Jagdeep Singh vs State of Uttaranchal

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.—PW 1 Umesh Chandra Sharma wrote a complaint to Station Officer, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, enumerating the facts contained therein that on 04.09.1997, he along with his brother Jitendra Kumar Sharma and brother''s friend Digpal Singh were going towards Awas Vikas Colony. Accused Jagdeep Singh Gehlot met them around 7:00 p.m. near his house, which was under construction. An altercation took place between Jagdeep Singh and Jitendra Kumar. PW 1 along with Jitendra Kumar Sharma and Digpal Singh proceeded ahead. When they reached near mango tree, Jagdeep Singh came from behind. Again an altercation took place between Jitendra and Jagdeep. Jagdeep inflicted a blow of knife on the chest of Jitendra Kumar Sharma and fled away. In the meantime, informant''s cousin Sanjeev Kumar also came. All of them chased Jagdeep, but he could not be apprehended. The victim was taken to Government Hospital, whereupon he (victim) died. A chik FIR was registered regarding the aforesaid offence on 04.09.1997, at 7:40 p.m. The incident allegedly took place on the selfsame date at 7:00 p.m. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was one k.m. and hence, there appears to no delay in lodging the first information report, which was registered u/s 304 IPC.

In the meanwhile, on 11.09.1997, on having recovered the knife from the possession of the accused, another first information report u/s 4/25 Arms Act was registered against the accused on 11.09.1997.

After the investigation, two charge-sheets were submitted against the accused. One u/s 302 IPC and another u/s 4/25 Arms Act. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Trial began and prosecution opened it''s case. Charges u/s 302 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act were framed against the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

As many as 08 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW 1 Umesh Chandra Sharma, PW 2 Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, PW 3 Arvind Kumar, PW 4 Jeevan Chandra, PW 5 Dr. Yashpal Singh Rawat, PW 6 S.I. J.K. Gangwar, PW 7 S.I. R.S. Aswal and PW 8 S.I. S.K. Sagar were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which, he said that he was falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, the accused-appellant was acquitted u/s 4/25 of the Arms Act. Accused-appellant was held guilty u/s 304(II) of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years vide judgment and order dated 14.11.2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. Aggrieved against the same, present Criminal Appeal was preferred.

Prosecution led the evidence through PW 1, who was the reporter of the case. In his examination-in-chief, he supported the prosecution story and also proved the contents of the complaint (Ext. Ka-1). The examination-in-chief of PW 1 is the verbatim reproduction of the complaint and this Court, therefore, does not consider it necessary to reproduce herein what was said by PW 1 in his examination-in-chief. In his cross-examination, PW 1 stated that his house was situated at a distance of 200 meters from the house of accused, which was under construction. He had no enmity with the accused before this incident. Accused hurled abuses at his brother. PW 1 stated that he could not say whether accused had any enmity with his brother or not. An altercation took place between them. PW 1 and others proceeded ahead. After two-three minutes, accused again hurled abuses at PW 1. He also gave the description of vicinity of the house of the accused. PW 1 further stated that Sanjeev Kumar was his cousin. He was living with Subhash Kumar at Kashipr during those days. He was resident of village Tandola, district Moradabad. PW 1 never went to the house of the accused. He also gave the description of Awas Vikas Colony and the houses under Construction. PW 1 was not aware whether deceased took lunch on the fateful day or not. When the accused met PW 1 and victim for the first time, he was not having knife. [He was armed with knife when he came for the second time]. He further stated that he was on the right hand side of the victim when the accused inflicted blow of knife upon him (victim). Victim fell on the ground after sustaining stab injuries. Digpal and PW 1 took the victim to the hospital on a rickshaw. Deepak also accompanied them to hospital. The wearing apparels of the deceased were stained with blood. Wearing apparels were not taken by the Investigating Officer. When the accused was taken to hospital, he was declared, ''brought dead''. First information report was written there only. Police station, Kashipur was situated at a distance of one kilometer from the hospital.

Thus not a single sentence came in the cross-examination of PW 1, which might benefit to the accused-appellant. He was cross-examined at length, much to discomfiture to the accused-appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that Deepak was not examined by the prosecution. Deepak was the person, who along with PW 1, took the injured in rickshaw to hospital. If Deepak was not examined, how does it matter? The death of the victim was not in question. Even if it be conceded for the sake of arguments that the victim was not taken to hospital in rickshaw, the said fact does not matter in so far as the stabbing of the victim by the accused with a knife was concerned.

Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the blood stained clothes were not produced by the prosecution. The said submission also does not matter in view of the fact that no criminal case is decided on the basis of one sentence or one factum which is not significant. Any criminal trial is decided considering the facts and circumstances of the case in totality and not only by reading a single sentence in isolation.

PW 2 also supported the prosecution story. He was also an eyewitness. In the cross-examination, although he admitted that he is cousin of the deceased, yet the fact remains that he saw the incident. His testimony should be examined with vehemence. He saw that the accused was fleeing away with a knife in his hand towards the west. He also stated that when he reached the place of incident, victim was already grounded. Blood was oozing from his chest. PW 1 and Digpal were chasing the accused. PW 2 also stated that he gave his blood stained clothes to IO. But the IO did not take such clothes in his possession. It is the law settled that the prosecution cannot be faulted for the lapses, which have occurred in the investigation of the case. Since it was a case of direct evidence, therefore, the case was to be decided on the basis of oral testimony of the eyewitnesses. Nothing came in the cross-examination of PW 1 and PW 2 to indicate that they were telling a lie. At least, the evidence tendered by PW 1 inspired great confidence. Even if it be conceded for the sake of arguments that PW 2 did not see stabbing of victim by the appellant, the fact remains that he saw the accused fleeing away from the spot with knife in his hand. He saw PW 1 and Digpal chasing the appellant. He saw that the victim bled profusely.

The evidence of PW 3 is not being discussed, in as much as, he was the witness relating to offence u/s 25 Arms Act, in which offence the accused has been exonerated by the trial court. PW 4 was a formal witness who proved chik FIR (Ext. Ka-3), which was lodged on the basis of complaint (Ext. Ka-1). PW 4 also proved copy of G.D. (Ext. Ka-4), in which factum of lodging the FIR was entered.

PW 5 conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. He proved post mortem report (Ext. Ka-5) and stated that there were ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased. The Medical Officer found stab wound on the left side of the chest which was 2.5 c.m. x 05 c.m. deep. Oozing of blood was present. The cause of death of victim was shock due to ante-mortem injury and hemorrhage. Thus the ocular testimony of the eyewitness was corroborated by the medical evidence. PW 5 also stated that the death of the victim was possible on 04.09.1997 at 7:00 pm. The stab wound which was sustained by the victim was possible by the blow of knife. Since his heart was damaged, therefore, he died instantaneously. He was having empty stomach.

Initially, the investigation was handed over to PW 7, who conducted investigation up to 06.09.1997, at some length. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to S.I. S.K. Sagar as was stated by PW 7 and PW 6. After being satisfied that the accused committed crime, a charge-sheet was submitted against him u/s 302 IPC. Although PW 7 admitted that blood stained and simple soil were not sent by him to Forensic Science Laboratory, which was definitely a lapse on the part of the investigation for which prosecution can not be faulted. Had PW 7 sent the blood stained earth and simple earth to Forensic Science Laboratory and report from there would have come in the positive, the same would have established the place of incident. No question was put forward by defence suggesting that the place of incident was in doubt. Prosecution story is not adversely affected if the soil was not sent by the investigating officer for chemical examination, for the same was a lapse on the part of the I.O., and not on the part of the prosecution. Had there been any suggestion on the part of defence expressing doubt on the place of incident, only then the lapse on the part of I.O. would have mattered. The same is of little consequence otherwise. PW 8 submitted charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-15) against the accused-appellant.

In any case, the prosecution was able to prove the case against the accused-appellant beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. PW 1 and PW 2 were the eyewitnesses. The ocular testimony was corroborated by PW 5. PW 1 and PW 2 stated, in unequivocal terms, that the accused-appellant inflicted a blow of knife on the chest of the victim, who was taken to hospital, but was declared, ''brought dead'', by the Doctor. An altercation tool place between the victim and the appellant. When the altercation took place for the first time, appellant was not having knife. Victim along with PW 1 proceeded little ahead and reached, near the house of the appellant, which house was under construction. Appellant came again after 2-3 minutes. This time he was armed with knife. Again an altercation took place between the appellant and the victim. Appellant gave a blow of knife on the chest of the victim. Victim sustained stab injuries which was fatal to him. Victim died as a result of such stab injury. PW 5 affirmed the same in his report as well as in his oral evidence that the deceased sustained ante-mortem injuries. He sustained stab wound on the left side of his chest. PW 5 opined that the victim died as a result of shock due to ante-mortem injuries and hemorrhage. PW 1 and PW 2 were cross-examined at length. Nothing came in their cross-examination to suggest that these prosecution witnesses, who were eyewitnesses, were telling a lie. Their testimony could not be treated with suspicion. Although, Digpal and Deepak were not examined, blood stained clothes were not collected by the I.O. and blood stained earth was not sent for chemical examination, yet the fact remains that the said lapses on the part of investigation did not affect prosecution story adversely. So far as the non-examination of Digpal and Deepak was concerned, same also did not create the suspicion. Consequence of non-examination of Deepak has been dealt with, in one of the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment. It is settled law that it is the wisdom of the prosecutor to examine any number of witnesses as he likes. If the prosecutor has withheld any witness, that does not mean that the other credible witness should not be believed. In the instant case, this Court is of the opinion that the testimony rendered by PW 1 and PW 2 was credible and therefore, the trial court did not commit any mistake in relying upon the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

Learned trial court has discussed the prosecution evidence in detail, Prosecution evidence was correctly appreciated by the trial court with the help of the rulings of Hon''ble Apex Court. The trial court did not commit any mistake in relying upon the prosecution story and coming to the conclusion that the offence punishable u/s 304(II) of IPC was proved against the accused-appellant. There appears to be no illegality and infirmity in the judgment rendered by the court below. This Court is unable to take a view contrary to what was taken by the learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. No interference is called for in so far as the conviction of the accused-appellant is concerned. The finding that the accused was guilty of offence punishable u/s 306 Part II IPC deserves to be affirmed.

Learned counsel for the appellant sated that the appellant was born on 02.05.1979 and by that analogy, he was less than 21 years of age on the date of incident. A copy of High School certificate, as also the mark-sheet submitted on behalf of the appellant were taken on record, as additional evidence u/s 391 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon Mohammad alias Biliya Vs. State of Rajasthan, and Md. Monir Alam Vs. State of Bihar, . Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accused-appellant should be granted benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. It is true that in Mohammad alias Biliya''s case (supra), accused was under 21 yeas of age. Considering the facts and circumstances of that particular case. Hon''ble Supreme Court was pleased to grant benefit of the said Act to the appellant. In Mohd. Munir Alam''s case (supra), the deceased was assaulted with lathi by the appellant, who secured a very prestigious employment during the pendency of the criminal appeal and, therefore, he was granted benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

In the instant case, the appellant was, no doubt below 21 years of age, when the incident took place, but he inflicted a blow of knife on the chest of the victim, although in a spur of moment. The incident took place instantaneously. This court, therefore, is unable to give the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to the appellant. The Court is, however, persuaded to reduce the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant from five years to three years.

Criminal appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. While the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 304 Part II is affirmed, the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant by the learned trial court is reduced from five years'' rigorous imprisonment to three years'' rigorous imprisonment. It is accordingly, directed that the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. The bail of the accused-appellant is cancelled. He is directed to surrender forthwith before the Court below in order to serve out the modified sentence, as above. Period already undergone by the accused-appellant during the investigation and during the trial shall be set off.

Let a copy of this judgment along with the Lower Court Record be sent back to Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar for ensuring surrender of the accused-appellant and sending him to prison for serving out the term of imprisonment, as above.