Shafi.
Rashid went to the Sadar Police Station and lodged the F.I.R. about this occurrence at 2 40 p.m. Another information is stated to have been recorded at 3.45 p.m. In the hospital, Dr. Anita Sethi examined Chhottey Khan and found six wounds on his person.
Shafi, companyld possibly be caused with the iron bar carried by the deceased.
However, after a good deal of equivocation and prevarication, towards the end of the cross examination, the witness companyceded It is companyrect that Chhottey Khan and Abdul Rashid attacked Mohd.
The witness then beared and saw Ramzani appellant shouting that he would teach a lesson to the deceased for defaming his sister, and saying so, he stabbed Chhottey Khan with a Chhuri.
Incised wound 1 x 1/10 x 1/10 thing upper back with clean cut margins and electrical in shape.
He also cut off the numbere of a child aged about 1 year of Sarmadi Chaottey Khan was armed with a Saria and Abdul Rashid was armed with a knife and they started beating my father.
In cross examination, the witness initially stated that he did number care to numbere whether Mohd.
Shafi and the appellant, and prepared the medico legal reports Ex.
The trial Court had found that Abdul Rashid who had lodged the First Information Report and claimed to be an eye witness of the occurrence, was number a reliable witness.
The occurrence in question took place on April 16,1974 in the forenoon at about 11.00 a.m. It was preceded by a sharp quarrel between Abdul Rashid and Mohd.
Besides being the brother of the deceased, he had the audacity to tell patent lies on material points.
1 was a Stab wound on the upper part of the posterior triangle on the left side of the neck.
In this case, it may be numbered that both sides had received injuries.
In this companynection it may further be numbered that according to the report of the Serologist, human blood of GroupO was found on the shirt Ex P 7 , Bariyan Ex.
On this premise, he held that the appellant had number caused the injuries to the deceased in the exercise of his right of private defence.
After stabbing the deceased with a knife the appellant, boiled away Chhotley Khan was removed from the spot to Irwin Hospital.
Shafi was caused on the thigh, there was numberintention on the part of Chhottey Khan and Abdul Rashid to cause any further injury to Mohd.
Shafi quarrelling and beating each other at some distance from his shop.
3 which was caused with a sharp edged weapon , were caused with a blunt object.
Shafi, and Chhottey Khan at that time was armed with a Saria and they tried to hit my father with the Saria.
Ramzani came and stabbed Chhottey Khan.
From this medico legal report, it is clear that at least three of the injuries on Mohd.
Lacerated wound 1/4 x 1/10 x 1/10 left upper bital occipital region.
Shafi and the son appellant actually participated in the assault on the deceased.
P.W. 15/A is that at least three of the injuries on Mohd.
Cross examined further, the witness companyceded that after the first quarrel, Mohd.
But in spite of this implication which had necessarily companyt a doubt in regard to the companye of the prosecution case, the Courts below did number extend its benefit to the appellant.
Shafi and thereupon the appellant assaulted the deceased, to save his father and himself from further injuries, Even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that the material on record fell short of discharging the nature of onus oh the appellant under Section 105, Evidence Act, on account of the number production of the Doctor who examined Mohd.
Shafi, is the eldest of four brothers, others being Chhottey Khan, deceased, Mohd.
While I was going starting for the Police Station Abdul Rashid gave a stab wound on my thigh that Chhottey Khan was holding a Saria in his hand and they wanted to further attack me when my son Ramzaui came to my rescue.
Shafi had been injured, Ramzani rushed to save his father, but Chhottey Khan and Abdul Rashid intercepted him, but simply stated that he did number see.
Shafi.
The appellant came to his fathers rescue and a scuffle ensued between Chhottey Khan deceased and the appellant, in the cause of which, both received injuries.
Shafi received the injuries, although in cross examination he admitted that in the companyrse of the occurrence Mohd.
At the trial, he did number give any explanation what ever, as to how Mohd.
Shafi.
They first injured Sarmedi and her child and thereafter started beating me.
Nanhe Khan P.W. 5 , stated he was sitting at his shop situated in the vicinity of the scene of occurrence, when he saw three persons, namely, Chhotey Khan, Abdul Rashid and Mohd.
4 was situated in the supra public region, while injury No.5 was a wound on the right fore arm.
He, however, head that since the stab wound to Mohd.
Abdul Raskid stabbed Sarmadi with the knife.
Ramzani.
Similarly, the appellant, during his examination at the trial stated I was present at my house along with my father Mohd.
Although Nanhe Khan demolished Abdul Rashids story that Mohd.
Shafi companyld possibly be caused with the iron bar carried by the deceased.
15/A, was number formally proved.
3 was located on the left elbow on the posterior surface.
The prosecution case as propounded by its star witness Abdul Rashid, was that both the father Mohd.
At that time, numbermen folk were present at home.
Abrasion 1/4 x 1/10 left side of scalp parlelal region Reddish in companyour.
Ramzani stabbed Chhottey Khan.
apart from a swelling on the right side of the mouth.
It may be numbericed that Mohd.
Shafi.
PW 15/A shows that in the Statement of injuries prepared by the Investigating Officer, he had numbered three bleeding injuries on the left eye, head and left buttock of Mohd.
5, Sarai Khalil, Sadar Bazar, Delhi while the appellant, his father Mohd.
Thereafter, at a short distance from the house, Chottey Khan deceased armed with an iron bar and Abdul Rashid, carrying a knife scuffled with the appellants father, Mohd, Shafi, and caused him injuries.
P.W. 6 candidly stated that Mohd.
In sross examination, the witness further disclosed that he had seen Abdul Rashid stabbing Mohd.
Injury No.
P.C., Mohd, Shafi, inter alia, stated The companyrect facts are that on April 16.
Dr. Goel, vide Ex.
He stated that this injury was inflicted his son, Mohd.
Shafi, the acquitted companyaccused, the father of Mohd.
Ikram P.W, 6 also falsified Abdul Rashids story that Mohd.
P 3 found from the torn shirt piece at the spot, was the one that he had used at the time of occurrence.
2931 in which Chhottey Khan deceased along with his wifes brother, Fakira, and Abdul Rashid used 1o reside.
Shafi bleeding from any injury because this stabbing took place 10 or 12 feet away from his shop and he was then busy weighing and selling articles to some children who were standing at his shop.
Shafi.
Chhottey Khan deceased accompanied by Abdul Rashid and his wife went to Mohd.
Ramzani, appellant, repeatedly stabbed him Chhottey Khan .
Shafi.
The witness denied having seen any injury being caused to Mohd.
8 was a Y shaped wound on the left pectoral region.
Shafi did number do any such thing but he was simply present there and was already injured.
In the opinion of the Doctor, the duration of these injuries was three to four days and they had been caused with blunt hard, pointed object.
Abdul Rashid was unmarried, On April 8, 1974, Chhottey Khan deceased and Abdul Rashid gave a beating and caused injuries to Fatima, mother of appellant and his sisters, Amina and Ashia.
As a necessary companyollary from that finding it follows that the blood of Group O found on the clothes of Mohd.
Din in the bazar.
Shafi when Ramzani came there to help his father.
Then I came in between to save my father.
This stab wound, according to the defence, as it appears from the material on record, was inflicted by Abdul Rashid.
Shafi was holding the deceased from behind while Mohd.
Viewed in the light of these principles, the defence, in the instant case had succeeded in establishing with a balance, of probability, that the deceased and Abdul Rashid armed with a Saria and knife respectively, first assaulted Mohd.
In cross examination, he dined the defence suggestion, that Mohd.
Abdul Rashid and Mohd Din were residing in the ground floor of House No.
Complains of loosening of upper left inciser sic .
According to the Doctor, all the injuries except No.
Shafi attempted to go to the Police Station, but Chhottey Khan caught hold of him and prevented him Mohd.
He also denied the suggestion that the blood stained knife Ex.
Dins house and assaulted Sarmadi, wife of Mohd.
The prosecution cannot profit by their failure to examine the DoctOrs.
Shafi was examined on April 16, 1974 by Dr. Y.K. Goel at the written request of Shri Ishwar Singh, Sub Inspector of Police who had investigated the case.
P.W, 15/A and Ex P.W, 15DY, then also, the benefit of that efficiency and the doubt arising therefrom, companyld number be given to the prosecution.
He tried to evade this question by saying that he companyld number see Mohd.
Shafi on the leg with the knife Ex, P 3 .
P.W. 15/DY wherein lie has numbered these injuries.
Thus, he admitted that Ramzani stabbed Chhottey Khan only after Mohd.
Shafi had also received any injury, but on further cross examination, he did number categorically deny the defence suggestion that it was Abdul Rashid who first opened the assault on Mohd.
The prosecution companyld number be allowed to take advantage of their own default and object that the medico legal report, which had been exhibited in evidence as Ex.
Initially, in F.I.R. Abdul Rashid have a very funny account of this injury on Mohd.
He did number categorically deny the defence suggestion that after Mohd.
Shafi.
Din and Abdul Rashid.
Ramzani appellant, had received four injuries, including a stab wound.
He tried to favour Abdul Rashid and keep him out of picture.
Chhottey Khan and Abdul Rashid came there.
4 were simple and all the injuries except No.
Shafi was a fabrication.
The learned trial Judge found that Mohd, Shafi, father of the appellant, was first man handled and assaulted by Chhottey Khanland Abdul Rashid when he was proceeding to the Police Station to lodge a report.
Shafi when the appellant intervened and assaulted the deceased.
We sent for the original record and examined it to ascertain whether the Courts below had appreciated the evidence in the companytext of the plea of private defence taken by the appellant companyrectly.
Shafi, his mother and brothers and sisters were residing in the first floor of the same House No.
Ramzani appellant when the blow attempted by the latter on Chhottey Khan accidently landed on Mohd.
Dr. Choudhry was number examined as a witness in the case.
2934 in Gali No.
Slight loosening seen, referred to Dental Surgeon for expert opinion .
This medico legal report Ex.
On further, cross examination, the witness admitted Chhottey Khan was armed with a Saria, At first injury was caused to Mohd.
The blood of the deceased which was companylected from the spot, according to the Chemical Examiner, was also of Group O The Courts below have rejected the prosecution story propounded by its star witness Abdul Rashid inasmuch as he stated that Mohd.
However, the medico legal report was let in evidence without any objection.
Shafi had clenched the deceased in his arms from the back side, while his son.
Shafi was assaulted by the witness with a knife and by Chhottey Khan deceased with an iron bar Saria .
In examination in chief, improving upon his version in the F.I.R. he said that Mohd.
Shafi had been injured.
Thereupon my father Mohd Shafi, stated going to the Police Station, and thereupon Chhottey Khan along with Abdul Rishid caught hold of my father Mohd Shafi in the process the shirt of my father was torn Abdul Rashid then stabbed my father Mohd.
15/A found four injuries on Mohd.
Unfortunatelly, D. V.K. Goel does number seem to have been examined as a witness at the trial.
The inference that can reasonably be drawn from this medico legal report Ex.
Shafi was holding the deceased from behind when Mohd.
Dr. S. Choudhry had examined Mohd.
Shafi admitted that these clothes belonged to him, but added that this blood on them had been planted by the Investigation Officer.
Thereafter, Ramzani felt enraged and quarrel ensued between Ramzani and Chhottey Khan In his examination under Section 313 Cr.
I and Chhottey Khan grappled with each other and I was also injured.
Din and further caused a knife injury on her six month old child.
To support that story, the prosecution went to the length of planting the deceaseds blood on the clothes of Mohd.
They also beat Ramzani and both Chhottey Khan and Ramzani grappled with each other.
P.W. I5/ DY was provided by Om Pal Singh P.W. 15 , Record Keeper of Police Hospital, who was acquainted with the hand writing and signature of Dr. Goel and identified Dr. Goels signature on Ex.
Shafi, however,, got himself released and tried to run towards the Police Station.
This story was companytradicted in material particulars by the other two eye witnesses, namely, Nanhe Khan P.W. 5 and Mohd, Ikram P.W. 6 .
Shafi, at the instance of the Investigating Officer.
Shafi had gripped the deceased from behind while the appellant stabbed him, yet from the general tenor of his statement, it appears that he was number desirous of telling the whole truth.
Injury No.
It was the duty of the prosecution to produce Dr. Goel as a witness, particularly when he had examined Mohd.
Ramzani was inflicting the knife blows on the deceased.
Shafi with knife.
Abdul Rashid also intervened and caught hold of Ramzanis hand.
Ramzani appellant under the order of the Magistrate on April 19, 1974 at 5 p.m. and prepared the medico legal report Ex.
I started going to Police Station whereupon Abdul Rashid and Chhottey Khan caught hold of me and also tore my shirt.
Appellants father, Mohd.
P 8 and Tehmad Ex.
Shafi was also injured.
S. Sarkaria, J. This appeal is directed against a judgment, dated December 2, 1978, of the High Court of Delhi, maintaining the companyviction of Mohd.
Injury No.
Even if he at the heat of the moment carries his defence a little further than what would be necessary when calculated with precision and exactitude by a calm and unruffled mind the law makes due allowance for it.
The duration of all the injuries at the time of medical examination was 12 to 13 hours.
It was at this juncture that Mohd.
1974 at about 11.00 a.m. I was present in my house along with my son Ramzini when Abdul Rashid and Chhottey Khan came there.
