JUDGMENT
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. Praveen Kumar, hereinafter described as the
appellant, has filed the present appeal directed
against the judgment and the order of sentence passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated
9th March, 2001 and 14th March, 2001 respectively.
The learned trial court held the appellant guilty of
the offence punishable under Section 307/325 of the
Indian Penal Code. Thereupon he was sentenced to
undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of
Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section
307 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine
he was to undergo further simple imprisonment for six
months for causing injuries on the person of Maya
Devi. He was further sentenced for seven years
rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for
inflicting injuries on the person of Dharamdev for the
above said offence under Section 307 Indian Penal
Code. In default of payment of fine he was to further
undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He was
sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment
and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with respect to the offence
punishable under Section 325 Indian Penal Code for
inflicting injuries on the person of Harvinder Singh.
In default he was to undergo further simple
imprisonment for six months. All the sentences were
directed to run concurrently.
2. The facts of the prosecution case are that law
had been put to motion on 8th January, 1996 when at
11.25 AM an information was received at police station
Samaipur Badli that a quarrel was going on at house
No. 75, Gali No. 8, Dr. Sudhir Wali Gali, Samai Pur
Badli and that knives were being used. A daily diary
No. 47B was recorded. ASI Man Chand was directed to
proceed to the spot for further action. Accompanied
by constable Mahavir Singh he went to the said site.
When he reached there the injured had already been
removed to the hospital by the police control room
van. Blood was lying in the street.
3. ASI Man Chand left constable Mahavir Singh on
the spot to guard the spot and went to Hindu Rao
Hospital. He obtained the medical legal reports of
Harvinder Singh, Maya Devi and Dharamdev. Maya Devi’s
statement was recorded which became the subject mater
of the first information report. She had stated that
her son Harvinder Singh was cleaning the drain. She
had gone inside to fetch a bucket of water. She saw
on coming out that Jag Pal, Punit and Praveen were
giving beating to Harvinder Singh with lathis,
Harvinder Singh had fallen down on the ground. Jag
Pal Praveen and Punit ran towards her. Jag Pal had a
lathi. Puneet too was armed with a lathi while
Praveen had a knife. Jag Pal gave a lathi blow on her
head. Praveen gave a knife blow on the right side of
her stomach while Puneet also gave a lathi blow on her
stomach. She fell down. Thereafter they gave blows
with knives and lathis on the person of Dharamdev. In
the meantime, Bimla also came there with an iron pipe.
Jagpal, Bimla, Punit and Praveen entered their house
and gave beating to their daughter-ion-law.
4. On the said statement ASI Man Chand made
endorsement and first information report was recorded
with respect to the offences punishable under Section
307/452/506/34 Indian Penal Code. Appellant was
arrested on 8th January, 1996. He made a disclosure
statement and stated that he had thrown away the knife
in the bushes near Swaroop Nagar. The weapon of
offence could not be recovered. After obtaining
opinion with respect to the nature of injuries on
these broad facts, report under Section 173 Code of
Criminal Procedure was filed.
5. The learned trial court had framed charge
against the appellant and others with respect to the
offence punishable under Section 307/34. The
appellant and others pleaded not guilty and claimed a
trial.
6. In support of its case prosecution had examined
12 witnesses in all which included the testimony of
the alleged eye witnesses. Praveen when examined
under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure pleaded
his innocence and stated that while he was standing
outside his house. Kanta Devi was throwing filth in
the drain. He protested. She abused him. Two or
three persons of the street intervened and he was
asked to go inside. Thereupon Kanwar Singh, Maya
Devi, Kanta, Harvinder, Dharamdev and Bhopal started
abusing him outside his house. He remained inside.
All the said persons came upstairs. They caught hold
of the appellant and started beating him. Harvinder
gave a lathi blow on his head. Thereupon he fell
down. His mother Bimla Devi intervened and tried to
rescue him. Kanwar Singh, Maya Devi caught hold of
his mother and Kanta and Harvinder started giving
kicks and fist blows to her. Bimla fell down.
Thereupon all of them started breaking window panes
and light fittings. The police had come and that he
was also medically examined.
7. In defense the appellant examined Rajesh
Thukral, DW-1, Ahlmed in the court of Mrs. Seema
Maini. He proved the certified copy of the complained
filed by the appellant and others and that the
complainants side had been summoned as accused. O.P.
Thakur, DW-2 and examined Praveen Kumar and proved the
injuries on his person, namely one inch lacerated
wound over left pariental region, four inch size CLW
over right eyebrow. The injuries were opined to be
simple and could be caused by a fall. DW-3, Janam Raj
a resident of the same village had supported the
version of the appellant which hardly requires a
reproduction. Ram Pat, DW-4 also made a similar
statement.
8. The learned trial court on appraisal of the
evidence acquitted the other two accused but held that
the appellant had caused grievous hurt on the person
of Harvinder Singh and attempted to murder Dharamdev
and Maya Devi and was held guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. With
these findings and the fact that prosecution witnesses
were believed so far as the appellant and concerned,
the learned trial court passed the impugned judgment
followed by the order of sentence. Aggrieved by the
same the present appeal has been filed.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that
there was no ground to believe and act on the
testimonies of the said prosecution witnesses who
according to him were totally interested and
unreliable.
10. Maya Devi, PW-4 is one of the injured. She
stated that on the said date at 1.00 PM she was
helping her son to clean the drain when besides others
who have been acquitted Praveen stabbed her with a
knife in the abdomen. She had become unconconscious.
She stated that she remained in the hospital for 20 to
22 days. She did not know if her statement had been
recorded or not. During cross-examination she stated
that a sweeper had been appointed to clean the drain
but the appellant and others did not allow the sweeper
to clean. A complaint had been made. The witness
stated that she had poured water in front of the gate
of her house. When she fell down she became
unconscious. She denied that all the filthy material
and waste of the house is thrown by her in the drain
and this is the cause of the dispute. She denied that
Harvinder had given lathi blow on the head of Praveen.
11. Dharamdev, PW-2 is the other injured person. He
too stated that Praveen had caused injuries on his
chest with the knife. He too was subjected to
cross-examination and admitted and stated that he
regained consciousness in the hospital. He had no
idea as to who had taken him to the hospital.
Harvinder Singh, PW-6 is the third injured person and
made a statement in court that after the initial
quarrel Praveen had taken out a knife from his pocket
and stabbed him in his abdomen. He was admitted to
the hospital besides three witnesses who were injured
Harbaksh Singh appeared as PW-8. Mrs. Kanta also
made a similar statement as PW-9. She too supported
the prosecution version as testified by the witnesses
referred to above.
12. While it is true that all the injured persons
themselves have appeared as witnesses but it has to be
remembered that a person who is himself injured
ordinarily would be a good witness to depose about the
incident. They would like the guilty persons to be
brought to the book rather than innocent person being
implicated. Their testimonies cannot be ignored
merely because there was a dispute between the parties
pertaining to the drain. The testimonies of these
witnesses further get support from the medical
evidence on the record which establishes that in fact
injuries were caused had right acted and believed the
testimonies of these witnesses.
13. The other argument of the learned counsel which
was pressed vehemently was that in the facts of the
present case the doctors who had examined, treated and
given opinions with respect to the injuries on the so
called persons have not been examined and therefore it
cannot be termed that offence under Section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code had been established. Reliance in
this regard has been placed on the decision of this
court in Narinder Kumar v. The State .
14. Dr. Ravi Gupta had appeared as PW-1 and stated
that Dr. Ruma Jain left the hospital (Hindu Rao
Hospital). She had examined Harvinder Singh and
proved the injuries recorded by Dr. Ruma Jain. He
admitted that he himself had not examined the patient.
Similarly Dr. Arun Yadav, PW-2 opined that Dr.
Murari Lal had been working with him in the department
and he had left for Saudi Arabia. He proved the MLC
PW1/A to be in the hand of Dr. Murari Lal. Dr. O.P.
Thakur, PW-3 is the only person who stated that he had
examined Maya Devi on 8.1.1996. He stated that
incised wound one and a half inch size in right
hypoohondrium, omentum was protruding out of the
wound. Dr. A.K. Chaturvedi, PW-12 stated that Dr.
Umesh Tyagi had opined the injuries on the person of
Dharamdev to be dangerous and Dr. Umesh is not in
service of Hindo Rao Hospital. Even injury on the
person of Maya Devi had been opined by Dr. Umesh to
be dangerous. He had brought the case sheet of
Dharamdev and Maya Devi.
15. While it is correct that when expert opinion is
given by the individual it is he who must appear as a
witness and prove the same. But in the present case
in hand argument of the learned counsel for the
appellant looses much of its significance for the
reason that it can be established on basis of the oral
evidence on the record that the appellant was wielding
the knife and attacking on the vital parts of the
witnesses referred to above. Intention to commit
murder can be inferred from the nature of the
injuries. The nature of the attack and the parts of
the body on which injuries are purported to be caused.
Once such facts are established inference can be
drawn and in that event to urge that the nature of the
injury has not been opined by a particular doctor who
had examined the patient would be improper. In the
present case in hand injuries had been caused on the
vital parts of the body of the injured with the knife.
This clearly show the real intent at the relevant time
and in that view of the mater the findings of the
learned trial court that offence under Section 307
Indian Penal Code had been established wit respect to
the injuries on the person of Maya Devi and Dharamdev.
16. It was in that event contended that there were
injuries also is on the person of the appellant and
the prosecution had not cared to explain the same.
Reliance was placed on the testimony of Dr. O.P.
Thakur, DW-2. The argument in its legal prospective
that it is the duty of the prosecution to explain
injuries on the person of the accused is not in
controversy but the said principle will not come into
being when there are superficial injuries on the
person of the accused. Herein the appellant had only
a lacerated wound on the left parietal region and a
CLW over right eyebrow. Dr. O.P. Thakur opined
injuries could be caused by a fall. Keeping in view
the nature of the injuries therefore it was not
necessary for the prosecution to explain such minor
injuries.
17. The last submission in this regard was about the
sentence that has been awarded. The appellant was
stated to be young in age, a married person with two
children. When he was examined under Section 313 Code
of Criminal Procedure he had given his age to be 26
years. Taking stock of these facts in the peculiar
facts a lenient view can be taken. Interest of
justice shall be fully met if sentence is reduced to
three years rigorous imprisonment with no interference
with respect to the fine imposed. Accordingly, for
these reasons the appeal on its merit fails but is
allow with respect to the quantum of sentence. He
is sentenced to undergo three years rigorous
imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section
307 Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in
default of payment of fine he shall undergo further
simple
imprisonment for six months. Similar sentence
is imposed with respect to causing injuries on the
person of Dharamdev. For the offence punishable under
Section 325 Indian Penal Code he is sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine
of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine he
shall undergo further simple imprisonment for three
months. All the substantive sentences shall run
concurrently.