Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Thereafter, the investigation of the case ensued and the same was entrusted to S.I. Sri Netrapal Singh. The investigation has been proved by the witness P.W.5 Constable Clerk Suresh Chand when he has testified in his examination-in-chief the fact that the investigation was entrusted to S.I. Sri Netrapal Singh, who is not on duty and he is absconding, and on account of that he has proved the site-plan prepared by the aforesaid I.O. and has claimed to be acquainted with the handwriting and signature of the investigating officer. The site-plan has been proved by P.W.5 Constable Clerk Suresh Chand as (Exhibit Ka-6). As per testimony of P.W.5 after completing the investigation, charge-sheet no. 124 of 2004 dated 29.9.2004, under Section - 307 I.P.C. was filed in the court, the same has been proved as Exhibit Ka-7. Consequently, the case was committed to the court of Session from where after being numbered as Sessions Trial No. 90 of 2005, under Section - 307 I.P.C. it was transferred to the aforesaid trial court of the Additional Session Judge/Fast Track Court No.4, Meerut, who after hearing both the prosecution and the accused on point of charge was prima-facie satisfied with the case under Section - 307 I.P.C. consequently framed charge under Section 307 I.P.C. against accused - Amjad. Charge was read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and opted for trial.

Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case and the rival submissions, the moot point that arises for adjudication of this appeal relates to fact, whether the prosecution has been able to prove the charge under Section-307 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused ?

In this case, the star witness of the incident is the injured- Sushil P.W.3 and the informant is P.W.1 Pappi, who has lodged the first information report. He has not supported the case of the prosecution. The doctor who medically examined the aforesaid injured is P.W.4 Dr. Ashutosh Niranjan. He has elaborated about the nature of the injury caused. So far as the version of the first information report (Exhibit Ka-4) is concerned, a case is made out to the magnitude that on 7.9.2004, the incident occurred and it was caused by the present appellant by giving knife blow on the neck of the injured/victim- Sushil at some place near the bus stand around 7:30 P.M. The informant- Pappi Singh and a number of persons arrived on the spot on alarm being raised, due to which the appellant fled away from the scene. The injured was taken to the hospital where he was medically examined, wherein a wound of 7 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm in front of neck with sharp cutting along with another wound on the left thigh middle part in the dimension of 6 cm x 1 cm x 1.5 cm was noted. The injury report is (Exhibit Ka-2) and on the basis of medical examination, supplementary report was prepared. The supplementary report has been proved by the doctor as (Exhibit Ka-3). Now in so far as the fact of incident is concerned, the informant- Pappi P.W.1 has not supported the incident and has disowned his own version that he ever saw the incident take place. He has been declared hostile and was cross examined by the prosecution wherein he has denied any statement having been made to the investigating officer. He has also denied suggestion that because of compromise being struck between the accused and the injured, he is not telling the truth. Therefore, his testimony is not relevant for the purpose of consideration of actual merit of the case. In so far the testimony of another witness Sunil Kumar is concerned, he has also stated that ten days prior to the incident, some dispute arose between the accused and the injured and due to which the accused was having grudge against the injured and it so happened that on the fateful day in the evening around 7:30 p.m. when this witness was standing at the bus stand of the village, he saw accused causing knife blow on the neck of Sushil. He has also stated about the presence of Pappi and a number of villagers on the spot at the time of occurrence. He has also stated that because of the injury being caused, the injured received medical treatment for about 20 days and was admitted in Lokpriya Hospital. He has been cross-examined at length, wherein also nothing dubious or adverse emerges to the ambit that may create any doubt about the incident. However, the star witness of the incident is P.W.3 Sushil- the injured. He has also corroborated the F.I.R. version of the incident in his testimony and has stated that on 2.9.2004 at about 7:30 P.M., he was standing at the bus stand of the village when Amjad arrived on the spot and with intent to kill him assaulted him with knife and caused injury on his neck. On hue and cry being raised, a number of persons arrived on the spot, due to which the accused fled away from the scene. Regarding motivating cause for committing the offence, he has further testified that about 30-35 days prior to the incident, Amjad came to his shop and took Rs. 45,000/- from him and had promised to return the same after 20-25 days and ten days prior to the incident, he again came to his shop whereupon the injured demanded his money from him, then a scuffle followed. However, local people intervened and subsided the matter and because of this incident, the accused became inimical towards the victim. This witness has been cross-examined at extensive length but nothing adverse of the sort has emerged, which may reflect on the point of non happening of any such incident as alleged in the F.I.R. and testified by P.W.3 Sushil- the injured. In so far as the nature of the injury is concerned, the doctor witness has himself stated on page no.25 of the paper book that these injures might have been caused by knife and these injures may have been fatal. Although, in his cross-examination, he has also stated that Injury No.1 and Injury No.2 cannot be caused by one knife or one sword and on the basis of the same it has been contended that the incident was caused in the darkness of night by some unknown person but because of the enmity the accused has been falsely involved in this case. However, the doctor has also stated in his cross examination that at the time when the patient was taken to the operation theater, there was possibility of his expiring. The constable clerk Suresh Chand P.W.5 has proved the Check F.I.R. and the concerned G.D. of the date by which the case was registered at Case Crime No. 184 of 2004, under Section - 307 I.P.C. against the accused at 10:30 p.m. on 7.9.2004 at aforesaid police station and has proved the concerned entry made in the concerned Check F.I.R. and the G.D. as Exhibit Ka-4 and Exhibit Ka-5, respectively. Since, the S.I. Netrapal Singh at the time of trial was absconding, therefore, the part of the investigation regarding preparation of the site-plan (Exhibit Ka-6) and the charge-sheet (Exhibit Ka-7) have also been proved by this witness as he was acquainted with the handwriting and signature of the Investigating Officer- Sri Netrapal Singh. The accused has not come out with any specific version nor has stated anything in his statement under Section - 313 Cr.P.C., however he has termed the claim of the prosecution false. Then, in the backdrop of the aforesaid testimony, obviously the case of the prosecution under Section - 307 I.P.C. for causing grievous and serious injury on the vital part of the person of the injured- Sushil P.W.3 on 2.9.2004 at about 7:30 p.m. at the village bus stand by the accused- Amjad stands proved beyond all reasonable doubt and the suggestion made by the defence that some unknown person assaulted the victim in the darkness of night has been specifically denied by the injured in his cross examination as appearing on page no. 23 of the paper book and this suggestion indirectly admits in straight forward sense the occurrence itself and the injury being caused in the occurrence and there is no attendant circumstance, which may whisper about any credence to the suggestion so made by the defence. The trial court was justified while it recorded finding of conviction based upon aforesaid factual as well as legal aspects as the testimony adduced by the prosecution is fair enough to establish the charge under Section - 307 I.P.C. Since the injury was caused on the vital part of the body, say neck, the sentence awarded against the appellant is also, under facts and circumstances, justified and needs no interference. Consequently, this appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed and the judgment and order dated 16.1.2007, passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.4, Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 90 of 2005 (State versus Amjad), arising out of Case Crime No. 184 of 2004, under Section 307 I.P.C., Police Station Parikshitgarh, District-Meerut is hereby affirmed.