PARAMJIT SINGH ALIAS PAMMI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Faramjit Singh@Pammi, S/o Sh. Mohar Singh has been convicted of offencespunishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code . arid Section 324 Indian Penal Code . videjudgment of an Additional Sessions Judge dated November 27, 1989and vide separate order of the even date, he has been sentenced toundergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000and in default of payment of fine. to undergo simple .imprisonmentfor three months on the first count and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half year and to pay a fineof Rs. 2,000 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simpleimprisonment for four months on the second count with the directionthat substantive sentences shall run concurrently and the fine if realisted in respect of the fine imposed regarding Section 324, the sameshall be paid to injured Rajinder Pal as compensation. He has filedthis appeal challenging his conviction and the sentences.

(2.) The 23rd day of June 1986 was the birthday of Rajinder Pal,PWI, which ought to have been a day of rejoicing but it appearsthat the same turned out to be a day of mourning for him and hisfamily members. Rajinder Pal, Public Witness I, with his grant father, sincedeceased namely Badri Nath and his two paternal unless namelySubhash Chand, Public Witness 2, and Mahesh Chand, Public Witness 3, were residing atthe relevant time at house No. 344, Neemri Colony, Delhi. DineshPandey, Public Witness 11, is a friend of Rajinder Pal. He is also friend of thebrothers of the appellant. The appellant is also a neighbour residingin the same area.

(3.) It is the case of the prosecution that on the 23/06/1986.Rajinder Pal, Public Witness I, was having a stroll on a road near bus stand atabout 10 P.M. and at that time he happended to meet the appellant who asked Rajinder Pal to serve him liquor but Rajinder Pal declinedto acceed to his request retorting that he was not indebted to him andthree took some altercation between the two. Thereafter, the appellanthad left the place. Rajinder Pal, thereafter had spent sometime withDinesh Pandey, his friend, in the nearby park and at about 10.30P.M. both of them returned to the house of Rajinder Pal. When theyreached near the house of Rajinder Pal, they saw the appellant creating a. nuisance in front of his house and his grandfather BadhNath was trying to pacify the appellant and meanwhile Subhash hadalso come downstairs. In order to persuade the appellant to leavethe place. It appears that Rajinder Pal tendered his applogy to theappellant but appellant, who was in somewhat enraged mood, tookout his kirpaal from the right dub of his trousers under, his kurtaand struck a blow on the right rib of Rajinder Pal, Badri Nath, whotried to intervene, was also given a blow with same weapon whichclanded on the left side of his chest. Thereafter, the appellant ranaway from the spot. Subhash is stated to have then removed injuredBadri Nath to the Hindu Rao Hospital, where the doctor declaredBadri Nath as brought dead. The occurence is stated .to have alsobeen witnessed by Mahesh Chand, another uncle of Rajinder Pal.