Kanchan Chaudhari vs State of U.P.

A N. Dikshita, J.—Kanchan Chaudhari son of Mahabir Chaudhari has preferred this appeal from Jail against the judgment and order dated 23121987 passed by Sri Bir Bhadra Singh, III Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, Camp at Haldwani, convicting him under Section 307, I. P. C.. and sentencing him to undergo 5 years'' rigorous imprisonment.

2 The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 291086 around 7.00 p. m. Prem Singh and Anand Singh were going towards their paddy field through a Pucca Road near Semal Wall Pulia which is close to their village. One Kanchan Chaudhri Purviya, who lives with Ramdhani Purviya, does manual labour. At that time Kanchan Chaudhri was laying a net in the tank for fishing. On enquiry from Kanchan Chaudhri as to where Anand Singh and Prem Singh were going, Anand Singh replied that he was going to see the thieves and on this Kanchan Chaudhri came near them and told them that why is he being called a thief. An altercation took place between them and Anand Singh and Prem Singh due to fear started returning home. Kanchan Chaudhri followed them for about 100 paces hurling abuses and suddenly he struck a knife blow in the abdomen of Anand Singh. Prem Singh amassed courage and held him. On alarm being raided many many persons reached the place of the incident. Ramdhani welding a pharsa also reached the spot and told Prem Singh to immediately set him free otherwise its results would not be good. Due to fear Prem Singh left Kanchan Chaudhri who then ran away. Prem Singh and other persons took Anand Singh to Sitarganj Hospital where the Doctor referred him for medical aid to Khatima. Anand Singh was admitted in the Hospital at Khatima.

Anand Singh was examined by Dr. A. K. Saxena (P. W. 4) on 29 10. 6 at 10.10 p. m. at P. H. C. Khatima. Anand Singh was treated in the hospital as is revealing from the medical report. The following injuries were found on the person of Anand Singh.

Stab wound 9 cm. x 3 cm. X abdominal cavity deep spindle shape oblique medial and from epigastria region obliquely right, lower part of sternum partially cut, fresh and clotted blood present in wound, severely bleeding, injury also extending to the sternum causing fracture of sternum.

In the opinion of the Doctor injury vas caused by sharpedged weapon and was dangerous in nature.

A report of the incident was lodged on 30th October, 1986 at 7.40 a. m.

The distance between the police station and the place of occurrence is 2 kms.

After the F.I.R. was lodged necessary investigation ensued and a chargesheet was filed against the appellant and he was put on trial.

The appellant pleaded not guilty.

The trial Court, on the basis of the evidence and the material on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as above.

Heard Sri Radhey Shyam Shukla appearing as Ainicus Curiae in this case on behalf of the appellant and the learned counsel holding brief for the State.

In support of the prosecution story P. W, 1. Anand Singh, has stated that on the date of the incident i. e. 291086 around 7.00 p. m. he along with irctii Singh was going to watch his paddy field through the road. Near Semal Wali Pulia which is close to the village they met the appellant (who was working at the place of Ramdhani), laying the net for fishing in the pond. The appellant enquired from them as to where they were going to which this witness replied that they were going to watch their paddy field. The appellant asked them why is he being called a thief and then an altercation started between them. Due to fear Anand Singh and Prem Singh started returning for their home while the appellant followed them upto a distance of 100 paces. The appellant then struck a knife blow in the abdomen of this witness. On receiving the knife blow he raised an alarm and pressing his abdomen he felt on the ground and became unconscious. He regained consciousness in the Hospital at Khatima. He has stated that he was examined by the Doctor as the P. H. C Khatima. This witness has stated that prior to this incident there was the cremity between him and the appellant nor any quarrel had ever ensued. He has admitted that at that time the appellant enquired about his identity to which this witness also enquired in the same way. This witness admits that no scuffle amused except this. He has admitted that at the time of the incident there was darkness. He has further admitted that he does not know as 10 how many paces was the appellant to the back of these two This witness had admitted that they were not running towards their home but were walking and so was the appellant walking behind them. Around 100 paces from the Semad Wali Pulia the appellant had struck the knife blow. It has been admitted by this witness that he became unconscious after ten minutes though earlier he has stated hat on falling on the ground he had become unconscious. This witness has also admitted that the appellant struck the knife blow Iron the back. Admittedly as stated by this witness it was dark at about 7.00 or 7.30 p.m. It is contrary to human nature that if the appellant heard by being called a thief he would be provoked to that extent as to inflict a knife injury after walking for 100 paces. Had it been the case of the prosecution that on being called thief the appellant struck P. W. 1. Anand Singh instantly it would have been believable but here as admitted by this witness the appellant walked behind him and P. W. 2, Prem Singh for about 100 paces. It would be very difficult to believe that this witness would recognize the appellant who had struck the knife blow from the back and more so when it was darkness, implicit reliance, thus, cannot be. placed on the testimony of this witness.

In support of its case the prosecution has also produced P. W. 2, Prem Singh, His testimony also deserve to be discreted on the same on which the testimony of P. W. 1 Anand Singh has not been relied upon. Bsides, P. W. 1 Anand Singh and P. W. 2, Prem Singh no other witness the incident has been produced.

Another starling feature of this case is that P. W. 2, Prem Singh, took Anand Singh to hospital at Sitarganj where the police station is also situate. No explanation is forthcoming as to why no report was lodged at P.S. Sitarganj Instantly. In the injury report it has been mentioned that P.W. 1 Anand Singh was taken to P. H. C. Khatima by his mother Lal Singh. It shows that P.W. 2, Prem Singh, had not taken injured P. W. 1 Anand Singh to the hospital. P.W. 2, Prem Singh might have accompanied him but the fact remains that even on that night no report was lodged at the police station Sitarganj which is only at a distance of 2 kms. P. W. 2 Prem Singh admittedly is not a family member of P. W. 1 Anand Singh but is only a relation. No explanation is forthcoming as to why the report was lodged on 30.10.86 at 740 a.m.. The delay which has occasioned in the lodging of the F. I. R. has not been adequately explained and this casts a serious doubt on the investigation and discredits the truthfulness of the prosecution version.

In view of the above the appeal deserves to be allowed.

In the result the appeal succeed and is hereby allowed conviction and sentence of the appellant are hereby set aside. The appellant is in Jail. He shall be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case.