VIJAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of Additional Ses sions Judge, Bilaspur, dated 26-9-1992. The accused have been convicted for offences under Sections 302/307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprison ment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 each under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, the accused have been ordered to undergo rigor ous imprisonment for a period of three months under each count. The sentences have, however, been ordered to run concurrently. Fine, on realisation, has been ordered to be paid to Smt. Veena Devi, wife of the deceased. The essential facts of the case are being narrated hereunder.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 17-9-1990, at about 11 p.m. when the deceased and his wife were sleeping in their Gohar along with their minor child, accused Vijay Singh called from the courtyard and asked the deceased to come down. Smt. Veena Devi got up and switched on the light of the room. In the meantime, accused Vijay Singh and Pritam Singh climbed the wooden staircase and pushed open the door of the room. Accused Vijay Singh asked the deceased as to why he was defaming his wife. He showed a letter but when Gian Singh deceased inquired about the nature of the letter and tried to take it, accused Vijay Singh caught both his hands and accused Pritam Singh, who was holding a chhura in his hands, stabbed the deceased in the abdomen. The deceased, in order to save himself jumped out of the window. Thereafter accused Pritam Singh gave chhura blow to Smt. Veena Devi and caused injury on her left breast. She fell down and both the accused ran away. Shrimati Veena Devi shouted for help. On hearing her shouts, Des Raj, Kartar Singh, Mehar Chand and Nand Lal came to the spot within a few minutes and inquired from her as to what had happened. The whole incident was narrated to them. They informed her that while coming to her house, they found her hus band lying almost dead near the bamboo shrubs at a short distance. She went to the said place and found her husband dead. Kartar Singh and Nand Lal went to lodge the report at Police Station, Bharati and on their information, the police party reached the spot. It recorded the statement of Smt. Veena Devi under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which resulted in the regis tration of the First Information Report in this case. The report lodged by Nand Lal was recorded in the daily-diary (Ex. PQ). The injured was shifted to the hospital for treatment and the deceased for postmortem examination.

(3.) Accused Vijay Singh was arrested on 18-9-11990 while accused Pritam Singh was arrested on 28-9-1990 at Ahmedabad. Accused Vijay Singh produced the letter (Ex. P. 13). The police recovered the torch left by the accused in the house of the deceased. Knife was recovered from the shop of Kranti Kumar on the basis of disclosure state ment made by accused Pritam Singh. After col lecting the necessary evidence and recording the statements of witnesses, the accused were tried before the trial court for killing the deceased and causing injuries to Smt. Veena Devi with com mon intention. The trial court has found that the offences were committed by the accused in the manner alleged by the prosecution. In order to come to this conclusion, it placed reliance on the testimony of Smt. Veena Devi, corroborated by other witnesses who reached the spot at her in stance soon after the incident. On the question of motive, the finding is that in view of the version of the eye witness, motive loses much of its significance that there existed motive for the commission of crime. The contention relating to contradictions and improvements has been rejected and on the question of First Information Report, it has been found that report lodged by Nand Lal (PW 2) should be treated as the First Information Report in the case and the statement of Smt. Veena Kumari is hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the most, it can be treated a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As to the medical evi dence, it was found that the medical experts have not out rightly rejected the use of chhura (Ex. PS) in the commission of crime and in this case, the ocular evidence of Smt. Veena Devi as to the use of weapon has to be preferred. In addition to the statement of Dr. Bhardwaj since it accords with the statement of Smt. Veena Devi. All other submissions raised by the defence have also been rejected.