On companypletion of the investigation ASI Tota Ram submitted two separate charge sheets against the appellant one under Section 302 I.P.C. for the murder of Ramphal on July 26, 1986 and the other under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 6 of TADA for unlawful possession and user of a spring actuated knife.
After forwarding the statement to the Police Station for registering a case, Tota Ram took up investigation and went to the spot.
PH was sent to the local Magistrate.
Having carefully gone through the entire materials on record, we are unable to sustain the impugned judgement.
PD to the Police Post attached to the hospital where an entry in terms thereof was made by Constable Mangal Singh W.1 in the daily diary book at 1.45 P.M. Ex.
From the medico legal report Ex.
On July 26, 1986 at or about 9 A.M. the appellant went to his shop and asked for some vegetables on credit.
The two cases arising out of the above chargesheets were clubbed and tried together and were disposed of by the impugned judgment in the manner indicated above.
551 of 1986.
The blood stained earth recovered from the spot, the shirt removed from the deadbody of Ramphal and the knife recovered pursuant to the statement of the appellant were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory F.S.L. , Madhuban for chemical examination and human blood was detected on all those articles on such examination.
By the impugned judgment and order the Court companyvicted and sentenced the appellant Devinder Pappy under Section 302 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 6 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1985 TADA for short .
Ramphal told the appellant that as he had number paid his earlier dues he would number oblige him any more.
He however companyld number succeed in his attempt as the appellant gave him two blows with the knife one on the left side of the chest and the other on the abdomen,Jagdish and Satbir Singh, who were there still then.
After examination, Dr. Jain sent a medico legal report Ex.
In support of their respective cases prosecution examined twelve witnesses and the defence one.
Reaching there he found Jagdish present and recorded his statement Ex.
In companyrse of the investigation the appellant was arrested on July 29, 1986 and pursuant to a statement made by him to Tota Ram on July 31.
Shorn of details the prosecution case is as under Ramphal the deceased used to sell vegetables from his shoo cum residence in the Janta Colony, Rohtak city.
ASI Tota Ram them went to the hospital and after holding ingest upon the deadbody of Ramphal,sent it for autopsy which was performed by Dr. M.K. Bishnoi P.W.9 .
Since such refusal of Ramphal was in the presence of two others.
and one Umesh, who had reached there by chance, witnessed the assault.
Jagdish and Umesh then carried Ramphal in a rickshaw to the Medical College Hospital, Rohtak where he was examined by Dr. Sushil Kumar Jain P.W.5 first.
The Designated Court found them to be the most probable and natural witnesses and as their evidence stood amply companyroborated by the evidence of the doctors, the recovery of the knife pursuant to the statement of the appellant, and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory held the appellant guilty of both the charges levelled against him.
namely, Jagdish P.W.10 and Satbir Singh P.W.11 , the appellant felt insulted and left in a huff.
After recovery of the knife a separate case was registered against the appellant under the Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 6 of TADA.
Ramphal, who was then companyking, stood up and attempted to escape.
In the meantime,however, at 11.30 A.M. to be precise the City Police Station, Rohtak had received a telephonic message from the above Police Post about the admission of Ramphal in the hospital with injuries on his person and, after recording that message in the daily diary book Ex.
PZ at 2.40 P.M. which was treated as the FIR.
PEE a spring activated knife companycealed under the bricks in a deserted kotha towards the southern boundary wall of Hanuman Park, Rohtak was recovered in the presence of Jagdish P.W.10 and Daya Chand.
About twenty minutes thereafter the appellant came back with a knife and remarked that he would teach him Ramphal a lesson for insulting him in the presence of others.
1986 Ex.
PS and a rukka Ex.
PF , ASI Tota Ram P.W.12 has left for the hospital.
The appellant pleaded number guilty to the charges levelled against him and his defence was that at the instance of Jagdish and Ramphal he was falsely implicated in the case as he had, three days prior to the alleged murder of Ramphal, a quarrel with Jagdish and Umesh over their misbehaviour in their locality under the influence of liquor.
Dr. Jain testified that at the time of admission Ramphal was fully companyscious and his blood pressure and pulse were numbermal.
According to the prosecution case and as testified by Jagdish immediately after the assault Ramphal was taken to the hospital by him Jagdish and Umesh number examined , who were present at the time of the assault.
K. MUKHERJEE,J. The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated May 30, 1987 rendered by the Designated Court, Rohtak, while disposing of Sessions Case No.
550 of 1986 and Arms Act Case No.
Ramphal, who was admitted as an indoor patient in the hospital, was operated upon by Dr. Pradeep Kumar P.W.7 for his injuries but he succumbed to them on the following day i.e. July 27.1996 at 11.30 A.M. On receipt of that information the case which was earlier registered against the appellant under Section 307 I.P.C was companyverted into one under Section 302 I.P.C. and a special Report Ex.
He prepared a rough site plan and seized some blood stained earth therefrom in the presence of Jagdish and Satbir.
To sustain the charge of murder levelled against the appellant the prosecution rested its case principally upon the ocular version jagdish P.W.10 and Satbir P.W.11 .
