STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. KHILAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has filed this appeal against acquittal of respondent Khilan Singh of the charge under Section 307 I.P.O.

(2.) THE prosecution story briefly stated was that on 8 -5 -1984 at about 4.00 p. m. in villege Seoo P. S. Shamshabad near a flour -mill of one Maharaj Singh respondent Khilan Singh was giving a shoe beating to one Laxman Singh One Ramnath Singh alias Lalji (P. W. 2) tried to intervene and questioned respondent Khilan Singh as to why he was beating a guest who had come to the villege, meaning there by Laxman Singh. It is said that respondent Khilan Singh then gave abuses to Lalji and also dealt a knife blow on his chest. Lalji sustained a bleeding injury On his chest. Lalji was taken to Vidisha hospital, where on the arival of the police, Lalji lodged a report styled as Dehatinalashi (Ex. P -2) at 11 -15 p. m., wherein the name of respondent Khilan Singh was expressly mentioned as the assailant Doctor Ashok Kumar (P. W. 15) medically examined Lalji and found an incised wound 11/2 x 1/2" cutting the third right intercostal space. Probing was not done in order to assertain the depth of the injury to prevent further bleeding and injury to internal organs. The muscles at the site of the injury were cut. Blood and air was coming from wound, vide injury report, Ex. P -12A. X -ray examination revealed that right side lung had collapsed and there was collection of fluid in that lung vide x -ray report Ex P -12 -B. The respondent had thus committed the offence of attempted murder under Section 307 I P.C

(3.) THE evidence of victim Lalji (P. W. 2) was that respondent Khilan Singh had injured him by dealing a knife blow on his chest. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge Ganj Basoda who tried the case, was not prepare to act on the uncorroborated testimony of victim Lalji. He looked for corroboration to the evidence of victim and finding that the evidence of Harlal (P. W. 1) was of doubtful veracity, acquitted the accused/respondent. The legal position is that the evidence of victim Lalji has to be totally ignored from consideration for a reason to be disclosed immediately. But if the evidence of the victim were to be read in evidence, the approach of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in thinking that conviction could not be based on uncorroborated testimony of the victim of assault, was wrong. The evidence of an injured person must be rated high and if found satisfactory, should receive credence in as much as such a person does not ordinarily screen the real offender and does not in his place involve an innocent person. The only question that may arise with respect to the evidence of such a person may be, whether he had proper opportunity for seeing, recognising or identifying his assailant. 5. The reason why the evidence of victim Lalji (P. W. 2) has to be totally excluded from consideration is the circumstance that his cross examination was deferred and thereafter he died a death, which was most likely natural, before he could be cross -examined. It has come in the evidence of other witnesses that Lalji died around the close of the year 1987. It may be recalled that the incident of the present case had occurred way back in May 1984.