PREM SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 23.5.1972 a verbal report was lodged by the complainant Beeta Ram with the police Station, Khour that at 10 PM in the preceding night when he was coming back from his fields towards his home, he heard some noise coming from the roof of Tara Chandâ„¢s house. On reaching there, he found that the accused Inder Singh and Prem Singh residents of Matto were abusing his brother Isher Dass. Meanwhile, Baj Singh, Kamal Singh and Kaka Ram were also attracted by such noise on the spot. Both the accused pounced upon his brother who was thrown down on the roof of the said house. He raised a cry that they had killed him and asked for help. Both the accused were coming down from the stairs, and ran away. PW Kamal Singh ran after the accused Prem Singh, and Baj Singh ran after Inder Singh, so as to catch hold of them, but they could not lay their hands on them. His brother came down from the roof with great difficulty and was holding his belly with his hands. He was able to say only that Inder Singh and Prem Singh had stabbed him and Prem Singh had caused some injuries on him with his knife. On this a case was registered against the accused and the Committal Magistrate, committed them to sessions to stand a trial. On trial of the case, the appellants "here -in -after referred to as the accused" were convicted Under Section 307 read with Section 24 RPC and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment each for the offence U/3 307 read with Section 34 RPC.

(2.) AGGRIEVED of the said order of conviction and sentence, an appeal has been preferred by the accused assailing the judgment of the trial court on the ground that the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the accused, is against law and facts of the case, and is liable to be set aside. That the judgment of the trial court is, ex -facie, without jurisdiction and illegal, in as much as, that the trial court had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the case, as the accused Prem Singh was minor on the alleged day of occurrence i.e. 23.5.1972, and continued to be so till the challan was produced in the Court, In view of Section 24 of the Children Act, the said accused was not required to be tried alongwith second accused and whole of the proceedings taken in the case are, therefore, without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside. Even otherwise, there was no cogent evidence against the accused, and the occurrence is alleged to have taken place in darkness. No independent eyewitness had identified the accused to show that the assailants had inflicted the injuries on the person of Isher Dass. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that some tractor drivers who were the independent person were present on the spot, and none of them has been produced by the prosecution and this omission is fatal to the prosecution case and no conviction could be validly recorded against the accused on that score. That the accused were never afforded an opportunity to lead evidence in defence, and they have been deprived of a valuable right available to them Under Section 274 of the Cr. P.C. That there was no legal evidence worth the name against the accused, and no identification parade had been conducted by the Investigating Agency, particularly, when there was no independent eye witness to identify the accused as to whether they had inflicted injuries on the person of Isher Dass ?

(3.) HEARD Mr. J.P Singh for the accused and Mr. R.C Gandhi AAG on behalf of the respondent/State; also had a thoughtful consideration over the record on the file.