GANPAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 19-8-1974 at about 9 A.M. an information was received at the Police Station Tilak Nagar that a corpse was lying on the Najafgarh Road near village Bodhela. This information was entered in the daily diary. S.I. Ravail Singh along with constable Pritam Singh and Sukhbir Singh reached the place where the corpse was lying. After reaching there he recorded the statement Ex. P.E. 4/B of Smt. Sham Wati W/o Sh. Ganpat. S.I. made the endorsement Ex. P.W. 4/C on the said statement and sent the same for registration of the case under S.304/201 I.P.C. After the registration of the case and completing the enquiry, accused Ganpat along with his brother Chaman Lal were committed to the Court of Session to stand trial under S.304/201/34 I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge on the material before him framed the charges u/s. 304 (Part I) and S.201/34 I.P.C. against Ganpat accused while his brother Chaman Lal was charged to stand trial u/s. 201/34 I.P.C. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.

(2.) The learned Sessions Judge vide the impugned judgment has convicted the accused Ganpat u/s. 304 (Part II) I.P.C. and has acquitted him of the other charges. Accused Chaman Lal was also acquitted of the charge u/s. 201/34 I.P.C. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the only independent witness of the alleged occurrence was P.W. 9 Lala Ram, whose presence at the spot has been doubted by the learned trial court. Besides him, there is no other evidence to connect the accused with the offence charged. It is also alleged that ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses is quite contrary to the medical evidence which leads to the only inference that the accused cannot be said to be responsible for the cause of death of the deceased Tara Chand. His further submission is that even if the prosecution story is taken on its face value there is no circumstantial evidence alleged or proved against the accused having caused the death of Tara Chand. Unfortunately, the State has not rendered any assistance to the Court in contradicting the stand taken by the learned counsel for the appellant.

(3.) I have carefully perused the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and also gone through the judgment carefully. Prima facie there appears to be much substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. However, in order to appreciate the scope of the arguments advanced at the Bar and to arrive at a correct conclusion the prosecution case has to be kept in mind.