KIRPAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise from the decision of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Delhi. The appellants along with cue Manglu were prosecuted for an offence under section 307, read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Manglu was the third accused in the case was acquitted The appellants in these appeals accused Nos. I and 2 were convicted under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and for that offence each one of them was- sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for lour years and six months and to pay a line oi Rs. 50.00. In default to suffer rigorous improsonmerit for one month. Aggrieved by that decision, they have come upto this court in these appeals. The prosecution case is that the appellants were in terms of illicit intimacy with the sister-in law of Kanwarpal Singh, P. W. 10. P. W. 10 took up the objection to the behaviour of the appellants and in that connection there were quarre1s between them and P. W. 10. On April 22, 196,1 the two appellants alongwith another person went to the place where P. W. 10 was working under the guise of compromising the dispute with him and persuaded P. W. 10 to accompany them to witness a cinema show. Rut that was merely a decoy movement. On the way Gurdial appellant stabbed him and at that time Kirpal appellant and another person caught hold of him. The injured P. W. 10 was admitted to the hospital at about 9 P. M. on that night. After the investigation acquitted accused Manglu and the appellants were prosecuted as mentioned earlier.

(2.) There is no doubt that the P. W. 10 was seriously injured in the early part of the night of April 22, 1985. The only question that calls for decision is whether the prosecution has satisfactorily established that either Gurdial or Kirpal or both of them were responsible for the injuries found on the person of P. W. 10. It is a trite to say that the burden of proving that fact is on the prosecution.

(3.) 53 far as the occurrence as such is concerned, we have only the testimony of P. W. 10 and no body's else. His evidence is not corroborated by any ether direct evidence. It is also not corroborated by any satisfactory circumstantial evidence.