Mohinder Singh vs State (Delhi Admn.)

This appeal is preferred by the accused challenging the correctness of the judgment made by the High Court of Delhi in Crl. Appeal No. 64/73 confirming the judgment of the trial Court convicting the appellant Under Sections 302 and 449, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life u/s 302, but awarding no separate sentence for the offence u/s 449 on the accusation that on 10-6-74 at about 8.00 p.m. at Premnagar the appellant caused the death of the deceased Inder Singh by stabbing him with a knife. The facts of the case stated in brief as follows:

The appellant was a driver who was having sexual relationship with the wife of the deceased Jito. On the date of the occurrence he came to the house of the appellant while the appellant and his brother P.W. 9 were sitting on a cot and conversing and called Jito - Jito. The deceased opened the gate and questioned the appellant as to why he had come there to which the appellant replied that he had illicit relationship with Jito and therefore he would continue coming to their house. This led to an exchange of hot words between the deceased and the appellant. According to the prosecution the appellant stabbed the deceased on his left side near the chest. On receipt of the injury the deceased Inder Singh raised a hue and cry and fell inside the house which cry attracted P.Ws. 10 and 12. P.W. 9 also came out of the house and saw the deceased lying with a stab injury on his chest. P.Ws. 10 and 12 attempted to apprehend the appellant but the appellant ran away from the scene of the occurrence. P.W. 3 who was the Sub-Inspector of Police in the Police Control Room, received a telephone massage from one Kabul Singh (not examined) intimating that one person at Patel Nagar had been statbbed. He entered this information as Exhibit P.W. 3/A and passed on the information to the concerned police station. P.W. 1, the Head Constable of the concerned police station received the massage at about 8.15 p.m. from the Control Room and prepared a report exhibit P.W. 1/A and the said report was sent to the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W. 17 who received the same on his way to Hellington Hospital. On receipt of the said reports P.W 17 went to Patel Nagar along with a constable and recorded the statement of P.W. 9 Teja Singh under exhibit P. W. 1/B. P.W. 17 after holding inquest on the dead body, sent the same for post-mortem examination. Dr. Bharat Singh conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of the deceased Inder Singh on 11-6-84 and from the following external injury:

One incised stab wound over the left side front of the chest, 31/2" below the left nipple placed obliquely horzontal. Size of wound was 1 "x1/4" x? Wound was covered by blood. Tapering end of the wound was on the right side. Wound was elliptical in' shape. On opening the chest cavity it was seen that the track of the wound was directed on the right side and wound had entered the chest cavity through fifth intercostals space and then it had cut the left lung upper (?) lower part through and through and finally, it had cut the left ventricle of the heart in the same line. Size of the cut on the heart was 1/2" x 1/4 "x1/4". Total depth of the wound was 41/2". There was no disease in the heart and lung left side chest cavity was full of fluid and clotted blood. Stomach contained 2 ounces of semi-digested food. Small and large intestines contained gases and facies. Bladder cotained clear urine. Lever, spleen and kidneys were normal. Skull and brain were normal. Neck tissues were normal. Trachea and hyoid bone intact.

After completing the investigation P.W. 17 laid the charge-sheet against the appellant. P.Ws. 9, 10 and 12 were the eye-witnesses of whom P.Ws. 10 and 12 resiled from their earliest statement and as such they have been treated as hostile witnesses. P.W. 9 who is the brother of the deceased speaks about the entire incident. According to P.W. 9 while he was conversing with the deceased sitting on a cot inside the house of the appellant heard the appellant calling Jito and his brother, the deceased Opening the gate. He further states that on hearing the distress cry of his brother he went to the spot and found his brother lying with injury on his chest and the appellant trying to escape from the place. P.Ws. 9, 10 and 12 attempted to apprehend the appellant but they could not do so. The trial Court relying on the evidence of P.W. 9 and the circumstance namely the recovery of Ex. P/1 (a driving licence of the appellant) which was recovered from the scene of the occurrence, found the appellant guilty of the offences charged. The High Court, on appeal by the appellant, affirmed the finding of the trial Court. Hence this appeal is preferred.

Learned Counsel appearing as amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant strenuously contended before us that the evidence of P.W. 9 whose testimony is highly interested cannot be accepted and that the evidence of P.W. 9 is not corroborated by any other material. We have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the evidence of the witnesses very meticulously. Simply because P.W. 9 happens to be the brother of the deceased, his evidence cannot be discarded if his testimony is otherwise acceptable. The presence of P.W. 9 cannot be doubted since P.W. 9 was present at the scene at the time when the Sub-Inspector of Police P.W. 17 arrived at the spot. His report Ex. P.W. 1/B was recorded from P.W. 9 himself. In that report P.W. 9 has given a full version of the incident and has claimed to have been present at the time of the occurrence. On going through his evidence, we do not see any reason to discard his testimony. On the other hand, his evidence is believable and acceptable. Apart from the evidence the recovery of the driving licence Exh. P1 recovered by the police serves as a very strong piece of circumstantial evidence corroborating the testimony of P.W. 9 and implicating the appellant with offence in question. The only explanation given by the defence is that since the appellant had been visiting the house of the deceased very often, he might have left his driving licence in the house of the deceased which subsequently would have been produced before police by Jito. This explanation in our opinion is far-fetched and cannot be accepted because it is the positive assertion of P.W. 17 that Ex. P/1 was seized from the scene of occurrence. The medical evidence shows that the stab wound over the left side front of the chest had gone so deep through intercostal space coming from left lung through and through, and also to the left of the heart in the same line. The death was instantaneous.

It is not the case of the defence that the appellant had not gone to the scene house prior to the occurrence but on the other hand it is an admitted case that the appellant used to come to the house of the deceased. Therefore, there cannot be any question of mistaken identity of the appellant.

For all the reasons stated above, we are in full agreement with the finding of the High Court that it was the appellant and appellant alone who was responsible for causing the death of the deceased on the fateful night. In the result, we confirm the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the appeal as being devoid of any merit.