JUDGMENT
S.C. Jain, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant Shiv Charan against judgment and order dated 22/23-8-79 passed by the 1st. Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bareilly convicting the appellant under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that Smt. Ram Shre is the daughter of the complainant, Smt. Sukh Dei, P.W. 1, and she is married to Shiv Charan, Appellant of this appeal. Mohan lal, P.W.2, injured, is the brother of Smt. Sukh Dei and maternal uncle of Smt. Ram Shree. After the marriage of Ram Shree with the accused, Shiv Charan. he treated her cruelly as a result of which she came to the house of her mother prior to the occurrence. On 23-3-1978 at about 9 P.M. Smt. Sukh Dei. Smt. Ram Shree and Mohan Lal, injured, were present at the house of Smt. Sukh Dei in Kamla Colony, Civil Lines Bareilly. Shiv Charan, appellant, came there and he insisted that Smt. Ram Shree should be sent along with him. but she refused. The injured, Mohan Lal, P.W.2. and Har Prasad, P.W.3, who were present there, told the appellant if Smt. Ram Shree was not prepared to go why he was insisting for taking her forcibly. The appellant Shiv Charan became annoyed and he took out a Chhuri and told Mohan Lal that he would finally decide the matter on that day and caused injuries to Mohan Lal with that Chhuri. Then Mohan Lal; injured, was taken to Mission Hospital, Bareilly, where he was admitted and was medically examined. Smt. Sukh Dei got a first information report, Ex. Ka 1, written by one Surajpal at the hospital and then filed the same at police station Kotwali at 10.45 P.M. on the same night. On the basis of that complaint a case was registered against the appellant. Then the lnvestigating Officer Sayed Waheed Uddin, P.W.5, recorded the statements of the witnesses and prepared a site-plan, Ex. Ka.4. He also prepared Hard, Ex. Ka. 5. After completing the investigation he submitted chargesheet, Ex. Ka. 6.
3. The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the offence charged and claimed trial.
4. In support of its version the prosecution examined six witnesses in all. Smt. Sukh Dei, P.W. 1, Mohan Lal, P.W.2, and Har Prasad, P.W.3, have been examined as eye witnesses. P.W.4, Head Constable-Tahir Khan, proved the chik-report (Ex.Ka- 2) prepared on the basis of written report, Ex. Ka. 1. He also proved the entries made in the G.D. (Ex. Ka. 3).
5. Dr. R.P.S. Virk, P.W. 6, who was a Surgeon in the Mission Hospital, Bareilly at that time stated that on 23-3-1978 at about 10 P.M. Dr. M.D. Razorio, who was his Assistant, had examined Mohan Lal son of Chunni Lal under his supervision and injuries were found on his person, which are as under:
(1) Incised wound 7th inter-costal space left side mid clevicular line 1/2″ x 1/2″ incised wound penetrating left pleura cavity. Wound’s side was bleeding profusely.
(2) There was surgical emphasema of the left chest wall.
6. The injuries were found dangerous to life and were found caused by some sharp edged pointed weapon such as knife or Chhuri. The doctor has also proved bed side chart which was prepared by Dr. Rozorio in his presence and which bears the signature of this doctor and it is Ex. Ka 7.
7. On the basis of the entires in the said chart, Dr. Virk had given medical certificate. Ex. Ka.9, on 30- 3-1978 duly signed by him. He stated that Mohan Lal remained admitted in the Mission Hospital, Bareilly during the period 23-3-1978 to 8-4-1978. Dr. Virk has stated that the injuries could have been caused at about 9 P.M. on 23-3-1978. He has also stated that the injury No. 2 was caused as a result of injury No. 1, i.e. the injury No. 2 is the corresponding injury of injury No. 1.
8. Believing the oral and documentary evidence and medical report of the doctor the trial Court believed the prosecution version and discarded the defence version, which the appellant pleaded. According to the defence, the appellant never ill-treated his wife nor he tried to take her back forcibly. According to him on the occasion of Deepawali his wife had come to her mother’s house with ornaments and clothes. On the asking of Smt. Sukhdei his wife, Smt. Ram Shree, had given her ornaments to Mohan Lal, who was told to return the same within 15 days, but he did not return the same. When he asked Smt. Sukhdei to return the ornaments she did not pay any heed and then abuses were exchanged between him (accused) and Mohan Lal once or twice regarding return of ornaments and on that account Mohan La! had become inimical to him. He has been falsely implicated in this case by Mohan Lal.
9. The trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and as such he has been convicted and sentenced under Section 307 I.P.C. as mentioned above. .
10. Feeling aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that admittedly some other independent persons were there who had seen this incident, but they have not been examined and only interested and related witnesses have been examined. This is a very material point which makes the case of the prosecution a doubtful one.
12. Regarding the injuries alleged to have been received by Mohan Lal, as per the statement of eye witnesses, two injuries were caused to Mohan Lal, but in the medical report there is only one incised wound and the other injury was surgical emphysema on the left chest wall. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in view of this medical report, the statements of the witnesses who have stated that two injuries were caused to the injured become doubtful. The third point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the weapon, i.e. the Chhuri was not got examined by the doctor, or by Forensic Expert: The blood on the Chhuri was also not compared with the blood group of the injured.
13. The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the defence version has been wrongly rejected by the trial Court.
14. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G. A. for the respondent and going through the record I find that there is no force in this appeal.
15. The learned trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and has also correctly appreciated the law on the subject while holding the appellant guilty A for an offence under Section 307 I.P.C.
16. So far as the actual incident is concerned, the prosecution has examined three eye witnesses, i.e. P.W. 1 Smt. Sukhdei, the complainant, P.W. 2 Mohan Lal, the injured and P.W.3 Har Prasad. All these witnesses gave substantial and consistent statement in regard to the incident and place of occurrence. It is not the law that the evidence of interested witnesses should be equated with that of tainted witnesses. The evidence of interested witnesses does not suffer from any infirmity as such, but the Courts require as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinised with a little care. Once that approach is made and the Court is satisfied that the evidence of interested witnesses have a ring of truth such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration.
17. In state of Punjab v. Wasan Singh the Supreme Court has observed that:
” It is true that both these witnesses are related to the deceased and, as such, are interested witnesses, but their antecedents or mere interestedness was not a valid ground to reject their evidence. Persons with such antecedents are not necessarily untruthful witnesses. Mere relationship with the deceased was not a good ground for discarding their testimony when, as we have already hold, their presence at the scene of occurrence was probable. All that was necessary was to scrutinise their evidence with more than ordinary care and circumspection with reference to the part and role assigned to each of the accused.
18. In this case Mohan Lal is the injured witness. There is nothing in his statement which could discredit him. The injuries received by him are dangerous in nature as opined by the doctor. He has categorically stated that when he resisted to the act of the appellant in taking his wife forcibly he became annoyed and attacked him with Chhuri. There is no reason to disbelieve this version. Even the appellant in his defence has admitted that there was some quarrel between him and Mohan Lal regarding return of ornaments. It does not seem to reason as to why Mohan Lal has left the actual assailtant at whose hands he had received-die injuries and falsely implicated this accused. This fact has not been explained satisfactorily.
19. The statement of Ram Shree, wife of the appellant, who has been examined as a defence witness (D.W.I) does not help the appellant. It appears that she has been won over by the appellant later on. When there is statement of injured corroborated by the statement of the complainant, Smt. Sukhdei and other witness Har Prasad, the statement of Ram Shree, the defence witness, is not sufficient for acquittal of the appellant. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of these three eye witnesses. They have been subjected to lengthy cross examination but they stood the test of touch stone of probabilities in their cross examination. Regarding the plea that they have stated that the appellant caused two injuries to the injured and there is only one injury in the medical report, it is in the medical report that there is one incised wound and there was surgical emphysema on the left chest wall and second injury was on account of the first injury. On the basis of this medical report the statement of these witnesses cannot be disbelieved.
20. The factum of the injury to Mohan Lal, P.W.2, is an added guarantee to the veracity of his statement, so far as it goes, i.e. in so far as it relates to his being stabbed by the appellant, his immediate removal to hospital and his immediate medical examination by the doctor there. It is not possibly necessary that the weapon of the offence should be recovered in each and every case and should be examined by forensic Expert. In presence of the statements of these eye witnesses non-production and non-examination of weapon of offence, i.e. Chhuri, is not fatal to the prosecution case.
21. The statement of Smt. Ram Shree, wife of the accused-appellant, who has turned hostile is not believable because it appears that she resiled from her earlier statement just to save her husband, Shiv Charan, the appellant.
22. It is the right of the prosecution of examine as such witnesses as it requires and no body can force the prosecution to examine any witness. Three eye witnesses examined by the prosecution are more than sufficient to prove its version. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements of these three eyes witnesses including the injured.
23. It is true that the person who actually examined the injured just after his arrival in the hospital, was Dr. M.D. Razorio, but Dr. R.P. Virk, P.W.6, has categorically stated that Dr. M.R. Razorio was his assistant and he had examined Mohan Lal under his supervision and on the basis of the entries recorded in the bed side chart he gave medical certificate, Ex. Ka 8. He proved the bed side chart, Ex. Ka and medical certificate, Ex. Ka.8. It has also been stated by him that these injuries were dangerous in nature. He was cross examined and in his cross examination he denied the suggestion that this injury could have been caused by a Suya. He also stated that Smt. Sukhdei made a statement about the occurrence to Nurse in the Mission Hospital and the Nurse had read over that statement to Smt. Sukhdei and thereafter Smt. Sukhdei had put her thumb impression on it. That statement (Ex. Kha 1) was proved having thumb impression of Smt. Sukhdei.
24. The medical evidence of P.W. 2, Mohan Lal shows that he had received a penetrating incised wound on the left side of chest and corresponding to that injury there was an internal injury due to which surgical emphysema was caused. The medical evidence shows that the injury to Mohan Lal could have been caused by sharp edged weapon, such as knife and that it could have been caused at about 9 P.M. on 23-3-1978. The injured was medically examined immediately after the incident. The report was lodged immediately after the incident. The statements of the witnesses were recorded immediately after the incident. The motive for the crime has also been proved though it is not necessary, The presence of appellant at the house of the complainant, Smt. Sukhdei, is also not doubted.
25. In these circumstances I find no ground to interfere with the findings of the learned trial Court in this appeal. The trial Court has correctly appreciated the facts and law while convicting the appellant and sentencing him.
26. I confirm the judgment of the trial Court convicting the appellant, Shiv Charan, under Section 307 I.P.C.
27. On the point of sentence, the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 I.P.C. cannot be said to be excessive.
28. Moreover, the conduct of the appellant even during appeal does not warrant to show leniency in as much as during pendency of appeal when the case came up for hearing he absconded and no body came forward on his behalf for disposal of the appeal and as a result his bail order had to be cancelled and he was ordered to be taken into custody. I also confirm the sentence awarded by the lower court.
29. With these observations, this appeal is dismissed having no merit.