KARTAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Only two points have been raised in this revision. According to the first one, no offence under section 307 I.P.C. has been made out on the present record and that at worst an offence under section 324, Indian Penal Code . alone cabe held to have been established. In the second place, the applicability of section 34, I. P. C., has been questioned by Shri D. R. Kalia, the learned counsel for the accused petitioner.

(2.) Narrating the facts relevent for the purpose of this revision, on the evening of 19-9-1966. Roop Narain, P. W. 5, and Kartar Singh accused played cards on a stake that half a kilo of barfi would be given by the loser. Roop Narain lost the bet and Kartar Singh insisted to have barfi from him. As Kartar Singh had no money, he requested Budh Ram, a shopkeeper, to lend it to him but on his refusal, Kartar Singh persisted in his demand on Roop Narain to give him barfi. This led to a quarrel and exchange of abuses between them which, on intervention of some people, came to an end and Roop Narain returned to his house. He narrated the incident to his mother, who advised him to honour his word and give the barfi to Kartar Singh the next day. Roop Narain took off his clothes for the purpose of taking rest, but on his mother's insistence, he went to his gher to feed the cattle. It was about 7 or 8 P.M. When he reached near the gher, Kartar Singh and Jage accused attacked him. Jage catching hold of Roop Narain and Kartar Singh inflicting injuries on him with a knife. Mam Kaur, sister of Roop Narain, saw the incident and ran towards her house to inform her mother. Sarti P. W. 1 the mother and Birmo, Roop Narain's wife, Public Witness . 3, rushed to the spot and also witnessed the occurrence. During the scuffle, Roop Narain also gave kicks to Kartar Singh and Jage, as a result of which Kartar Singh suffered an injury on his head. On an alarm being raised, several people came to the spot and saved Roop Narain from the clutches of the accused. This in brief is the prosecution story.

(3.) The accused, however, produced some defence witnesses in support of the counter-version, but the. defence version did not inspire the confidence in the mind of the trial Court and as the learned Assistant Sessions Judge put it, this version did not appeal to reason. Roop Narain had sustained seven injuries, all of which were clean-cut wounds and according to the medical evidence, six of these injuries were dangerous to life, some of them likely to cause death. After considering the entire evidence on the record in a very well-reasoned judgment, Shri M. R. Sikka, Assistant Sessions Judge, Delhi held the accused guilty of the offence under section 307/34,1. P. C. and sentenced each of them to under-go rigorous imprisonment for four years.