IMPORTANT POINT
Where direct evidence regarding assault is worthy of credence can be believed, question of motive becomes more or less academic.

JUDGMENT

Mohd. Shamim, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th

December, 1993 passed by Mr. M.S. Rohilla, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi where through the convict/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant for the sake of convenience) was found guilty under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- In case of his failure to clear the fine he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a year.

2. Brief facts which led to the present appeal are as under: that P.W. 7 Ram Bharose along with P.W.9 Ram Vilas went to their hut (jhuggi) situated in Block No.11 near a dirty drain in Tilak Nagar, New Delhi on 22nd July, 1989 at 4.30 P.M. to collect there from fruits in a rickshaw belonging to one P.W.8 Arun Paswan. P.W. 8 Arun Paswan stopped his rickshaw at a distance of 15- 16 paces away from the above said hut. Where after injured P.W. 7 Ram Bharose and P.W. 8 Ram Vilas covered that distance on foot. The appellant at that time was lying on a cot opposite to the entrance of the hut of the complainant Ram Vilas whereby he virtually blocked the passage leading to the said hut. Complainant Ram Bharose requested the appellant to remove his cot in order to enable him to take out the fruits from his hut. The appellant however, did not accede to the request of the complainant Ram Bharose and instead started abusing him. Whereupon P.W.7 Ram Bharose requested him not to do so. It led to a flaming row. The appellant took out a dagger and stabbed the injured Ram Bharose on the left side of his abdomen. The injured bled as a corollary whereof. Ram Vilas P.W. 9 came to is rescue. He raised an alarm. He took the injured to hospital in a three wheeler rickshaw. The appellant after having caused the aforementioned in jury fled from the spot along with the dagger.

3. The appellant was arrested by the police on 23rd July, 1989 in a case F.I.R. 424/89 under section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant made a disclosure statement in the said F.I.R. that the dagger, which was recovered from his possession was also used by him in causing injury to P.W.7 Ram Bharose.

4. P.W.9 Ram Vilas informed the police with regard to the above said incident. The same was recorded vide D.O. No. 14-A dated 22nd July. 1989. A copy whereof was handed over to A.S.I. Shanti Prasad. He along with Constable Jag Saran arrived at the place of occurrence. They came to know that the injured had already been removed to the hospital. Shri Shanti Prasad thereafter left for the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Hospital. He collected from there the' M.L.C. of Ram Bharose who was declared unfit to make a statement on July 22. 1989. However, he recorded the statement of Sh. Ram Vilas complainant vide Exhibit P.W. 9/A. I.O. Shanti Prasad P.W.12 recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses including that of Shri Ram Bharose P.W. 7 when he was declared fit for making a statement on 24th July. 1989 after completion of the investigation a charge -sheet was submitted against the appellant.

5. Learned lower court after the appraisal of the evidence oral as well as documentary, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. Thus the appellant was convicted under section 307 of the I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs. 2.000/- alluded to above.

6. Aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the said judgment and order the appellant has approached this Court through the present appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Quisar Kazim has vehemently contended before this Court that the learned lower court fell into a grave error by coming to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty under section 307 of the I.P.C. According to the learned counsel there is absolutely no evidence worth the name on record to record a finding of conviction again