PARMOD KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Five persons, namely, Padam Singh, Ram Avtar, Ramesh, Parmod Kumar appellant and Sri Kant were charged by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, for offences under sections 148, 302 read with section 149, section 307 read with section 149, section 324 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Parmod Kumar appellant was additionally charged under section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. All the accused excepting Parmod Kumar appellant, were acquitted. Parmod Kumar was convicted under section 302 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and was also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 4000.00 , in default of payment of which the trial court imposed a further rigorous imprisonment for two years. This appeal has been preferred by Parmod Kumar making a grievance against his conviction and sentence.

(2.) Briefly stating, the facts are that on 18th of November 1982, one Balram along with Parshotam had gone to Amba Cinema to purchase advance tickets for the 'Noon Show'. While they were standing in the queue, Ramesh and Ram Avtar (now acquitted) tried to jump the queue. This was objected to by Parshotam who also slapped one of them. At this Ramesh and Ram Avtar went away after extending threat that he will soon be taught a lesson It is alleged by Balram (P.W.8) that when they came out they found Ramesh and Ram Avtar standing at the gate with Padam Singh, Parmod Kumar and Sri Kant. Padam Singh took out a knife and hurled it towards the abdomen of Balram. Balram warded off the attack but in the process his hand was injured. In the meantime Sri Bhagwan, a police constable, who was a neighbour of Balram, came there and caught hold of Padam Singh. Sri Bhagwan is then stated to have shown his identity card but it was of no effect. Padam Singh cried and called Parmod to rescue him and on that Parmod is stated to have stabbed Sri Bhagwan in the abdomen with a knife. Padam Singh is also said to have stabbed Brahm Prakash (P.W. 19) with the knife. Ram Avtar and Padam Singh were overpowered while the other accused succeeded in escaping from the scene of the incident. Brahm Prakash injured is stated to have gone to Bara Hindu Rao Hospital in a three-wheeler picking up Ashok Kumar on his way. Sri Bhagwan, the deceased, was also taken to the same hospital by Yogesh Kumar (P.W.3). Sri Bhagwan died at 11.15 A.M. on the same day consequent to the injuries sustained in the incident.

(3.) There is hardly any need for us to refer to testimony of autopsy surgeon. This is because the nature of the injuries sustained and the cause of death is not in dispute. All that we are required to do is to consider if the appellant is involved in the commission of this crime. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has dis-believed the prosecution evidence in respect of the remaining four accused who were also charged for similar offences. He has however, come to the conclusion that there was enough evidence to show that the appellant was involved in the murder of Sri Bhagwan. This the learned Additional Sessions Judge has held on the testimony of Public Witness .2 Balram who had stated that it was Parmod who had inflicted the fatal injury on the person of the deceased. Public Witness .2 Balram had also identified Parmod Kumar in the court during the trial. The testimony of Public Witness .I 9 Brahm Prakash was to the same effect and he too had identified Parmod in the court during trial. The trial court further found that even though the prosecution had moved an application for identification parade and even though Parmod was produced in muffled face he refused to participate on the plea that he was known to the witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge felt that this was a false plea and that is why in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. Parmod took the stand that he had been shown to the witnesses and on that ground he had refused to participate in the identification parade. We want to make it clear at this stage that the prosecution case is that Parmod was not known to any one of the aforesaid witnesses prior to the incident. The evidence of P.W.8 Parshotam was to the effect that he saw Parmod a knife.