DINESH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Dinesh Sharma, has been convicted under Section 324 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for 2 1/2 years.

(2.) The facts found are that on 17-12-1977 the deceased Jairam and his cousin Har Prasad (P. W. 6) brought one cart load of wheat for sale at Jawahar Chowk, Bhopal. At about 12-45 in the noon the appellant along with three others came to purchase the wheat. The price offered was 7-50 per paseri but the purchasers insisted to sell the wheat at Rs. 6 per paseri. On refusal one of them caught the hair of the deceased and told him why-he was not selling the wheat at Rs. 6/- per paseri. Then he left him. Thereupon the appellant took out a knife & gave a knife blow on the left elbow. As a result of excessive bleeding he died within an hour. The appellant and 3 others were arrested and the appellant gave a memorandum and recovered a blood-stained knife so also the blood stained clothes. The Doctor opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the injury due to cutting of vessels and nerve. Relying on the sole testimony of Har Prasad (P.W. 6) the appellant has been convicted. The other eye-witness Mahendra Kumar (P. W. 4) turned hostile. There is no report of the Chemical Examiner or Serologist on record. Hal Prasad has stated that it was the appellant who caused the knife injury on the deceased but in cross- examination he admitted that he thrice went to jail for identifying the accused but he could not identify any of them, which means that he for the first time identified the appellant in the dock (T. L. Court) on 14-8-1978 i.e. 81/2 months after the incident. Earlier he could not identify the appellant to be the assailant. The investigating officer Pratap Singh (P.W. 11) has stated that though he had not conducted any identification parade but he had written to the ahsildar for holding identification parade and he has not produced the documents concerning holding of the parades. The Supreme Court in State (Delhi Administration) v. V. C. Shukla, has held that identification of a person by a witness for the first time in Court without there being any identification parade is valueless. Under the circumstances, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained.

(3.) Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. His bail bonds are discharged. Appeal allowed.