Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. In her statement Ex.PW-4/A Krishna stated that her daughter Usha used to be teased by appellant Surender Kumar @ Dimpy who resided in the neighbourhood and that at 12:00 Noon on 13.01.1999 her daughter Usha left for the market but returned soon and informed that Surender @ Dimpy who was standing at the street corner had teased her at which her brother Kishan Lal who had come to her house to celebrate the festival of Lohri went out accompanied by her sons Rajesh and Naresh. Even she accompanied them. They saw Surender at the corner of the street. She and her brother Kishan Lal requested Surender not to tease Usha at which a verbal altercation ensued between Surender and Kishan Lal. Hearing the altercation Ramesh Chand father of Surender and Ved Rani, mother of Surender came out of their house and both of them jointly exhorted: "Let us teach them a lesson today." So exhorting, Ramesh Chand took her brother Kishan Lal in a bear hug from behind and even Ved Rani caught hold of the hands of her brother from behind. Thereafter Ved Rani and Ramesh Chand jointly exhorted: "Dimpy finish him off today." Before they could even realize the gravity of the situation, Surender @ Dimpy ran to his house and returned with a knife and struck a blow on the chest of her brother and while striking the blow said: "I will finish you off today." On receiving the blow her brother fell down and they remained stunned. Sunil resident of T-318/C, Baljeet Nagar and one Virender resident of T-342 Baljeet Nagar were standing there. They all attempted to apprehend Surender, his father and his mother, but all fled.

28. The third submission urged was that there are serious discrepancies with respect to the commission of the offence and the role played by the accused in the testimony of the witnesses of the prosecution. Learned senior counsel pointed out that whereas Krishna, in her cross-examination, stated that after Ramesh Chand and Ved Rani caught hold of her brother Kishan Lal and exhorted their son, Surender went home and returned with a knife and thereafter struck a blow in the chest of Kishan Lal; to the same effect is the deposition of Sunil Kumar PW-7. The other witnesses i.e. Naresh PW-2 and Rajesh PW-3 have not deposed about Surender going to his house and bringing a knife; as per them Surender when Ramesh Chand and Ved Rani exhorted Surender: „Dimpy aaj inka kaam tamam kar de‟ Surender stabbed Kishan Lal in the chest and thereafter all of them fled. It was urged that it was apparent that there was an attempt to bring on record a false version by the witnesses of the prosecution, who were not the eye-witnesses, but came out of their house, on hearing the noise when somebody had already stabbed Kishan Lal.

42. Since the focus of all submissions centered on the fact that PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 got a golden opportunity to rope in the family members of Surender, we look into the testimony of the witnesses of the prosecution pertaining to what was said and done by Ramesh Chand and Ved Rani.

43. Pertaining to what was said, as per Ved Rani‟s statement Ex.PW-4/A, both of them jointly made two exhortations: "let us teach them a lesson today" and "Dimpy finish him off today". Ex-facie, it is difficult to believe that two persons and that too twice over would use identical words while making an exhortation. While deposing in Court Krishna PW-5 deposed somewhat at a variance stating that first exhortation was by Ramesh who said "Aaj inko sabak sikhatey hain" and the second exhortation was joint: "Aaj iska kaam tamam kartey hain". As per Naresh PW-2, Ved Rani exhorted "Aaj inhe sabak sikha hi do". Ramesh Chand exhorted: "Aaj inka kaam tamam kar do". Rajesh PW-3 deposed that Ramesh Chand and Ved Rani gave only one exhortation: "Dimpy aaj inka kaam tamam kar de". As per PW-7 the exhortation given was only by Ramesh Chand who allegedly stated: "Aaj inka kaam tamam kar dey".

25. There may be other provisions in the IPC like Section 120-B or Section 109 which could then be invoked to catch such non-participating accused. Thus participation in the crime in furtherance of the common intention is a sine qua non for Section 34 IPC. Exhortation to other accused, even guarding the scene etc. would amount to participation. Of course, when the allegation against an accused is that he participated in the crime by oral exhortation or by guarding the scene the court has to evaluate the evidence very carefully for deciding whether that person had really done any such act." (Emphasis Supplied)