Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The deceased was immediately removed to Safdar Jung Hospital. He was declared brought dead. On their way to hospital on a question put by P.W. 1 Kishan Lal as to why was he stabbed the deceased told him that, on demanding payment Tite told him that he was a Badmash of the area and nobody dares to demand payment from him and for that reason he was stabbed.

4. Constable on duty in Safdarjung hospital informed P/S Kalkaji about the deceased having been brought dead persuant to which S.I. Shoban Singh after deputing some constable to guard the scene of incident came to the hospital. He recorded the statement Ex. P.W. 1/A of P.W, 1 Kishan Lal. It is this statement which was made the basis of the F.I.R. registered at 7.35 p.m. on the same evening. The Investigating Officer then went to the scene of the incident and after completing the necessary formalities also recorded the statements of eye witnesses. The dead body was examined on the next morning and after preparing the inquest it was subjected to autopsy. The autopsy was performed by Dr. Yellury P.W. 11. He noticed two stab wounds in the right and left side of chest. He opined that death was caused due to these injuries and further added that these injuries were sufficent in the ordinary course of nature to result in death.

7. The stand taken by the appellant is that he is known as Surjit alias Pardeep and not as Tite; that he was not in Delhi on the date of incident; that he was neither known to the deceased nor to P.Ws. 1, 4 and 5; that he was brought by the Police from Meerut in the morning at 5 a.m.; that the Police beat him and caused injuries to him; that he made no disclosure and no knife was recovered at his instance. The appellant admits that Exs.P2, P3 & P4 are his clothes: states that these were seized at Meerut. According to him Police have smeared the pant seized from him with blood to involve him in this case.

9. Before proceeding further, we may notice the contentions raised by Shri Aggarwal. He maintained that since the F.I.R. only mentioned the name of Tite, it should be assumed that the culprit was not known and for that reason it was necessary to hold identification parade failing which the identification of the accused at trial was of no importance. He also contended that since the names of the witnesses are not mentioned in the F.I.R. they should be treated as having been procured. He also urged that recovery of knife has been made from open place and that it has been planted. We see no reason to accept any one of the contentions.

10. So far as the first contention is concerned, we may at once point out that the appellant is known to the witnesses as Tite. The expression "known" does not necessarily mean that the pedigree of the appellant must be known to the witnesses. The eye witnesses have clearly stated that the appellant is known to them as Tite and he is commonly called by that name. He is known to them as a bad character and that is why even P.W. 5 Suraj Pal a most disinterested and independent person has said "Ghalat Admits Dar To Lagta Hee Hai". This goes to show that the appellant was known to him or else he had no reason to be afraid of him. There is as such no reason to disbelieve at least P.W. 1 Kishan Lal and P.W. 5 Suraj Pal that they knew appellant as Tite. In that view of the matter the objection of Shri Aggarwal to us appears to be untenable.