DARYAO SINGH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge by which he found the charge under section 302 I.P.C. to be proved against the appellant and hence convicted him and sentenced him to an imprisonment for life.

(2.) The appellant is charged with having caused the death of one Gopi Chand, deceased. The prosecution story is that at about 8 P.M. on 22nd June, 1980 the accused saw the deceased coming from the market side and when he had reached the municipal water tap the appellant assaulted the deceased with a knife in the lower loft portion of his chest. The accused ran away saying that he had taken revenge, from the deceased. P.W. 3, Smt. Shakuntala who is the daughter-in-law of Ram Chand, the brother of the deceased, was standing near by outside her house and saw the occurrence. P.W. 4 Meena is also said to have seen the occurrence. Ram Chand P.W.18 the brother of the deceased was stated to be returning from the dhaba and had seen the accused running. According to him after leaving the deceased in the care of Tota Ram he went to report to the police when he met Thanedar Misbra on the way. After returning to the spot, he, Tota Ram and Lila Ram removed the deceased to the Bara Hindu Rao Hospital. He has stated that two months prior to the date of occurrence there was a quarrel between his brother deceased Gopi Chand and Daryao Singh accused arising out of some quarrel amongst their children. Gopi Chand was examined in a hospital by C.W. 1 Dr. Kutti at 8-50 P.M. the same day, when he was on emergency duty in the hospital. The deceased was referred to the MO incharge of the Surgery but Gopi Chand died the same night. The accused denied the allegations. He also denied that there was any quarrel two months prior between him and the deceaseds children or that he had been- seen running away from the spot with knife in his hand.

(3.) One of the pieces of the evidence which the prosecution sought to rely was the alleged dying declaration said to have been made to P.W. 1, Ram Singh who stated that on the day of occurrence he had seen the accused running with an open knife and the deceased on enquiry told him that he had been stabbed by the accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in a neat discussion of his evidence has noticed that this witness had not stated in his statement under section 164 Cr. P.C. that the deceased had told the witness that the accused had stabbed him with knife. This witness was also not mentioned in the F.I.R. nor did the other witnesses Shakuntala, Meena etc., name him as having come to the spot. Police had recorded his statement on 4th July and the trial court was, therefore, not inclined to accept his version that the deceased had made any dying declaration to him and we cannot fault his finding on this.