Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

As per the prosecution, on 13.6.2002 at 11:30 PM, the Station House Officer of Police Station Kotwali, Churu recorded 'parcha bayan' (Ex.P/12) of Shri Noratmal son of Ramlal stating therein that at about 10:00 PM of the same day when he alongwith Salim, resident of Rajaldesar was sitting at the stairs of Shyam Hall, Vinod son of Surajbhan Brahman and Paharia son of Dungar Bhaat came with knives and then Vinod put him down and gave a knife blow on his chest. Paharia gave a knife blow at the thigh of his left leg. A knife blow was again given by Vinod at his back. On gathering of nearby persons, including the cinema employees, the assailants ran away from the spot. Noratmal further stated that Vinod quarreled with him two days earlier too on the issue of his coming to the colony and only for that reason he and Paharia assaulted him with an intention to kill. As per the statement of Noratmal, after some time his maternal uncle Vinod etc. came to the spot and brought him to the hospital.

Learned trial court, while relying upon witnesses PW-6 Asharam; PW-9 Goruram; PW-7 Vinod; PW- 10 Fariyad Khan, the Investigating Officer, and also the prosecution documents, convicted the accused appellants. While challenging the same, it is contended by Shri Mridul Jain, learned counsel for appellant Vinod that two eye witnesses viz. PW-6 Asharam and PW-9 Goruram are not at all eye witnesses and they were introduced with the prosecution case as an after thought. Learned counsel specifically pointed out that in 'parcha bayan' Ex.P/12, Noratmal nowhere referred presence of Asharam and Goruram though both the persons were known to him. It is further pointed out that Goruram in his statements in quite specific terms stated that Asharam was accompanying him while carrying Noratmal to the hospital, whereas PW-6 Asharam stated that Noratmal was taken to the hospital, whereas by Vinod and Goruram only. It is also urged that Noratmal in 'parcha bayan' Ex.P/12 stated about presence of Salim with him but prosecution failed to produce him in evidence and as such entire story is concocted one with support of PW- 6 Asharam and PW-9 Goruram who happen to be the persons belonging to the caste of deceased Noratmal.

Considered the arguments advanced by learned counsels and also examined the record.

As per the 'parcha bayan' Ex.P/12, Noratmal stated that Vinod gave him a knife blow at first instance on his chest and then at his back and in the meanwhile one knife blow was given at the thigh of his left leg by accused Paharia. At the time of incident as per the Ex.P/12 Salim was with Noratmal and subsequently his maternal uncle Vinod etc. came and brought him to hospital. The term used "etc." in Ex.P/12 is quite important. Learned counsel for the appellants during the course of arguments, much emphasised on the fact that Noratmal in his 'parcha bayan' Ex.P/12 nowhere referred presence of Asharam and Goruram though they were known to him, thus, they in fact were not eye witnesses of the occurrence. On consideration of the entire material available on record, we are of the view that such omission is not much relevant in present case. As a matter of fact Noratmal in Ex.P/12 stated that his maternal uncle Vinod etc. came and this "etc." includes other persons who took him to the hospital. Expectation from a person seriously injured as a consequent to stabbing for giving each and every details immediately after the incident is too high. A person suffering from such grievous injuries at that stage could have given broad outlines relating to the crime occurred, making the investigating agency able to make further probe in the matter. In the instant matter all necessary preliminary informations to make further investigation with the entire incident are available in Ex.P/12. As such, non-reference of Goruram and Asharam with 'parcha bayan' is not material or to say enough to demolish the prosecution case, specially looking to the fact that the term "etc." was used by Noratmal while referring other persons present with his maternal uncle Vinod.

Now the important question that requires consideration is that whether the trial court rightly convicted the accused appellants for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC?

From examination of entire evidence, we find that the accused persons specially accused Vinod may be having the knowledge that causing injury with knife on chest or back may cause death, but no sufficient evidence is available to establish that the accused persons were having any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury that may cause death. True it is, a minor reference is given in 'parcha bayan' Ex.P/12 that some quarrel occurred between Vinod and deceased Noratmal 2-3 days back, but merely on that basis intention for killing cannot be established. The occurrence of quarrel few days back may had been a motive for committing the crime, but in no way an inference can be drawn on that basis regarding intention to cause death. We are of the opinion that the case of present accused appellants in such circumstances does not travel beyond offence provided under Section 304 part-II IPC.