State (delhi Admn.) v. Sri Ram @ Thakedar

Manju Goel, J.

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of acquittal passed by Shri P.S. Sharma, Additional Sessions Judge on 24th August, 1985 in S.C. No. 44/84 arising from FIR No. 384/82 of Police Station Ashok Vihar. The accused/respondent Sri Ram @ Thakedar s/o Ranjit Singh was challaned for the offence of murdering one Jit Singh s/o Kushal Singh. On 23rd August, 1982, Jit Singh, hereinafter referred to as the deceased, was brought to the Hindu Rao Hospital in an injured condition. On the statement of Harish Chander who had brought the injured to the hospital, the FIR was registered.

2. As per the statement, the respondent had built a KHOKHA on the land of the relative of the deceased which the deceased discovered on his return from his native place on 20th August, 1982 and on being challenged by the deceased there was a verbal wrangle. Referring to the incident of 23rd August, 1982, Harish Chander stated that as the deceased asked the accused to remove his KHOKHA at 6.30 p.m., the respondent began shouting angrily at the deceased and brought a chopper (GANDASA) from his meat shop and gave a blow from the blunt side of the chopper on his right shoulder and a blow with the chopper on the right side of the stomach and when the deceased fell down on the ground the respondent threw his GANDASA and fled away. The investigation claims to have recovered the chopper from the spot and the lungi of the respondent which the respondent had left behind while fleeing from the spot. The respondent was eventually challaned after the police collected the account of several witnesses and going through the usual process of investigation including the post-mortem examination. On being charged, the respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. The prosecution produced three eye witnesses. Other important evidence on record are the MLC prepared when the deceased was brought to the hospital in an injured condition, the post-mortem report and the CFSL report. The trial Court despite the three eye witnesses deposing against the respondent has acquitted the respondent and hence the appeal.

4. The task before the Court therefore is whether the trial Court could disbelieve the three eye witnesses and further if the three eye witnesses are ignored, is there any other sufficient evidence to convict the respondent for the offence of murder The three eye witnesses set up are Harish Chander PW-1, Mohinder Kumar Sharma PW-3, Sarvari Begum PW-4. All the three have deposed to have witnessed an altercation between the deceased and the respondent on 23rd August, 1982 at 6.30 p.m. and to have also witnessed the respondent killing the deceased with the GANDASA. Harish Chander deposed that following the altercation, the respondent picked up the GANDASA from his meat shop and retorted that he would remove the deceased instead of removing his KHOKHA and gave a blow on the right shoulder of the deceased from the blunt side. He further stated that he and others ran to rescue the deceased. But in the meantime the respondent had given a blow on the right side of the abdomen of the deceased on which the deceased fell on the ground. He also claims that he and others ran after the respondent who had left behind his GANDASA and his lungi but failed to apprehend him. As against this, PW-3 Mohinder Kumar Sharma after giving the account of the quarrel stated that the respondent picked up the GANDASA, Ex. P-1 from his shop and struck a blow on the left shoulder of the deceased with the blunt side and another blow on the right side of his abdomen and that thereafter the deceased fell down on the ground with cries Bachao Bachao. He goes on to say that as he placed his hand over the bleeding injury of the deceased, the respondent dropped his GANDASA in his KHOKHA and ran away and while running dropped his lungi. He says that at 2.00 a.m. when police arrived at the spot he handed over the lungi and GANDASA to the police which the police took into possession separately. The third eye witness Sarvari Begum PW-4 also supported the same story so far as the altercation part is concerned and proceeded to state that the respondent gave a blow with the sharp side of the GANDASA on the left shoulder of the deceased and another blow on the right side of his waist causing bleeding on which the deceased fell on the ground while the respondent ran away towards his JHUGGI throwing the GANDASA near his KHOKHA. She proceeds further to say that Mohinder Kumar and others chased the respondent and as the respondent was running away he dropped his lungi. She also says that the deceased was removed to the hospital in a three-wheeler scooter by Harish Chander and that the witness Mohinder Kumar handed over the GANDASA and lungi to the police subsequently. The Trial Court observed discrepancy between the testimonies of Mohinder Kumar and Harish Chander inasmuch as the Harish Chander stated that the respondent gave a GANDASA blow on the right shoulder while Mohinder Singh and Sarvari Begum stated that the GANDASA blow was given on his left shoulder. The doctor at the hospital as well as the post-mortem doctor contradict all the three eye witnesses on this count by their observation that there was no injury on any of the shoulders of the deceased. The trial Court also found that there was discrepancy between the statements of the three eye witnesses regarding the question of chase. Coming to the injury in the abdomen, the trial Court found the opinion of the post-mortem doctor very convincing. The doctor opined that the blow in the abdomen could not have been caused by the gandsa Ex. P-1. The trial Court itself has also examined the nature of injury described in the report and the shape and size of the GANDASA and has found the doctors opinion quite reliable.

5. It may be added further that the GANDASA was sent to the CFSL for examination. The CFSL reported that there were brown dirty stains on the sharp side of the GANDASA and that there was blood on it but failed to specify the origin of the blood or the grouping. Therefore, it is not proved that the GANDASA had any human blood on it what to speak of there being blood of the deceased on it. The trial Court observed that the respondent had been using the chopper in his meat shop and some amount of animal blood on the GANDASA could not connect the GANDASA with the offence.

6. The other reasons for disbelieving the account of the three eye witnesses are that the MLC Ex. P.16/A which was prepared in the presence of PW-1 does not mention the name of the assailant. Further it mentions the weapon of offence as a knife. The three eye witnesses have also differed on the point who chased the assailant/respondent. They are also at variance about the exact spot at which the GANDASA was thrown. Sarvari Begum PW-4 says that the chopper was thrown near the drain, Mohinder Kumar PW-3 says that it was lying beneath the shop of the accused by the side of the NALI whereas Harish Chander PW-1 says that the respondent had thrown the weapon at a distance of 2-3 metres across the NALI from the scene of occurrence. When examined with reference to the plan Ex. PW-18/A three descriptions do not indicate the same point. Thus, we find that there were sufficient reasons for the trial Court not to rely upon the three eye witnesses set up by the prosecution.

7. The next question therefore is, whether there is evidence other than eye witnesses to convict the respondent As stated earlier, the GANDASA has not been proved to be the weapon of offence. No human blood on it was identified by the CFSL whose report is Ex. PW-18/J. The lungi and a baniyan allegedly belonging to the respondent had human blood of AB Group. Unfortunately there is no evidence on record to show what was the blood group of the deceased. The blood sample lifted from the spot was putrified.

8. In the absence of any other credible evidence, there is no scope for conviction of respondent-Sri Ram @ Thakedar. The trial Court judgment cannot be interfered with. The appeal, therefore, has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.