PARBHATI Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals arising from the same judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, shall be disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The appellants have been convicted vide order dated October 8, 1987, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, for offences under sections 307 & 325, both read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant-Chet Ram has been also convicted for an offence punishable under section 25 of the Arms Act and vide separate order of the same date, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the first offence and for three years for the second offence each while Chet Ram is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under the Arms Act and all sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(3.) The prosecution case, as is evident from the first statement of Bhisham Kumar (P.W. 1), Ex. P.W. 1/A, is that on October 19, 1982, at about 5.30 P.M. he was sitting in front of his shop located in house No. Y-l, Mangol Pun, Delhi and his father Rugga Ram (P.W. 5) was at that time sitting in the shop that Chet Ram, who resides in a house opposite his house, alongwith his companion Ram Singh (since deceased) with two other persons, were sitting on a culvert nearby and were passing remarks on the ladies of the Mohalla and they were requested by him as well as his father not to pass such indecent remarks as the females of said area are just like their sisters and mothers. It is alleged that they resented this interference-on the part of P.W. 1 & P.W. 5 and they uttering that the culvert did not belong to their father and who were they to restrain them, went away in an enraged condition and it is alleged that after about five minutes, they again came back and uttering the words as to what treatment should they meet out to them, Ram Singh is stated to have taken P.W. 1 in his grips from the back and Chet Ram, who was at that time armed with a hockey, assaulted at P.W. 1 & P.W. 5 as P.W. 5 had also come out of the shop for saving P.W. 1. It is alleged that the other companion of Chet Ram, who was having curly hair, had fired a shot from a weapon at P.W. 1 which struck him on his thighs from the front side and meanwhile his father was caught hold by other companion of Chem Ram whose name was not known. It is alleged that on hearing the cries of P.W. 1 & P.W. 5 certain people came and the culprits managed to run away alongwith their weapons. Manohar Lal (P.W. 6) is stated to have witnessed the occurrence. SI Om Parkash (P.W. 17) was handed over the copy of DD Report No. 19A, Ex. P.W. 2/A, which was recorded on the complaint of Satyawati sister of Chet Ram, to the effect that certain quarrel was going on with his brother near the Y & J Block. This report was recorded at 6.25 P.M. Om Parkash accompanied by constables came to the spot and learnt that the injured have been taken to Willingdon Hospital. He reached the Hospital as he did not find any person at the spot for giving any narration of facts. He procured the MLCs, Ex. P.W. 9/A, pertaining to P.W. 1 nod Ex. P.W. 9/B pertaining to P.W. 5. P.W. 1 was declared fit for making statement by the doctor at 9 P.M. and on the basis of the statement given by P.W. 1, which is Ex. P.W. 1/A, the case was registered under section 307/34, Indian Penal Code. The MLC of P.W. 1 shows that there were present multiple punctured wounds on both thighs and the pellets bad embedded in soft tissues. Later on, his injuries were opined to be simple in nature caused by fire arm. The MLC of P.W. 5 shows that he had suffered a fracture of left forearm and his injury was opined to be grievous in nature. The conviction of the appellants is based on the statements of P.W. 1 & P.W. 5 whereas the other eye witness of the occurrence P. W. 6 had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case by deposing that in fact, he had come to the spot later on and had not witnessed the occurrence. It is, indeed, not disputed that P.W. 1 & P.W. 5 had suffered the injuries mentioned above. Chet Ram was arrested on November 7, 1982 and he is stated to have made a disclosure statement that he had kept concealed the country made pistol with one live cartridge and one empty cartridge in a pit at deserted brick kiln of Delhi Development Authority and he got recovered the said articles Exs. P 1 to P 3 from that place in presence of two public witnesses Jagat Singh and Sarup Chand. A separate case under section 25 of the Arms Act was registered. It is clear that pellets were not taken into custody from the person of P.W. 1 and thus, it has not been established from any opinion of scientific expert that the fire arm recovered at the instance of Chet Ram was used in the occurrence.