DEV DASS ALIAS DAWEED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal the accused appellant has challenged the judgement, conviction and sentence imposed against him for an offence under Sections 302 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment for an offence under Section 302 and rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rupees 1,000/- for an offence under Section 324, I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for another three months more. The sentences were directed to run concurrently by the judgement of the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 3 of 1992 dated 31st July, 1995 which Sessions Case culminated into Sessions Trial No. 1 of June, 1995.

(2.) The fact silhouetted behind the actual incident as has been given through the prosecution witnesses by the prosecution is that P.W. 1 A. Punnaiah is an encroacher of the Government land he constructed his own house on that land leaving a vacant space of land about 25 sq. ft. One of the co-villagers Devdas alias Daweed approached him for giving that portion of the vacant land for the purpose of construction of his own house. P.W. 1 Punnaiah gave that land to the accused Devdas. The price was not settled then. The accused thereafter constructed the house on that land and used to reside with his wife and two children. That house was at a distance of 10 ft. from the house of the P.W. 1. A person by the name of Kandan had a house of about 20 meters from the house of P.W. 1 Kandan is P.W. 4. About 8/9 months after the construction of the house by the accused the accused demanded written document from P.W. 1 Punnaiah and Punnaiah demanded Rs. 6000/- from the accused as consideration for that land. That sum was paid and P.W. 1 Punnaiah executed a written document on a bond paper. The signature was identified on that paper by P.W. 1 which was marked as Exhibit 1. The accused also signed that paper as a second party and his signature was also identified by P.W. 1 and marked as Exhibit 1/1. In this backdrop of the fact the accused approached Punnaiah on 29-11-90 with a paper and demanded that Punnaiah should sign the paper. That was a type-written paper in English and Punnaiah did not know English. So he told the accused that he would have the paper read over by some one to him and then he would sign. Leaving the paper with Punnaiah the accused left on that day. Then the incident took place on the fateful day i.e. on 30-11-92. On that day at about 8/8.30 p.m. the accused again came to the house of Punnaiah and asked him whether Punnaiah had signed that paper. Punnaiah on that day also told the accused that he could not have the paper read over to him and after it being read over to him by any person he would sign the same. The accused then asked back the paper and Punnaiah made over the paper to him. Punnaiah was standing on the verandah of his house. After returning such paper the accused told him that he only knew how to receive money from others but he did not want to execute the document for the same and an altercation ensued between them. On hearing the altercation, the wife of Punnaiah (P.W. 1) since deceased, P. Rajammal came out from the room and told the accused that when the land was given to him by her husband without any consideration at that time he did not say all those things and why he cannot wait for some more few days to get the signed paper back. She further told him that when he approached her husband at that time he was very polite but he was now adamant and had taken a different stance. At that the accused slapped her on left cheek with his right hand. During the entire incident in that house, apart from Punnaiah, his wife and others who were present were son of Punnaiah, Sandal Kumar (P.W. 5) who was aged about 7 years during the relevant time, his daughter Laxmi (P.W. 6) who was aged about 17-during the relevant time and one Jayaraman (P.W. 11) who was the tutor of Laxmi. During the relevant time P.W. 11 Jayaraman was imparting education to Laxmi in the room and a light was burning in the verandah. There were two rooms in the house and the doors and windows of those two rooms were open wherefrom the rays of electric light were coming on the verandah and in front of the house a street tube light was then burning. So the verandah and the facade of the house of P.W. 1 were lighted which were clearly visible.

(3.) The further case of the prosecution goes on to this effect that as the accused struck the wife of P.W. 1, P.W. 1 protested and scolded the accused by saying how he could mustered such courage to slap his wife and in course of such utterances he raised his hand. The accused was then wearing a lungi in folded position and a shirt. Immediately after the protest by P.W. 1, the accused whipped out an open knife from his waist of his folded lungi and tried to stab Punnaiah (P.W. 1) and actually struck him little below the neck nearing the left chest causing bleeding injuries. Punnaiah (P.W. 1) slipped on the ground and his wife P. Rajammal came to his rescue. The accused immediately caught hold of her by left hand and struck her just below the neck at the junction of the chest and neck and swiftly slit that knife across her neck from side to side. Rajammal felt on the ground and bleeded profusely and at that time she had on her person a coloured red blouse, a dark coloured pettycoat and a pink coloured scurf. The accused dragged Rajammal by pulling her hair at some distance and then after leaving her he fled away with the knife and scurf of Rajammal. Rajammal was brought inside the room of that house by P.W. 1 Punnaiah, His daughter P.W. 6 Laxmi and P.W. 11 Jayaraman and the injured Punnaiah tried to stop bleeding from the wounds of his wife by pressing his hand but he did not succeed and within a short time Rajammal died. The children of P.W. 1 started crying but in order to give them solace he falsely stated to them that his wife was still living and she would be removed to the hospital and asked Jayaraman to bring a taxi and a taxi was brought by Jayaraman and in that taxi Rajammal was taken to hospital and apart from P.W. 1, his son Sandal Kumar, daughter Laxmi, her tutor Jayaraman and P.W. 4, Kundan accompanied them to the hospital. P.W. 1 was examined in the outdoor department and then his wound was stitched in the indoor department and he was examined in the Out Patient Department by Dr. Arun Kumar Mallick, P.W. 8, who found one incised injury on anterior chest left side on 2nd rib extending from second cost chondral and exposed the muscle and scratch mark extended up to the first intercostal space and the dimension as given in the diagram in the report. The Doctor further opined that the injury was simple and fresh caused by a sharp weapon. The instrument of offence, which has been marked as material Exhibit VIII, was shown to the doctor and the doctor opined that the injury on the person of Punnaiah could have been caused by that knife.