CHARANJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri P.N. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Apul Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. Sri Sunil Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri J.S. Sengar and Sri Jitendra Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and Sri Arunedra Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. This criminal appeal is directed against the common judgment and order dated 19.2.2005 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.2, Kanpur Nagar in Session Trial No. 554 of 2004 under Section 302 as well as the order passed in Session Trial No. 557 of 2004 under Section 25/4 of the Arms Act, State Vs. Charanjeet Singh, Police Station Fazalganj, District Kanpur Nagar arising out of Case Crime No. 63 of 2004 and 64 of 2004 respectively. The appellant has been found guilty of an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and has been punished with life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine he has further to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The appellant has also been convicted under Section 25/4 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced for imprisonment for six months. The case of the prosecution as disclosed and relevant for the purpose of the appeal is as follows:-

(2.) IN support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses, namely, Mohan Singh (P.W.2), the complainant of the case and Sushil Kumar Toni (P.W.2), Jagtar Singh (P.W.3), who were the eye witnesses of the crime. Constable 234 Suresh Chandra, who had prepared the Chik F.I.R. (Ex. Ka. 2)and G.D. (Ex. Ka 3). He also prepared Chik F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-4) and G.D. (Ex. Ka-5). S.I. Ravindra Singh (P.W.5), who had arrested the accused and recovered blood stained knife from his possession and had prepared a Fard (Ex. Ka-6). Dr. K.P. Madheshiya, who had conducted the postmortem examination on the body of the deceased. Head Constable? Bhumiraj Singh (P.W.7), who had investigated the case of Arms Act and prepared Site Plan (Ex. Ka-8) and submitted Chargesheet (Ex. Ka-9) against the accused. Ashok Kumar Rawat (P.W.-8), who had conducted the investigation and submitted charge-sheet under Section 302 I.P.C. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the prosecution version and has claimed that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It was his case that he was arrested from his house and a false recovery has been shown against him. In respect of eye witnesses, it was stated by him that they had deposed against him because of business rivalry and he had not borrowed any money from Saran Jit Singh, the deceased. The trial Court after noticing the contention raised on behalf of the prosecution complainant and after considering the evidence both oral as well as documentary on record, proceeded to hold the accused guilty of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. in case crime No. 63 of 2004 and of an offence under Section 25 (4) of the Arms Act in case crime No.64 of 2004. The accused was sentenced for both the offences as noted above. It is worthwhile to record that the trial Court specifically noticed that the eye witness account of the incident as disclosed by the two eye witnesses, namely, PW2 and PW3, could not be shaken by the accused. The ocular testmony of the witnesses was corroborated by the recovery of knife which contained blood stain of human being as reported in the Serologist report which was also on record disclosing the recovered knife contained human blood. The lodging of the FIR was prompt. It was therefore held that the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. was established against the accused appellant as also the offence under Section 25/4 Arms Act. Challenging the order of the trial court, Sri P.N. Mishra, Advocate, has given following submissions before us:

(3.) WE have learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. The incident had taken place on 12th March, 2004 at around 9.30 P.M., the FIR was lodged on the same day at around 11.30 P.M. The injured was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead and the post mortem report prepared by the doctor shows that the death of the deceased was due to the assault made by knife. The eye witnesses PW2 and PW3 gave a detailed account of the incident and there is hardly any discrepancy in the? evidence of eye witnesses. The ocular testimony of PW2 and PW3, has been accepted by the trial Court, it was corroborated by other material evidence on record including recovery of knife used for the assault from the possession of the accused. The knife contained stains of human blood as reported by the Serologist. The trial Court has come to a specific conclusion on the basis of material evidence that it was the accused who has assaulted the deceased with knife resulting in his death. We find no illegality or perversity in the finding so arrived at by the trial Court. The eye witnesses account which is corroborated by other material evidence as noted above has rightly been accepted by the trial Court. It is not necessary to record the name of the eye witness in the FIR nor the case of the prosecution can be disbelieved merely because the name of the eye witness is not recorded in the FIR nor it shall prove fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is relevant to notice that PW 2 Sushil Kumar Toni had specifically deposes that informant P.W.1 did not recognize him by face. This was the reason that the name of P.W.2 could not be mentioned in the F.I.R. P.W. 2 had informed the grandson of P.W.1, namely, Karan Dhir about the incident and Karan Dhir was minor son of deceased in time informed his grandfather about the incident. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U. P. Vs. Krishna Master and others reported in 2010 (3) ACr 3159 (SC) in para-15 has held as follows:-