SAT PAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the victim is one Dasrath, son of Chedi, a Rikshaw Puller, Old Lajpat Rai Market Delhi, who after allegedly receiving a knife injury in the abdomen at the hands of the appellant was removed to Lok Nayak Jai Parkash Narain Hospital by his wife, Shakuntala, PW 3. The incident is dated 22nd August 1979 and has allegedly taken place at the Jhugi which was occupied by the deceased Darshan and Shakuntala PW 3. The information of the deceased having been admitted to the hospital by PW 3 Shakuntala was conveyed to the police station Kotwali by Duty Constable Ram Avtar pursuant to which a report Serial No. 102-B was recorded in the police diary and A.S.I. Thakur Singh PW 1 was entrusted with the same. AS1 Thakur Singh on his arrival at the hospital procured a certificate from the doctor about the patient unfit for making a statement and finding no witness to the occurrence present in the hospital and also depending upon the medico-legal report made an endorsement on the copy of the Daily Dairy with the request that a case under section 307 Indian Penal Code be registered. A case was accordingly registered at the aforesaid police station. ASI Thakur Singh is then said to have proceeded to the scene of incident where he meets PW 3 Shakuntala, PW 6 Om Parkash and PW 7 Ali Hasan, the alleged eye witnesses and records their statements. They are stated to have informed ASI Thakur Singh that it was the appellant who inflicted injury with a knife on the person of Darshan. ASI Thakur Singh further prepares with plan of the place of Incident and thereafter he is supposed to have arrested the accused in the morning hour from bus stand at Shahdara after being informed by some one that the accused was at the bus stand. He is alleged to have seized the knife which the appellant was carrying on his person besides the Pajama which the accused was wearing and which was found to be blood stained. In the morning at 11.30 a.m. the deceased is said to have succumbed to his injury and on receiving the information at the police station, the nature of the case was converted to section 302 Indian Penal Code and SI Ramphal Singh was entrusted with further investigation.

(2.) It appears that since nothing else had to be done, all that SI Ramphal Singh did was to prepare inquest, make a request for post-mortem and take sample blood of the deceased into passession, procure the result of the serological analysis by the C.F.S.L. and thereafter submit a report under section 173 Criminal Procedure Code . to the Court.

(3.) The post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. B.N. Reddy who opined that the death was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of stab injury on the abdomen of the deceased and that it was possible by the knife allegedly seized from the accused. At the time of post-mortem Dr. Reddy also noticed some operational injuries with which we are not concerned. We may at once state that the injuries sustained by the deceased and the cause of his death is not disputed. It is also not disputed that these injuries could be caused by a weapon such as knife which has been seized in the case. We, therefore, do not propose to refer to the evidence of Dr. B N. Reddy in respect of the injuries particularly in the light of the fact that details thereof have been given in the judgment of the learned trial Judge.