STATE Vs. SATBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal has been filed by the State against the acquittal of the Respondents in terms of the Judgment dated 19.7.1986 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. Succinctly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased, Ramesh, was proceeding towards the jhuggi/quarter of his mother at about 10:30 P.M. on 11.6.1984 accompanied by his widow, Smt.Raj Bala. He was allegedly assaulted with lathis by Respondents 1-9. His wife, Smt. Raj Bala, raised an alarm and ran towards the house of her mother-in-law, Smt. Rajo. These two persons returned to the spot to find Ramesh lying in a pool of blood with his face towards the ground. On the complaint of Smt. Raj Bala a case under Sections 147/148/149/307 IPC was registered and upon the death of Ramesh same day the case was converted into one under Section 302 IPC. Upon completion of investigation nine persons were charge-sheeted and then tried by the Sessions Court under Section 147 IPC and 302/149 IPC. After a detailed consideration of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution the Trial Court had taken note of the fact that admittedly there was enmity between the deceased and the accused persons. The Trial Court observed that while enmity is a motivation for inflicting injuries, it would also be a motive for false implication. The Trial Court thereafter observed that the police machinery had come into motion on the Daily Diary Report No.82-B recorded on the statement of Surje, Respondent/Accused No.9. The Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that this was unlikely to have happened if Surje was one of the assailants of the deceased. The Trial Court has then highlighted the fact that the Investigating Officer had found the Respondents in their respective jhuggis, and had they actually been the assailants of the deceased, it would have been natural for them to have absconded. Poignantly, the Trial Court has also emphasised the fact that Smt. Raj Bala had given the names of all the nine Respondents in the FIR, whereas in her statement in Court she had categorically admitted that she did not know the names of five accused. The inference drawn by the learned Judge was that this, on its own, indubitably indicates that the names of these persons were recorded in the FIR at the instance of someone else other than Smt. Raj Bala. The Additional Sessions Judge has also taken found it 'strange' that both the mother, the wife, the sister's husband, wife's brother and two other persons, namely, Mohinder Pal and Sat Pal had allegedly witnessed the occurrence, but none of them removed Ramesh to the hospital. It was also noticed that the name and parentage of Ramesh had been recorded as 'unknown' in the hospital records. Since his family members were present at the site, the identity of the deceased was fully known and so writing of the word 'unknown' by the doctor in the MLC showed that none of the eye witnesses had actually witnessed the incident.

(2.) So far as recovery of the lathis is concerned the Trial Court has noted that they did not have any blood thereon.

(3.) Apart from inconsistencies in the statements of the widow and the mother of the deceased the learned Trial Court has also noted the contradictions in the statements of PW-17, Mohinder Pal and his younger brother, PW-18, Sat Pal and considering all these deficiencies in the prosecution case gave the benefit of doubt to all the nine accused and acquitted them.