RAM KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 of I.PC. and sentenced to imprisonment for life, for committing murder of Kanhaiya Lal Rastogi on 20-5-1978 at about 9.15 p.m. within the limits of Mohalla Peerbukhara. Police Station Chowk, District Lucknow.

(2.) In brief, the case was that on 20-5-1978 at 9.15 p.m. while the deceased Kanhaiya Lal Rastogi accompanied by his wife Savitri Devi (P.W. 1) was on way back to his house, that these two appellants, namely. Ram Kumar and Ram Chandra and one Sohan Lal assaulted him near the house of Triloki Nath. It was stated that accused Ram Chandra caught hold of Kanhaiya Lal and accused Ram Kumar and sohan Lal gave knife blows to him, as a result of which he sustained serious injuries. His wife Smt. Savitri Devi, with the help of others, shifted the injured to the Medical college, Lucknow, where he was admitted in emergency surgical ward at about 10.00 p.m. Dr. N. R. Singh (P.W.2), who examined him, found as many as 11 injuries on his person, including 4 lacerated wounds. It was claimed that Dr. J. Rathi (P. W. 9) got recorded dying declaration of Kanhaiya Lal Rastogi by his associate Dr. Ashtosh Bajpai {P. W. 4), immediately after the patient was admitted in the hospital. Second dying declaration was allegedly recorded by O. P. Sharma (P. W.7), the then Additional City Magistrate, Lucknow on 21-5-1978 at 7.30 in the morning. It is said that the Investigating Officer Sri K. D. Dixit (P. W. 6) also recorded statement of the victim under Section 161 of Cr. P. C. on the same date i.e. 21-5-1978 at 8.30 in the morning. The victim could not be saved even after surgical operation and he succumbed to the injuries on 22-5-1978. The post-mortem examination was conducted on 23-5-1978 by Dr. Y. S. Das (P. W. 5), who opined that death was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from anti- morlem injuries. After usual investigation, the case came to the Court.

(3.) Out of nine witnesses so examined by the prosecution, only Savitri Devi (P. W. 1) was the alleged eye-witness and the rest were formal witnesses. The defence also examined one Dhani Ram (D. W.I), who tried to say that Kanhaiya Lal Rastogi received injuries at the hands of some unknown assailants who robbed him at the said time and place. He denied the presence of these appellants at the time Kanhaiya Lal Rastogi received such injuries.