ROOP CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Roop Chand preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgement and order of sentence passed in Sessions Trial No. A-129/79, u/S. 302 I.P.C. The learned sessions Judge, Sri P. C. Saxena has convicted him for the offence under S. 302 I.P.C. and was further pleased to sentence him to suffer R.I. for life.

(2.) The prosecution story runs as follows : The appellant owns an 'Atta Chakki' and some time before the incident he had got the grinding stones of the said Chakki repaired by the deceased for which Rs. 30.00 was settled as labour charges. Out of the said amount Rs. 10.00 only was paid to the deceased and on 27-10-78 at about 8.45 p.m. when the deceased went to the appellant to demand the balance amount of Rs. 20.00 the appellant assaulted him with a knife in front of the betel shop of Shyam Lal. The place of occurrence is situated just in front of Sadar Hospital, Pilibhit and so the deceased immediately was taken, in injured condition, to that hospital where he was medically examined by Dr. O. P. Warankar (P.W. 7), Mangali Prasad (P.W. 2) is the son of the deceased. At about 9 o'clock when he came out of his house, he heard some passers by talking that some body had been assaulted with knife in Chowk. On hearing this he went there and he came to know that the victim had been already removed to the hospital. Then he went to the hospital and to his surprise he found that the persons who received injuries was his father who had received a knife injury in his abdomen. The deceased was in senses at that time and being interrogated by the P.W. 2 Mangali Prasad, the victim told that he had been assaulted by Roop Chand and the incident took place when he went to demand the balance amount of his labour charge. According to the prosecution this incident had been witnessed by P.Ws. Munna Lal and Ram Bharosey who were also present in the hospital at the time when Mangali Prasad (P.W. 2) reached there and met his father. Then Mangali Prasad got a written report of the incident prepared by Ram Naresh in the hospital itself and subsequently he lodged the report at the police station. In this report he narrated the incident as told by his father. On the basis of this written information the formal F.I.R. was lodged and the investigation of the case was entrusted to S.I. Surendra Pal Singh (P.W. 5). The papers for the investigation were delivered to S.I. Sri S. P. Singh at about 10.45 p.m. On receiving the papers P.W. 5 proceeded to the hospital and reached there at about 11.00 p.m. The deceased wasadmitted in the medical ward of the hospital and S.I. Sri S. P. Singh recorded the statements of the deceased in the case diary. Some time after this interrogation doctors advised that the deceased be taken for further treatment to Bareilly and Mangali Prasad became busy in making arrangement for his father's treatment at Bareilly and so P.W. 5 could not interrogate P.W. 2 at that time. However, P.W. 5 visited the spot in the next morning at about 7.00 a.m. and inspected the place of occurrence and with the assistance of Munna Lal, one of the eye witnesses he prepared site plan. He also interrogated Munna Lal. The investigation of the case was however, entrusted to S.I. Paras Ram Singh on 30-9-78 because he was senior to S.I. S.P. Singh. Sri Paras Ram Singh (P.W. 4) interrogated Mangali Prasad and another eye witness Ram Bharosey on 2-10-78 and after complying all others formalities he submitted charge sheet u/S. I.P.C. on 4-11-78. It is evidenced that the deceased was taken to the district hospital at Bareilly and he succumbed to his injuries in the said hospital on 29-10-78. The inquest was done on the dead body by S.I. Ku. Usha Saxena of police station Kotwali Bareilly and the post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Harit (P.W. 9) of the district hospital, Bareilly. The accused-appellant pleased not guilty to the charge framed against him and claimed to be tried.

(3.) In all prosecution has examined nine witnesses. P.W. 2, Mangali Prasad, informant was not an eye-witness but the prosecution relied upon his testimony on the ground that the deceased had narrated the incident to this witness soon after the occurrence and in that narration the accused-appellant was named as sole assailant. P.W. 1, Munna Lal, and P.W. 3 Ram Bharosey did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile and were cross-examined by the prosecution. The prosecution also relied upon 15 documents which have been marke00000d as Ext. Ka-1 to Ext. Ka-15. Ka-1 is the written report lodged by the P.W. 2 at the police station and Ext. Ka-8 is the carbon copy of the G.D. The case was originally registered u/S. 307 I.P.C. but later on when the deceased died it was converted u/S. 302, I.P.C.