Mr. S. D. Pandit, J.

( 1 ) APPELLANT Prem Singh s/o Mannu Singh, resident ofe-083, Jahangir Puri stands convicted for the offence under Section 302 read withsection 34 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment forlife by the Additional Sessions Judge of Delhi in Session s case No. 429/88 on 23/09/1988.

( 2 ). The case of the prosecution is that one Ashok had fired at Lakshmi Kanttiwari some days prior to the incident in question which took place on 7/10/1986 at about 5. 15 a. m. Shri Lakshmi Kant Tiwari had a suspicion thatdeceased Jagatbir Singh was helping Ashok. Therefore,on 4/10/1986 Lakshmi Kantiwari had told Jagatbir Singh s brotherp. W. 7 Munni Dev that the activities of deceased Jagatbir Singh in helping ofashok were not at all proper and if he continued the same they would have avery bad result.

( 3 ). On 7/10/1986 at about 5. 15 a. m. Jagatbir Singh was going alongwith his brother, Public Witness 7, Munni Dev in order to attend his duties in Ayodhyatextiles Mills. When they were so going on Bhagat Singh Road and had reachednear fodder shop in Kewal Park, the accused, Lakshmi Kant Tiwari and onebharmanand came there and they detained Jagatbir Singh and Lakshmi Kanttiwari asked Jagatbir Singh as to why he was helping his enemies Ashok andsudhir and gave abuses to him. Jagatbir Singh denied his allegations that he washelping his enemies Ashok and Sudhir. Thereupon Lakshmi Kant said that hemust be finished. Thereupon accused Prem Singh caught hold of Jagatbir Singhand Lakshmi Kant took out a knife and started giving blows of the same tojagatbir Singh. Bharmanand took out revolver and prevented P. W. 7 Munni Devfrom helping his brother. After attacking Jagatbir Singh all the three assailantstook to their heels and started running away. When Public Witness 7, Munni Dev triedto chase them, Bharmanand fired a shot at him and thus they managed to runaway.

( 4 ). One Saroj Devi gave information to the police on phone. Then the policewent there and they collected injured Jagatbir Singh who was lying on the roadin injured condition and removed him to Hindu Rao Hospital but when he wasadmitted in the hospital he was not in a position to make a statement and withina short time he expired. S. I. Dev Dutt of Adarsh Nagar Police Station recordedthe statement of Public Witness 7, Munni Dev and then started investigation in the matter. He arrested the present accused on the next day and on the completion of thenecessary investigation he sent the charge sheet against the present appellantalone as the other two accused Lakshmi Kant Tiwari and Bharmanand were nottraceable and were declared proclaimed offender.

( 5 ). A charge was framed against the present appellant under Section 302read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessionsjudge. The appellant has pleaded not guilty of the charge.

( 6 ). In order to prove the case against the present appellant the prosecutionhad examined in all 21 witnesses including Public Witness 7, Munni Dev. Out of 21 witnessesp. W. 7 Munni Dev is the only eye witness and the direct witness to connect theappellant with the offence alleged against him. The Trial Court accepted theevidence of the said eye witness and found that his evidence was supported byother circumstantial evidence on record and he therefore came to the conclusionthat the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond doubt. Heconsequently held that the appellant is guilty of the offence under Section 302read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life.

( 7 ). It is vehemently urged before us by the learned Counsel for the appellantthat the Trial Court ought not to have accepted the evidence of Public Witness 7, Munnidev. It is further submitted that Public Witness 7, Munni Dev is the real brother of thedeceased thus he was an interested witness and Trial Court ought not to haverelied on the evidence of Public Witness 7. There is no di

Click Here to Read the rest of this document