PREM SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. P. Mathur, J. This appeal has been preferred from Jail by Prem Singh against the judgment and order dated 20-4-1988 of Sessions Judge, Tehri Garawal in S. T. No. 28 of 1987 whereby he has been convicted under Section 302, IPC and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life.

(2.) A written first information report was lodged at 9. 30 a. m. on 11-7-1987 at P. S. Narendra Nagar by PW 5 Darshan Lal. It was mentioned in the F. I. R. that on the previous day i. e. on 10-7-1987 at about 6. 30 p. m. he (Darshan Lal) was going towards his house from the side of PPCL, when he heard the shouts being raised by some person on the way from Lalpul to village Setakband. He rushed towards the side and saw that a man, who belonged towards the side of Lawrakha, was assaulting his grand-father Chet Ram with a stone. The assailant, after seeing Dershan Lal approaching, ran away towards Lawrakha in the forest. He chased the assailant but could not succeed in apprehending him. Thereafter, the complainant came near his grand-father who was bleeding and was unconscious and took him to Dehra Dun Hospital for treatment. The Doctor at Dehradun found that Chet Ram was already dead. Since no conveyance was available in the night, the FIR was lodged in the morning.

(3.) THE only other eye-witness examined by the prosecution is PW 1 Amar Singh. He has stated that at 6. 30 p. m. on 10-7-1987 he was going to Lalpul from his house when he heard the sound of shouting. He saw that accused Prem Singh was running away and Darshan Lal was chasing him. He then enquired from Darshan Lal who told him that Prem Singh was running away after assaulting his grand-father. THEreafter both of them chased the accused, but could not apprehend him. THEn they returned to the spot and carried Chet Ram to the Hospital with the help of co villagers. In cross-examination, he has stated that he had seen Chet Ram from a distance of 50/60 paces. THEy had reached Dehradun Hospital at about 10 p. m. and after the Doctor declared Chet Ram dead, they stayed there in the night. Next morning, he along with Darshan Lal came to the police out-post. PW 1 Darshan Lal was dictating and the Head Constable was writing the FIR. He has further stated that he knew the accused since his childhood. Darshan Lal had not enquired the name of the assailant as the same was known to him. He had seen Prem Singh running away but had not seen actually causing injuries. He denied that he was giving false statement on account of his relationship. THE statement of this witness shows that he had not seen the accused assaulting the deceased Chet Ram but had only seen him running a away. THE name of this witness is not mentioned in the FIR, in case the ver sion given by him is correct, then he was in the company of the first informant PW 5 Darshan Lal right from the beginning and remained with him in the night in the Hospital and he accompanied him to police out-post, he claims to have known the accused since his childhood. In such circumstances this witness was bound to disclose the name of the accused to the first infor mant Darshan Lal. If Darshan Lal know the accused from the face and did not know his name as narrated by him in the FIR, he was bound to have enquired the same from Amar Singh, Amar Singh having remained through out in his company, the name of the accused would have been mentioned in the F. I. R. This shows that the version given by PW 1 Amar Singh is not correct and he had neither seen the incident nor he accompanied the first informant to the Hospital. It may also be mentioned here that a written FIR was lodged by Darshan Lal at the Police out-post but he has stated that Darshan Lal was dictating and the Head Constable was recording the same. For all these reasons, we are of the opinion that the statement of PW 1 Amar Singh is not a truthful version and cannot be accepted.