prakash (facing trial before Juvenile Justice Board) inflicted injuries to Ram Dulare and Beena Devi after committing house trespass. The police swung into action on getting information about the quarrel and Daily Diary (DD) No. 62B (Ex.PW-2/A) came into existance at 10.35 P.M. at PS Punjabi Bagh. The investigation was entrusted to ASI Lallan Prashad who with Const.Satish went to the spot. The victims had already been taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital (in short : SGM Hospital) by PCR Van. The Investigating Officer collected the MLCs of the victims. Ram Dulare was unfit to make statement and was referred to Trauma Centre for treatment. On 31.08.2007, after recording Beena Devi's statement (Ex.PW-3/A), the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report. On 01.09.2007, A- 1 and A-2 surrendered in the Court and were arrested. Pursuant to their disclosure statements, the crime weapons were recovered. On 02.09.2007, Ram Dulare succumbed to the injuries in the Trauma Centre. Post-mortem examination of the body was conducted. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants; they were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses to further its case. In 313 statements, the appellants denied their complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication without examining any witness in defence. The trial resulted in their conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, they have preferred the appeals.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and erred in relying upon the sole testimony of interested witness i.e. deceased's wife without independent corroboration. The appellants who were not named in the FIR had no extraneous motive to inflict severe injuries to the victim with whom they had no prior animosity. No independent public witness was associated at any stage of the investigation. It was emphatically contended that the statement of the deceased's wife was full of discrepancies and contradictions. Referring to admission in the crossexamination, he urged that the victim was in the habit of consuming liquor and used to quarrel with his family members when they objected to it. On the day of incident itself, he was under the influence of liquor and sustained injuries due to fall after having struck against an electric pole in the street. The appellants were not author of the injuries to the victim and were not present there. Counsel further urged that the delay in lodging the First Information Report remained un-explained. The complainant in her statement did not describe if the victim had suffered any head injury in the quarrel. Exonerating the appellants, she clearly stated that she had no grievance or grudge and did not want any action against them. Ingredients of Section 304 part-II IPC are not attracted and proved. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that PW-3 (Beena Devi) has supported the prosecution on material facts and there are no valid reasons to discard her statement. She being an illiterate and rustic woman, certain discrepancies emerged in her statement which are not material to discard her version in its entirety.