Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The appellant Surjit Singh, alias Tite, was found guilty of offence under S. 302 IPC by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi. He was convicted by his order dated 13-12-82 and was sentenced to life imprisonment vide order dated 16-12-82. Beside, a fine of Rs. 2000/- was also imposed, in default of payment of which he was also sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment. Feeling aggrieved, this appeal has been preferred.

2. The incident is of 24-10-81 at about 5.35 p.m. in the area of Central Market, Madangir. The victim is one Sheel Kumar. The facts are that the deceased Sheel Kumar was selling golgappas on a Rehri in front of the shop of P.W. 5 Shri Suraj Pal. His brother P.W. 1 Kishan Lal was also running a book shop in the same market about 60 to 65 yards away from him. Just before the incident the appellant had allegedly eaten golgappas from the deceased but when the deceased demanded the price thereof, there was an argument. On the insistence of the deceased to collect price he was given two stab blows with a dagger in the chest by the appellant, attracting P.Ws. 1, 4 & 5. Before they could intervene the appellant allegedly escaped from the scene. Prosecution case further is that the appellant is a known ruffian.

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 sufficient 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.

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 Admi Se 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.