Nain Singh & Anr vs State
2014 Latest Caselaw 3201 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                  Judgment Reserved on: July 17, 2014
%                                 Judgment Delivered on: July 21, 2014

+                        CRL.A. 482/1998
      NAIN SINGH & ANR                                   ..... Appellants
                    Represented by:           Mr.Rakesh Sherawat and
                                              Mr.Kamal Choudhary, Advs.
                         versus
      STATE                                                ..... Respondent
                         Represented by:      Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP for
                                              State with SI Somil Sharma, PS
                                              Nand Nagri.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. By the present appeal the appellants, the two brothers, challenge the judgment dated September 24, 1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting them for offences punishable under Sections 304/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated September 25, 1998 directing them to undergo imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of `2,000/- each. The conviction is based on the testimony of PW-4 Kamlesh, wife of the deceased, corroborated by medical evidence and proof of motive by the testimony of PW-3 Rajbala, the sister of the deceased.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that though the learned Trial Court rightly disbelieved PW-1 Narain Singh, brother of the deceased however, it erred in believing Kamlesh. Both the witnesses were planted. Though both Narain Singh and Kamlesh claim that they took the deceased to the hospital however, their blood stained clothes were not seized. The three-

wheeler driver in whose vehicle the deceased was taken was neither examined nor blood stains seized from the said vehicle. Though Kamlesh stated that she was injured in the incident, she was not examined medically and no MLC has been prepared. The hockey stick recovered on the disclosure of the Appellant No.2 Ombir has been rightly disbelieved by the learned Trial Court. Further the two dandas allegedly recovered also do not connect to the offence committed. The juvenile whose inquiry was conducted before the Juvenile Justice Board has already been acquitted and hence the appellants be also acquitted of the charges.

3. Learned APP for the State on the other hand submits that even as per the site plan, the house of Narain Singh was just near the place of occurrence and thus he was a natural witness. Kamlesh had accompanied the deceased to the market when the incident took place and thus she is also a natural witness. The appellants threatened the deceased to withdraw the case against his family members. Thus. motive has been proved by the prosecution by producing PW-3 Rajbala, the sister of the deceased and the relevant records. In view of the overwhelming evidence of the eye witnesses duly corroborated by other evidence on record, the appellants be not acquitted.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The case of the prosecution is based on the testimony of Narain Singh, maker of the FIR and Kamlesh. Kamlesh has deposed before the Court that on September 07, 1992 at about 9.30 AM she had gone to purchase vegetables with her husband Gulab Singh. When they reached the intersection of Gali No.3, Nain Singh and his brother 'R' (Juvenile) came there and stopped her husband and forcibly asked him to compromise the matter with regard to the report lodged by the Rajbala, sister of Gulab Singh

on September 05, 1992. 'R' then exhorted that in case they do not come to compromising terms "Inka Kaam Tamam Kar do". Nain Singh took out a knife and gave blow over the eyes. 'R' gave hockey blow on the person of Gulab Singh. Thereafter Nain Singh and Ombir, the appellants herein gave number of lathi blows on the person of her husband continuously. She raised alarm and tried to save her husband but could not do so. She was also beaten by the accused person by fist and blows. Her brother-in-law Narain Singh threw certain brick-bats from the roof in order to avert the incident. Some people from the neighbourhood also collected. After injuring her husband Gulab Singh, the accused fled away leaving behind the lathis Ex.P- 1 and Ex.P-2 on the spot. This witness is a resident of A-2/230, East Gokapuri whereas the incident took place in front of house of Narain Singh A-3/38, East Gokal Puri, Delhi. Immediately after the incident, this witness and Gulab Singh had been taken to the hospital by Narain Singh as is evident from Ex.PW-9/A, DD No.7A dated September 07, 1992 at 11.00 AM.

6. PW-2 Dr.R.K.B Chaudhary has proved the MLC of the deceased Gulab Singh vide Ex.PW-2/A and PW-15 Dr.Basant Lal has proved the post-mortem report Ex.PW-15/A. The cause of death was opined to be due to cranio-cerebral damage consequent upon blunt force impact to head. There was fissure and depressed fracture of the frontal right temporal parietal bones and coronal suture separation, depressed fracture of pareto temporal bone, frontal aspect. Thick extensive extradual hematoma was found in the left hemisphere and on the right tempo parietal region. There was contusion on left outer temporal region and right temporal lobe.

7. The following injuries were found on the body of the deceased:

i. Lacerated wound 9 x 2 x bone exposed (3 cm) situated on right parietal eminence 7 cm above the mid of the right eye brow in sagittal plane at 5 cm outer to mid line. Clotted blood present ii. Lacerated wound 6 x 1 x bone deep situated 1.5 cm outer to the back ½ of the injury no.1 clotted blood present. iii. Lacerated wound 6 x 1 x bone deep on the left upper middle of head 13 cm above the middle of left eye brow 3.5 cm from midline in sagittal plane. Clotted blood was present.

iv. Lacerated wound 4 x 1 x 0.5 cm on the left parietal eminence 8 cm above the upper border of left pinna where clotted blood was present.

v. Lacerated wound 5 x 2 x bone deep (3 cm) on the right forehead just above the eye brow and 2 cm outer to mid line. Curved irregular. Clotted blood present. vi. Lacerated wound 2 x 1 x 0.5 cm on the upper middle of right ear.

vii. Abrasion 13 x 4 cm situated on right lower of face starting from the angle of mouth and along with the mendibular border, bluish redish in colour. viii. Lacerated wound 2 x 0.3 cm x oral cavity deep situated 1 cm below the right lip lower margin transversely placed with contusion inside the lip with laceration on mucous membrane of mouth, lips. The front teeth on right side loosened, right upper central incisor, lateral incisor and

canines right lower central incisor, lateral incisors and canines were loosened and easily separable.

ix. Lacerated wound 2 x 0.4 x 2.5 cm bones exposed, situated on the upper aspect of inner chin of right side mandible exposed.

x. Contusion 10 x 4 cm on the upper front of right arm with superficial laceration 1.5 x 0.8 x 0.5 cm with abrasion on its upper and around in an area of 3.5 x 1 cm. Reddish bruise in colour.

xi. Multiple abrasion pinpoint to pin-head size in an area 7 x 3 cm on the back of the right elbow reddish in colour. xii. Multiple abrasion on the back of the right hand and nearby area of index finger in an area of 5 x 2.5 cm reddish in colour.

xiii. Abrasion 1 x 1 cm on the back and near of little toe of right foot reddish in colour.

xiv. Abrasion 1 x 1 cm on the back and middle of middle toe of right foot reddish in colour.

xv. Abrasion 7 x 4 cm on the back outer of left foot near toes and upto the middle of toes reddish in colour. xvi. Multiple abrasion pin head to small sizes in the back of all the four fingers in an area of 8 x 3 cm at places on the left hand.

xvii. Superficial laceration 2 x 0.3 x 0.1 cm on the lower front middle of left wrist.

8. The prosecution has been able to prove previous enmity also as PW-3

Rajbala, sister of Gulab Singh appeared in the witness box and testified that on September 05, 1992 at about 3.00 PM she had gone to the house of her brother-in-law and was giving water to her child from the hand pump. The appellant Nain Singh came there and caught hold of her hair from behind, gave her a slap and hit her head with the wall as a result of which her bangles broke. She raised alarm and on hearing the same, children of her brother-in-law reached there. The appellant Nain Singh threatened that he knew timings of her husband's duty and he would make her widow within ten days and threatened to kidnap her children. On this, a report was lodged on September 05, 1992 which was exhibited as Ex.PW-3/A. Thus the version of Kamlesh with regard to the motive stands corroborated by evidence of Rajbala and Ex.PW-3/A the report lodged on September 05, 1992.

9. In view of the statement of Kamlesh, who was an eye witness and whose presence with the deceased at the spot is fortified by Ex.PW-9/A and duly corroborated, we find that the prosecution has proved its case. Learned counsel for the appellant has sought to assail the presence of Kamlesh on the ground that the MLC does not speak about her presence and though she alleges that she was beaten however, there is no MLC on record. No doubt the prosecution has not proved the MLC of Kamlesh however, Ex.PW-9/A is the DD entry no.7/A recorded on September 07, 1992 at PS Nand Nagri at 11.00 AM on an information received from duty constable Sansar Singh from GTB Hospital wherein it is informed that Gulab Singh s/o Gur Sahai and Kamlesh wife of Gulab Singh, after a fight, in injured condition have been brought to the hospital by Narain Singh, s/o Gur Sahai. From a reading of DD entry it is evident that Kamlesh also reached hospital along with the

deceased Gulab Singh in injured condition. The lapse of the prosecution in not exhibiting the MLC of Kamlesh would not discredit her otherwise credible testimony.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that recovery of the hockey stick at the instance of appellant No.2 Ombir is not believed by the learned Trial Court. Though it is not material for this Court to go into that issue for the reason that 'R' (juvenile) the third brother of the appellants, has already been acquitted, had allegedly yielded a blow on the deceased by the said hockey. According to the learned Trial Court the hockey stick was not sent for chemical examination and was not shown to Kamlesh. Thus it was not connected with the offence. However, this finding of the learned Trial Court is incorrect as the CFSL report Ex.PW-7/C shows that a hockey stick having brown stains was sent for CFSL examination and on examination it was found to be containing human blood of 'A' group origin being that of the deceased. Though this Court is not required to comment on the role of 'R', the fact remains that at the instance of the appellant No.2, a hockey stick, used by a co-accused, had been recovered which had blood stains and the blood grouping was that of the deceased. Hence we are of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court wrongly erred in discarding the recovery of hockey stick at the instance of appellant No.2.

11. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that neither the three wheeler driver was examined nor his vehicle, which was allegedly blood stained, thus casts a doubt on prosecution case, is fallacious. It is a matter of common knowledge that public transport used in taking the injured to the hospital would not wait or be subjected to police investigation as the same would hinder the earning of the person running the public transport. If

the investigating agency starts resorting to this mechanism people would refrain from taking injured to the hospital. Moreover at that stage family of the injured is only interested in treatment of the injured and not what all evidence would have to be collected if the injured dies.

12. Learned Trial Court has disbelieved the testimony of Narain Singh PW-1 on the ground that as per his own testimony he did not rush to the spot to help his brother and sister-in-law and that the incident took place in front of his house however, he went to the roof of his house and pelted one or two stones of small size. Admittedly 30-40 persons have collected and he could not have saved his brother by pelting stones. Even discarding the testimony of PW-1 Narain Singh in our considered opinion, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by adducing evidence of Kamlesh, eye witness, CFSL report and the post-mortem report. Though in a case of eye witness account no motive is required to be proved however, in the present case the prosecution has even proved the motive behind the offence.

13. Hence, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the appellants by the impugned judgment and order respectively.

14. Appeal is dismissed. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds and the surety bonds are cancelled. They are directed to surrender before the Superintendent, Tihar Jail within two weeks to undergo the remaining sentence.

(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE JULY 21, 2014/'vn'