Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
VYAS DEV MISRA AND F. S. GILL, JJ.
MAHABIR SINGH AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
STATE
Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 1975,
Decided on : 30-3-1979.
CRIMINAL APPEAL - Murder - Conviction - Challenge - Eye-witnesses - Relationship with deceased - Motive - Medical evidence - Delay in sending inquest report - Non-compliance with statutory provisions - Recovery of weapon - Discrepancies - Evidence unsatisfactory - Appeal allowed.
Fact of the Case:
Two appellants, Dharambir and Mahabir, were convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment. The incident took place at Wazirabad Water Works during a Ram Lila celebration. The deceased, Azad, was stabbed by Dharambir and then beaten with a lathi by Mahabir. The appellants claimed that they were falsely implicated and that the prosecution evidence was unreliable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the eye-witnesses were unreliable due to their relationship with the deceased and the presence of a prior enmity between the parties. The medical evidence also contradicted the prosecution's version of events. The court further noted that there was a delay in sending the inquest report and that the statutory provisions regarding the recording and sending of the first information report (FIR) were not complied with. The court also found that the evidence of the recovery of the murder weapon was unsatisfactory.
Issues: 1. Whether the eye-witness accounts were reliable. 2. Whether the medical evidence supported the prosecution's case. 3. Whether there was a delay in sending the inquest report. 4. Whether the statutory provisions regarding the recording and sending of the FIR were complied with. 5. Whether the evidence of the recovery of the murder weapon was satisfactory.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the eye-witness accounts were unreliable due to the relationship between the witnesses and the deceased, the presence of a prior enmity between the parties, and the contradictions between the witnesses' statements and the medical evidence. 2. The court found that the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's version of events, as the injuries sustained by the deceased were not consistent with the manner in which the prosecution alleged they were inflicted. 3. The court noted that there was a delay in sending the inquest report, which raised suspicions about the authenticity of the FIR. 4. The court found that the statutory provisions regarding the recording and sending of the FIR were not complied with, which further raised suspicions about the authenticity of the FIR. 5. The court found that the evidence of the recovery of the murder weapon was unsatisfactory, as there were discrepancies in the witnesses' statements and the place of recovery was a thoroughfare accessible to everyone.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences of the appellants, and directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Delhi Administration for appropriate action.
1. The two appellants in this appeal are Dharambir and Mahabir. They were convicted by Shri S. C. Chaturvedi, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi on 6-11-1975 under S. 302 read with S. 34 of the I. P. C. and were sentenced to imprisonment for life.
2. This incident took place at Wazirabad Water Works on 18-10-74 at about 10.45 p. m. when Ram Lila celebration was about to come to a close on that night. Both Dharambir and Mahabir were witnessing the programme. So was Azad (deceased). These appellants and the deceased belonged to a nearby village called Jagatpur. Several other inhabitants of the same village were also present there to witness the function.
3. It is alleged that at about 10.45 p.m. Dharambir armed with a knife and Mahabir armed with a lathi, got up and went to the place where Azad was sitting. Without any remark or throwing any challenge Dharambir started stabbing Azad on his back with the knife. Mahabir then pulled Azad and made him lie on the ground with his belly downwards. It is further alleged that Dharambir gave more blows with his knife. In all 7 or 8 blows were stated to have been inflicted by Dharambir.
4. It is also alleged that when Azad was lying on the ground Rajpal and Mahinder PWs made a desperate bid to rescue Azad by laying themselves on him. When they were lying over Azad, Mahabir was alleged to have given lathi blows to Rajpal on his arm, neck, shoulder, back and waist, By that time Tejpal, Jai Prakash, Sukhbir and other persons arrived at the scene of the occurrence and both the assailants ran away with their respective weapons after proclaiming that they had taken the revenge of a similar incident which had taken place during such celebrations two years ago. Shortly thereafter, Constable Manohar Lal, who was on duty there, also arrived.
5. Rajpal removed injured Azad to the Irwin Hospital in a taxi. Constable Manohar Lal had also accompanied them. On examination the doctor declared that Azad was already dead.
6. Shortly thereafter, the S. H. O. and other police officials arrived in the Hospital. Statement of Rajpal was recorded by the S. H. O. It was sent to the police station and on its basis a case under S. 302/34 of the I. P. C. was registered.
7. By this time Mahinder and Nathu Singh had also reached the hospital. It is alleged that the Investigating Officer started for the place of the occurrence along with Rajpal, Mahinder and Nathu Singh. In the way Rajpal was taken to the Police Hospital for his examination. The Medical Officer examined him and gave him first aid. For his medico-legal examination he was directed to be produced in the morning at 9 O'clock.
8. When the S. H. O. reached the spot some police officials had already reached there. They were guarding the place. The Investigating Officer took into possession the various articles and blood soaked earth after turning them into sealed parcels and prepared the recovery memos. Statements of the witnesses were also recorded.
9. The post-mortem examination on the dead body of Azad was conducted by Dr. Vishnu Kumar on 20-10-74 at 11 a.m. The probable time between the death and the examination was stated to be about 36 hours. Eight incised wounds and two contused wounds were found as a result of the external examination. All the injuries were stated to be ante-mortem, caused by some sharp double edged weapon. Injuries Nos. 3, 4 and 7 were opined to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, both individually and collectively.
10. Rajpal was produced for examination before the Medical Officer in the Police Hospital on 21-10-74 at 10.15 a.m. A small abrasion ½" x ¼" on the left side of the neck was found which was mentioned to be 3 to 4 days old.
11. Mahabir was arrested by the police on 20-10-74, while Dharambir surrendered himself in the Court on 21-10-74. The police also took the custody of Dharambir for the purposes of investigation. It is alleged that Dharambir had made disclosure statement and had got the blood stain
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
