SURESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suresh appellant,an ?years old boy, has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, for the murder of Chander Mohan deceased and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He has appealed to this Court through jail. As he was unrepresented by any counsel we requested - Shri R. L. Tandon, Advocate to assist us as amicus curiae. Shri Tandon very kindly agreed to do ,so and it is a matter of satisfaction to find that the learned counsel has taken pains to inspect the entire relevant record. He has very ably and fairly placed before us various aspects of the case and apparently nothing that could be said in favour of the accused has been left unsaid.

(2.) Turning to the prosecution case, on 7th April, 1965, at about 3.30 P.M., Suresh accused and Chander Mohan deceased were seen engaged with each other in a scuffle. The accused was trying to stop the deceased from going to the house of one Smt. Halen because the deceased was a married man and illicit relations with other women would be offensive to his wife, whom the accused described as his sister. During this scuffle, Suresh took out a dagger from the right pocket of his pants and stabbed the deceased on the left side of his chest. This incident was noticed by Shiv Charan P. W. 1, Tilak Raj P. W. 2 and Duli Chand Public Witness .4. Swaran A. S. I., Public Witness .9 along with Foot Constables Rarn Kishan and Kishan Chand happened to be patrolling the area in question in a routine manner and they also reached the spot at the time of the occurrence. Swaran Singh found the dead body 'of Chander Mohan deceased lying on the ground covered with blood. Suresh accused was present at the spot holding in his hands a bloodstained knife. The accused was over-powered and the knife Exhibit P. 3. was snatched from his hands. Basant Lal along with Duli Chand and Tilak Raj was also present at the spot.' Hargobind Singh, who was at the relevant time the Station House Officer, Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, also reached the spot at about 4.30 P.M. and on his arrival there, he took over the investigation of the case from A. S. I Swaran Singh. The prosecution evidence has been unfolded by Shiv Charan P. W. 1, Tilak Raj P. W. 3 and Duli Chand P. W. 4, eye witnesses to th3 occurrence, and by A. S. 1. Swaran Singh P. W. 9, who also claims to have reached the spot soon after the actual infliction of the stab wound when the accused was present with a bloodstained knife in his hands and Chander Mohan deceased lying on the ground covered with blood. No enmity has been suggested on the record between the three eye witnesses and the accused. Even. the accused has not suggested any motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate him. Smt Maya Davi, widow of the deceased appearing as P. W. 6, has deposed that the accussed used to live with the deceased and the witness and that the accused had started visiting her husband eight years ago. According to this statement, the accused was about 10 years old when he became friendly with the deceased. On being questioned by the Court, P. W. 6 stated that her deceased husband was a pick-pocket and so was the accused and both of them had a common profession. She, however expressed complete ignorance about the existence of any woman named Halen and she also denied any quarrel in her presence between the accussed and the deceased. She has, however, expresly deposed that the accused used to treat her as a sister describing her as ''Dharam Ki Behan" This witness reached the place of occurrence after being informed by someone from the village, adding that one police officer had also come to her house. On her arrival at the spot, she found the accused in police custody. In cross-examination, she could not state as to who precisely was the man who had informed her, but it was one Sardarji who lived in her neighbourhood who had gone to inform her regarding the occurrence. She was, however, particular in stating that no Sikh Police officer had come to her. She was of course unable to state as to who were the eye-witnesses, and indeed she could not tell their names. She expressed ignorance about Shiv Charan.

(3.) Shri Tandon has submitted that the three eye-witnesses mentioned above apparently did not actually witness the occurrence and they were all got-up witnesses utilised by the investigating agency for sustaining the prosecution case. They are all chance witnesses and their statements' read as a whole, according to the learned counsel, do not inspire confidence. The manner in which they all repeat that the accused while quarrelling with the deceased was reprimanding the latter for visiting Smt. Halen, even though he was married to the sister of the accused is, according to the learned counsel, suggestive of this version having been put into the mouth of these witnesses by the Police. Indeed the counsel has argued that this was the tutored statement put into their month for the purpose of creating a motive for the accused to give the fatal injury to the deceased. It is very strongly argued that the whole truth has not been placed by the investigating agency before the Court' and that this circumstance should be given due weight in discrediting^ the police version. Shri Tandon has also submitted that in the calender of witness, one Shri Basant Lal has been mentioned as an eye witness who had also appeared in the Court of the committing magistrate as Public Witness . 5. In that Court, he had stated that he was a resident of Seelampur at the relevant time and was a shopkeeper by profess on. On 7th April 1965, he at about 4 P.M. had gone to the shop of Bengali in order to, purchase bill when he saw Suresh accused and Chander Mohan deceased quarrelling over the ownership of shoes and clothes. Suresh asked for the return of the shoes but Chander Mohan stated that he was going to Halen. To this. Suresh retorted that he would not allow Chander Mohan to go to Halen's house because the latter was married to Suresh's sister. Chander Mohan replied that no one could stop him. Suresh in answer said that he would. This led to a fight between the two and Chander Mohan, who had a knife in his possession, tried to hit. Suresh with it. Suresh snatched that knife from the deceased and kept it in his pocket. During the fight Suresh later took it out of his right pocket and inflicted the fatal injury on Chander Mohan on the left lateral side of ribs. Chander Mohan thereupon fell down and Suresh tried to run away from the scene of occurrence. Mean--while Swaran Singh accompanid by two Constables came from the side of Seelampur and snatched the knife from Suresh. This witness was not declared hostile by the prosecution. Hewas,however ,not produed in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge at the trial of the accused. It is urged bySSri Tandon that the accused was too poor to engage a counsel of standing, with the result that he was represented by acounsel engaged .at State expense. The suggestion apparently is that the accused was not properly defended, with the result that he has been prejudiced by tfis fact that th attention of the learned Additional Sessions Judge at the trial of the case was not drawn to the Ommission on the part of the prosecution to place before the Court the version given by Basant Lal, one of the admitted eye-witnesses. It is argued that the prosecuting agency must in the cause of justice place before the Court the entire material with them which is relevant so as to enable the Court to determine where the truth lies. If a witness whom they have produced in the Court of the committing Magistrate is considered by them to have been won over and to have, therefore, turned hostile, it Is only fair and proper that they bring this aspect to the notice of the trial Court so that if the Court considers it desirable to examine that witness as a Court witness, it may do so in its attempt to arrive at the truth A request has accordingly been made to us to examine Basant Lal in this Court and if necessary, to permit the State counsel to crossexamine Basant Lal. This as to permit a matter of fact, is the main pivot round which the argument of the learned counsel centres. Whils criticising th testimony of the three eye witnesses mentioned above, the learned counsel has also submitted that it is somewhat surprising that in broad day light, the occurrence in question should take place in public gaze and no one should try to intervene and disentangle or separate the accused and the deceased. The learned counsel has also referred us to the testimony of Tilak Raj Public Witness . 3 where he has stated that the struggle between the accused and deceased lasted for about 10 miautes which, according to the learned counsel, seems to be highly unlikely. Incidentally, the counsel has also drawn our attention to the cross examination of Tilak Raj, wherein he stated that he had not heard the accused and the deceased talking about clothes and shoes, and the testimony of Shiv Charan who has expressed ignorance about the reason which led to the quarrel .between the accused and the deceased. According to Shiv Charan, the accused and the deceased were quarrelling and grappling with each other and were talking about Halen. Shri Tandon has sought to make a further point by reference to,the plan by submitting that near the place of occurrence, there are a number of residential houses and even, according to the prosectuion witnesses, some people from adjoining houses were star ding in front of their residences including Piabhll Chand Bengali. Not only has none of those witnesses, arainst whom it may not be urged that they were chance witnesses, been produced in court, but: the counsel adds that it is somewhat surprising that none oi them tried even to intervene in the fight between the accused and the deceased. The evidence of Public Witness . I and P. W. 3 has been relied upon for the purpose of showing that the shop of Prabhu Chand is very near the place of occurrence. Tilak Raj Public Witness . 3, it may be p L.tfd out, had gone to Prabhu Chand to ask for the return of some money and, according to him, Prabhu Chand's shop was at a distance of 15 paces from the place of occurrence. Basant Lal, it may be recalled, had also stated in the commitment Court that he had gone to the shop of Bengali in older to purchase bill Duli Chand Public Witness . 4 too had gone to purchase biri from the shop of the Bengali and according to this witness, some shopkeepers of the locality were sitting in their shops when the accused and the deceased were quarrelling, though he was-unable to say that these shop-keepes had come out of their shops at the time of the occurrence. Phri Tandon has argued that non-production of the witnesses, whose presence would benatural at the spot, and the production only of outsiders, who were only chance witnesses, also throws a certain amount of suspicion on the prosecution version.