STATE OF DELHI ADMN Vs. RAM ALIAS THAKEDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a judgment of acquittal passed by Shri P.S. Sharma, Additional Sessions Judge on 24th August, 1985 in S.C. No. 44/84 arising from FIR No. 384/82 of Police Station Ashok Vihar. The accused/respondent Sri Ram @ Thakedar s/c Ranjit Singh was challaned for the offence of murdering one Jit Singh s/o Kushal Singh. On 23rd August, 1982, Jit Singh, hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased', was brought to the Hindu Rao Hospital in an injured condition. On the statement of Harish Chander who had brought the injured to the hospital, the FIR was registered.

(2.) As per the statement, the respondent had built a KHOKHA on the land of the relative of the deceased which the deceased discovered on his return from his native place on 20th August, 1982 and on being challenged by the deceased there was a verbal wrangle. Referring to the incident of 23rd August, 1982, Harish Chander stated that as the deceased asked the accused to remove his KHOKHA at 6.30 p.m., the respondent began shouting angrily at the deceased and brought a chopper (GANDASA) from his meat shop and gave a blow from the blunt side of the chopper on his right shoulder and a blow with the chopper on the right side of the stomach and when the deceased fell down on the ground the respondent threw his GANDASA and fled away. The investigation claims to have recovered the chopper from the spot and the lungi of the respondent which the respondent had left behind while fleeing from the spot. The respondent was eventually challaned after the police collected the account of several witnesses and going 'through the usual process of investigation including the post mortem examination. On being charged, the respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) The prosecution produced three eye witnesses. Other important evidence on record are the MLC prepared when the deceased was brought to the hospital in an injured condition, the post mortem report and the CFSL report. The trial court despite the three eye witnesses deposing against the respondent has acquitted the respondent and hence the appeal.