Ved Ram and Another vs State

A.N. Gupta, J.—Ved Ram son of Devi Das and Ram Kumar son of Garib Das have preferred this appeal against their conviction recorded by II Addl. Sessions Judge, Moradabad, who sentenced Appellant Ram Kumar to life imprisonment u/s 302 IPC and two years rigorous imprisonment u/s 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Appellant Ved Ram was sentenced to life imprisonment u/s 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and two years rigorous imprisonment u/s 324 IPC. Both these sentences were ordered to run concurrently against both the Appellants. Alongwith the said Appellants. Garibdas father of Appellant Ved Ram was also tried u/s 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and u/s 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, but he was acquitted by the learned II Addl. Sessions Judge Thus, this appeal came to be filed by Ved Ram and Ram Kumar Appellants.

During the pendency of this appeal, Ved Ram Appellant died and, therefore, it abated against him.

The occurrence took place on 4-7-1977 at about 8.40 p. m.. at Sambhal Gate Rickshaw stand, P S. Chandausi. district Moradabad. The FIR of the case was lodged properly by (PW 1) Chhotey Lal at 9.15 p.m.. It is said that on 2-7-1977, Ram Swarup deceased aged about 35 years had told Jivaram, father of Pratap not to permit Ved Ram, Appellant, to enter his house because he was having illicit relations with Smt. Javitri Devi, wife of Pratap. On coming to know about it, Ved Ram took to his heart. On 4-7- 1977 at about 8.30 to 8.45 P.M., when complainant Chhotey Lal (PW 1) had taken Ram Swarup in his Rickshaw from Bahjai Bus stand, Chandausi, where the letter used to work as a coolied to Sambhal Gate Rickshaw stand they met the two Appellants and Garib Das. father of Ved Ram Appellant, all of whom were with their respective Rickshaws. At that time Ved Ram Appellant asked Ram Swarup deceased as to why he was defaming him in connection with the affairs of Smt. Javitri. This gave rise to exchange of hot words between the two, where Ved Ram son of Vishan Lal (PW 2) and Bhagwan Dass (PW 4) were also present. At that time Garib Das exhorted the two Appellants for doing away Ram Swarup once for all. Thereupon the two Appellants rushed with their knives towards Ram Swarup and when complainant Chhote Lal (PW 1) tried to save Ram Swarup, Ved Ram Appellant gave a knife blow injuring him on his back. Ram Swarup and Chhotey Lal ran towards south and (PW 2) Ved Ram and (PW 4) Bhagwan Das also rushed to save Chhotey Lal and Ram Swarup. The Appellants surrounded Ram Swarup just in front of the Fatak of one Murlidhar, situated at a little distance from Sambhal Gate Rickshaw stand and gave knife blows due to which Ram Swarup dropped dead. On the spot two tube lights of street and two bulbs outside the Fatak of Murlidhar were giving light.

PW 1 Chhotey Lal, complainant, was medically examined by (PW 7) Dr. Jagjeet Singh, the same day at 10 30 p m He found one incised wound on right side back measuring 4 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep. The injury was caused by knife and was simple in nature.

PW 3 Dr. B.C. S. Yadav conducted post mortem on the dead body of Ram Swarup the next day at 4.30 p. m. and found five ante mortem injuries consisting of two incised wounds, one of which was on the front near the nipple causing rupture of the heart and fracture of the rib. The other incised wound was on the back of left side. Three abrasions were on the arms. In the opinion of Dr. Yadav, the death was caused instantaneously as a result of first incised wound:

The investigation was conducted by (PW 6) S. I. Kalyan Singh Yadav, who reached the seene of occurrence within half an hour after interrogating (PW 5) Yagya Pal Singh, Head Constable, who had prepared chick report He prepared inquest report etc. and interrogated (PW 1) Chhotey Lal. He recovered samples of blood stained and simple earth from the spot and took in his possession the blood stained Bushirt and Baniyan of (PW 1) Chhotey Lal. He also prepared recovery memoes of tube lights and bulbs, which were giving light at the time of occurrence.

The defence version was that Appellants and Garib Das were falsely implicated on account of enmity. It was said that Ved Ram Appellant was the President and Chhotey Lal, the complainant, was Secretary of Kickshaw Union at Chandausi whose Treasurer was Radhey Lal and Brijendra Kumar Misra (DW 3) was its patron. It was alleged that complainant Chhotey Lal had mis-appropriated a sum of Rs. 400/- belonging to said Rickshaw Union regarding which several complaints were sent by Ved Ram.

On behalf of the prosecution three eye witnesses, namely Chhotey Lal (PW 1) complainant, Ved Ram (PW 2) and Bhagwan Das (PW 4) were examined. Besides them, two medical Officers, who had medically examined Chhote Lal and conducted post mortem examination respectively were also examined The investigating officer, S I. Kalyan Singh (PW 6) and Head Moharrir, who prepared chick report, were also examined. The affidavits of formal witnesses were also tendered in evidence. On the other hand (DW I) Om Prakash Sharma, Office Superintendent, Municipal Board Chandausi, (DW 2) Mahesh Chandra, (DW 3) Brijendra Kumar Misra, (DW 4) Constable Suresh Chandra and (DW 5) Jugal Kishore, Typist were examined in defence.

The learned Addl. Sessions Judge believed the prosecution evidence and after rejecting the defence version, convicted the Appellants as aforesaid, against which this appeal has been preferred.

The testimony of PW 1 Chhotey Lal is very significant. He was injured in the incident by a knife blow causing an incised wound on the right side back at lower lumber region 9 cm below lower angle of the right scapula. PW 7 Dr. Jagjeet Singh, who medically examined Chhotey Lal stated that this could not be a self inflicted injury Deceased Ram Swarup, all the three eye witnesses, both the Appellants and Garib Das, all belonged to the same Mohalla of Chandausi Town, out of whom deceased Ram Swarup was coolie at the Bus Stand and the rest were Rickshaw Pullers. In view of this, the presence of PW 1 Chhotey Lal on the spot and of other witnesses cannot be doubted. It was suggested to (PW 1) Chhotey Lal in the cross examination that on the date and time of occurrence, he and Ram Swarup deceased were over drunk and under intoxication both of them quarrelled sustaining injuries due to which Ram Swarup died and Chhotey Lal got injuries. This suggestion is too good to be believed specially when no such suggestion was given to either of the two medical officers, who had medically examined Chhotey Lal and had conducted post mortem examination. In fact, it goes against the defence evidence itself because (DW 2) Mahesh Chandra had admitted that at the time one person came injured and dropped dead near his shop. He also did not say any thing about the drinking browl. It also goes against the defence version that (PW 1) Chhotey Lal bore ill- will against Appellant Ved Ram inasmuch as the latter had sent complaints alleging that the former had mis-appropriated Rs. 400/- of Rickshaw Union. The learned Addl. Sessions Judg; has rightly rejected the defence version regarding mis-appropriation as in none of the complaints sent by Ved Ram, against (PW 1) Chhotey Lal there was any mention of mis-appropriation of funds by Chhotey Lal and this also could not be proved by defence evidence.

PW 2 Ved Ram and (PW 4) Bhagwan Das are also natural witnesses as they belonged to same Mohalla where the occurrence took place. Both are independent witnesses and no act of enmity could be alleged against them. AH the three eye witnesses remained unshaken in the cross examination and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge rightly placed reliance on the prosecution evidence. Further, the eye witness account is fully corroborated by the medical evidence and there is no in-coasistency between the two.

It is a case of prompt FIR, which was lodged within less than an hour of the occurrence. The investigation officer also reached the spot within half an hour of the occurrence Maker of the chick report and the complainant were interrogated immediately and other two eye witnesses were interrogated the next morning Special Report of the case was sent to the concerned authorities next day early in the morning. Thus, there was no scope for manipulation in the FIR.. Although motive becomes immaterial when eye witness accout is available bat the same also is established by the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution (PW 1) Chhotey Lal was also medically examined within an hour of the occurrence and the post mortem examination was also conducted the next day.

In the cross examination of (PW 2) Ved Ram son of Bishan Lal it has come that Appellant Ram Kumar had inflicted incised wound on the chest and according to (PW 3) Dr. B. C. S. Yadav, who conducted post mortem examination of Ram Swarup. the deceased died on account of this injury. Thus, the case against Appellant Ram Kumar u/s 302 IPC simpliciter stands establishhed.

So far as the question of light is concerned the occurrence took place in the heart of Chandausi between 8.30 p m. to 8.45 p.m. near a tri- junction from where another tri-junction is not far away. It has come in the evidence of the eye witnesses that at the time of the occurrence two tube lights of street light and two bulbs out side the Fatak of Murlidhar, where the occurrence took place, were giving light. The investigating officer had also taken bulbs and tube lights into his possession and had given in the Superdagi and of the persons concerned. It has come in the statement of DW 2 Mahesh Chandra that occurrence took place in front of the Fatak of Murlidhar. He further admitted that in the Fatak of Murlidhar a Flour Mill and Oil Expeller were installed, which also used to work during night time. He further admitted that there was a bracket outside the gate of Murlidhar, but stated that bracket had no bulb. He further admitted that on the tri- junction tube lights were giving light. The eye witnesses also gave statement on oath regarding the light. Chandausi is a prosperous town and the presence of street lights and other bulbs at the time of the occurrence cannot be doubted;

In view of the above, this appeal fails so far as Ram Kumar Appellants concerned. He is on bail. He shall surrender to serve out the sentence awarded to him.

The appeal preferred by Ved Ram abates on account of his death.