9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... about 12.30 P.M. 2. The prosecution case in short is that the family of the deceased Amar Pal and the family of Trikha had strained relations and there had been litigations between them. On October 11, 1976, when the deceased Amar Pal was suffering from headache he had been to the shop of Dr. Rajveer Singh (PW 6). The said doctor after examining the deceased had given him some medicine but when the deceased came out from the said shop, all the accused persons attacked him with knives and they inflicted sixteen injuries by knife on the deceased resulting his death on the spot. PW. 1 Zile Singh, the uncle of deceased, who was informed about the said incident rushed to the place of occurrence and thereafter he made a statement which was scribed by his relation and the same was sent to the police station which was about nine miles from the place of occurrence. The FIR was recorded at the police station at about 4.15 p.m. on the basis of fardbayan. It may be stated that in the said FIR the names of PW. 2 and 3 were mentioned as eye witness and the name of one Ranbir was also mentioned as an eye witness but the name of PW. 6 Dr. Rajveer Singh was not mentioned. On the basis of the said F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o submitted that the doctor holding post mortem examination has noted two lacerated wounds on the person of the deceased and it has been sought to be explained by the prosecution by contending that the deceased had dashed against the wall when attacked by the accused. Such fact, however, was not stated by PW. 2 Ram Saran in his examination under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code. In his deposition, however, the said witness Ram Saran stated that the head of the deceased got dashed against the wall. Mr. Lalit has submitted that such improvement in the deposition was made by Ram Saran after coming to know that in the post mortem report lacerated wounds were noted which could not have been caused by the knife. Mr. Lalit has also submitted that both the eye witnesses PW. 2 and 3 are related to Zile Singh and the family of the deceased. Accordingly, their evidences should be considered with much circumspection. He has also submitted that the other eye witness Ranvir though mentioned in FIR has not been examined and no explanation has been given as to why he has been left out. So far as PW. 6 Dr. Rajveer Singh is concerned, Mr. Lalit has submitted that the said doctor was examined afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been proved beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any occasion to doubt in the facts and circumstances of the case that the prosecution case may not be correct, the benefit of such doubt should go to the appellants. He has therefore, submitted that the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants should be set aside by allowing these appeals. 7. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos. 445-446 of 1994 has also adopted the aforesaid submissions made by Mr. Lalit. He has further contended that in the Panchnama of the inquest of the deceased, the number of the crime and Section under which the crime had been committed, were not mentioned. Such omission reasonably indicates that the FIR was brought into existence at a later point of time. The learned Counsel has also submitted that the doctor holding the postmortem examination has also stated that the death might have occurred even earlier. The learned Counsel has also submitted that it has come out in the evidence of Zile Singh that if somebody goes to the shop of Dr. Rajveer Singh from the house of Zile Singh and the deceased, the houses of the accused do not come on the way. He has submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , such non-examination of Ranbir does not affect the prosecution case in any manner whatsoever. He has contended that it is the quality of evidence and not the numerical strength of the witnesses examined in a case that matters. Mr. Swarup has submitted that all the eye witnesses have specifically stated that being attacked by the accused persons, the head of the deceased got dashed against the wall which explains the lacerated injuries noted by the doctor holding that post mortem examination. He has also stated that blood mark was also noted by Investigating Officer on the wall where the head of the deceased got dashed. He has submitted that the post-mortem report reveals that sixteen injuries were caused by the knives on the person of the deceased and such injuries also support the prosecution case that the deceased were attacked by a number of persons and each one of the accused had inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased. Mr. Swarup has submitted that as the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case did not suffer from any infirmity or inconsistency for which they were liable to be discarded, both the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court had no hesitation i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
