MALIK SHARRIF-UD-DIN,j.

( 1 ) THREE persons, Narain Dass, Chander Shekhar and Vidya Devi were tried by the Addl. Sessions Judge. Narain Dass is the father of Chander Shekhar, while Vidya Devi is his wife. Narain Dass and Chander Shekhar (hereinafter for short called appellants) were sentenced to life imprisonment under S. 302 read with S. 34 IPC and also to the payment of fine of Rs. 200/- each. In default of payment of fine a further imprisonment of six months was also imposed. Appellant Chander Shekhar was also convicted under S. 27/54/59 of Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Accused Vidya Devi was convicted under S. 201 IPC but was released on probation of good conduct. Sentences passed against appellant, Chander Shekhar were made concurrent. Aggrieved by the order, Narain Dass, and Chander Shekhar have filed this appeal.

( 2 ) THE deceased in this case is one Makhan Lal brother of appellant Narain Dass. They are a number of brothers and reside in close proxinity. The date of incident is 15th Oct. 1980 at about 8. 15 p. m. The case as put up by the prosecution is that appellant Narain Dass caught hold of the deceased while appellant Chander Shekhar stabbed the deceased with a dagger. The place of incident is 537/6 B Mansrover Park, Police Station, Shahdara. There is no evidence with regard to motive or even immediate cause for the commission of this crime. At about 8. 15 p. m. on the date of incident, P. W. 1 Veena widow of the deceased noticed the deceased being pushed into their house by the appellants. She at once went to the police station and gave the following information : -

"narain and Kala (meaning thereby appellant Chander Shekar) my neighbours have served wine to my husband and they are giving beating to him. I have come to report the matter. Action may be taken. "

( 3 ) PURSUANT to this information Soban Singh S. I. P. W. 2 went to the scene of incident. He was followed by Veena P. W. 1. He learnt on spot that the deceased had been injured by the appellants and he has been removed to hospital. After making arrangements for securing the scene of incident he proceeded to the General Hospital, Shahdara where he learnt that the deceased had died due to the injury received in this incident. On his endorsement to the above effect, F. I. R was registered at 10 a. m. He completed all the formalities on reaching the scene of incident.

( 4 ) DR. Bharat Singh P. W. 10 on 16-10-80 at about 12 noon conducted the postmortem of the dead body and opined that the injury sustained by the deceased was an incised stab wound over the left side back of chest below the inferior angle of scapulla (left ). He further opined that injury was ante-mortem and was caused by a double edge sharp weapon, and, that it was sufficient to result in death in the ordinary course of nature. Death according to the autopsy surgeon was due to hoemorrhage and shock from injury to the left lung. According to him the injury was possible by the dagger Ex. P-1 seized in thin case. No further details about the report of autopsy surgeon need be given as neither the injury sustained by the deceased nor the cause of his death is in controversy.

( 5 ) BEFORE we take up for consideration the contentions urged before us by Mr. D. R. Sethi, learned counsel for the appellants, we may notice one more fact as it does provide a clue to what apparently seems to have happened preceding the incident. In this case appellant, Chander Shekhar was arrested on 16-10-80. On 17-10-80 when injuries were noticed on his person he too was sent for medical examination. P. W. 11 Dr. Mukhtiar Singh examined him on 17-10-80 at about 1. 55 p. m. and noticed the following injuries on his person :

1. 5 linear abrasions in the area 2" x 1" middle part of the chest left side. They were having hard scab.

2. Abrasion 1" x 1" with hard scab anterior surface upper part of the left forearm. The duration of these injuries was placed at 1 to 2 days old. The injuri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document