MANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MANJEET Singh (A -1), Bhupinder Singh (A -2), Parminder Singh (A -3) (since dead) and Harminder Singh (A -4) challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 21.11.2000 in Sessions Case No.102/97 arising out of FIR No.679/91 registered at Police Station Patel Nagar by which they were convicted under Sections 307/326/325/323/324/342/34 IPC. By an order dated 30.11.2000, they were given various prison terms with fine.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case as projected in the charge - sheet was that on 29.11.1991 at about 11.00 P.M. at public street near House No.T -235, A -15, Baljit Nagar, Delhi, the appellants in furtherance of common intention inflicted injuries to Ramesh Kumar @ Maheshi, Bharat Bhushan, Ved Prakash, Suraj Prakash and Smt.Sheela Wanti in an attempt to murder them. The police machinery swung into action when an information regarding the quarrel was conveyed and Daily Dairy (DD) No.18/A was recorded at Police Station Patel Nagar. The investigation was assigned to SI Satya Dev who with Const.Brij Bhushan and other police personnel went to the spot. They came to know that the injured had been taken to DDU hospital in a PCR van. The Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after recording Ramesh Kumar's statement (Ex.PW -1/A). During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The accused persons were apprehended; arrested and the crime weapon was recovered. Exhibits were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination. After completion of investigation, a consolidated charge -sheet was submitted in the court against all of them. The accused persons abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses to substantiate the charges. In 313 statements, the accused persons denied their complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication. They examined DW -1 (Mangal Sen) in defence. The trial resulted in conviction of all the appellants as aforesaid. Being aggrieved, they have preferred the appeal. A -3 expired during the pendency of the appeal and the proceedings against him were dropped as 'abated'.

(3.) THE occurrence took place at around 11.00 P.M. Ramesh Kumar, Bharat Bhushan, Sheela Wanti and Suraj Prakash were taken to DDU hospital by PCR officials from the spot in a PCR van. The MLCs record their arrival time at about 12.15 -12.30/1.10 A.M. The injuries sustained by Sheela was 'grievous' in nature. Ramesh, Suraj Prakash and Vijay sustained injuries 'simple in nature' in the occurrence. Bharat Bhushan was stabbed on vital organs and the nature of injuries were 'dangerous caused by sharp weapon.' After recording Ramesh Kumar's statement (Ex.PW -1/A), rukka (Ex.PW -13/A) was prepared and FIR was lodged without wasting any time at 02.00 A.M. FIR in a criminal case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstance in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used, as also the names of the eyewitnesses, if any. In the instant case, there was no delay in registration of the FIR on the statement of victim Ramesh Kumar. He disclosed the police at the first available opportunity as to how and under what circumstances, a quarrel took place with the appellants and how injuries were inflicted to all of them with various arms. Assailants were specifically named and definite role was assigned to each of them. Since the FIR was lodged in promptitude, there was least possibility of fabricating a false story in such a short interval. The FIR gave a detailed account of incident. No deficiency in terms of the omission of the names or the role played by the accused was pointed out. While appearing as PW -1, the complainant proved the version given to the police at the first instance without major variation. He deposed that at about 11.00 P.M. on 29.11.1991 when he was present outside his house in a gali for urinal, A - 4 abused him and threatened to teach him a lesson due to a previous quarrel. When he requested A -4 not to abuse him, they (A -1 and A -4) grappled with him. In the meantime, A -2 and A -3 with knives arrived there. On his raising alarm, his brother Bharat Bhushan came to rescue him. The witness further deposed that A -1 and A -4 caught hold of Bharat Bhushan and A -2 gave blows with knife on his chest and stomach. Thereafter, A -3 gave a knife blow on his hip. A -3 also gave knife blow to hit him (PW -1) on his shoulder and A -4 stabbed him on his forehead. In the meanwhile, Vijay, Suraj Prakash and his mother Sheela Wanti arrived at the spot and intervened to rescue them. They were also given beatings by the accused persons. Vijay was dragged inside the house and was given beatings. He identified Shirt (Ex.P -1) which he was wearing at the time of incident and was bloodstained and had a cut mark on left shoulder. He also identified knives (Ex.P -2 and Ex.P -3) in possession of A -4 and A - 2 respectively. In the cross -examination, he revealed that they all lived together in house No.T -235, A -15, Baljeet Nagar. On the day of occurrence, he had gone to attend the marriage of one Anita in Patel Nagar and a quarrel had taken place with A -4 there. He denied the suggestion that he (PW -1) was drunk when he had gone to the said marriage. He volunteered to add that A -4 was drunk and was misbehaving. When he complained about his conduct to his father (A -1), he (A -1) told him that A -4 had not taken liquor. The said incident occurred at 10.00 P.M. He further revealed that he returned to his house from the marriage at about 10.15 P.M. When he came outside at about 10.30 or 11.00 P.M. for urinal, the incident took place. Surender Mohan, Ashok Kakkar, Pankaj Kohli and other members of the locality gathered at the time of occurrence. He denied the suggestion that he and his brother had raided the house of the accused persons. He was not aware if any case was filed against him or his brother.