PRITHVI SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by Prithvi Singh against his conviction under Section 307 I. P. C. and sentence for 5 years' rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sesssions Judge, Kota.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, 3 or 4 days before the winter vacations in 1945, Bharat Bhusan, hereinafter to be referred to as the injured, and the appellant Prithvi Singh, both of whom were students of the College at Kota were having a stroll with some friends of theirs along a tank. The appellant used some disparaging words in connection with the females of the community to which the injured belonged. A similar imputation was made by the injured against the females of the community to which the appellant belonged. This enraged the appellants, who advanced towards the injured to beat him saying that he would kill him. Other friends intervened and the matter came to an end. The parties returned to their respective homes. This incident will hereinafter be referred to as the first incident. Some 2 or 3 days after the first incident, the injured was standing in the evening in front of the katla in Rampura Bazar in Kota and was talking to his friends. The appellant arrived there and gave two blows to the injured with his hockey-stick and ran away. This incident will hereinafter be referred to as the second incident. On the 13th January, 1955, at about 7. 00 P. M. the injured was standing near the sitting room of the house of Dr. Chandalal which adjoined the house of Ram Sahay. He was talking with his maternal uncle Hari Prakash. The appellant reached there with two boys, namely, Govind and Dhanvesh alias Gentle. They were on two cycles. The appellant got down from the cycle and gave two slice blows on the head of the injured. The injured and his maternal uncle chased the appellant but he ran away. When they had covered a certain distance, they saw the appellant with some other persons. In this party were Raghubir Singh, Shashi Prakash, Govind and Lalchand. Govind and Shashi Prakash began to pacify the injured. The appellant somehow went behind Bharat Bhushan and stabbed him in his back with a knife. The injured cried that the appellant had given him the knife blow. He vomited blood twice and became unconscious. He was removed to the hospital by Hari Prakash and others. This last mentioned incident will hereinafter be referred to as the occurrence, and the appellant was put up for trial in respect of this occurrence. The injured survived as a result of the treatment given to him.

(3.) THERE is yet another thing which throws a good deal of doubt on the question whether it was the appellant who was the assailant. According to Kishorilal (P. W. 5), the appellant had been identified as the assailant of the injured. Kishorilal pretends to be an eye-witness but I agree with the learned Sessions Judge that he was not. However, it is in the statement of Kishorilal as well as Hari Prakash that the latter had told the former hat it was the appellant who had stabbed the injured and that he should make a report at the police station. THERE was, therefore, no reason why Kishorilal should not have mentioned the name of the appellant as the assailant of the injured. Kishorilal says that he did not himself know the name of the assailant. It may be true but when Hari Prakash had given him the name of the assailant, there was no reason why his name should not have been mentioned in the first information report. Kishorilal admits that he knew the appellant by his face and he also knew that he was residing in the house adjacent to his own. Even if Kishorilal forgot to mention the name of the assailant at the time of the first information report, he could very well have said that the assailant was a boy residing in the house adjacent to his but he has not mentioned even this in the first information report. All that he has said therein is that somebody bad struck the injured with a sbarp-edged weapon. This clearly shows that the assailant had not been identified till then. It is in the evidence of Hari Prakash that the injured cried out immediately after the stabbing that the appellant had stabbed him. The evidence of Rajendra Kumar (P. W. 4) shows that the only thing which the injured had cried out, was that he had been stabbed. The evidence of Kanhaiya (P. W. 2) shows that on the spot there was no talk as to who had stabbed the injured. This also points to the conclusion that the assailant had not been identified.