Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3245 (PNJ)

Raj Kumar @ Atwari @ Channi v. State of Haryana

2010-12-06

SABINA

body2010
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.: - The appellant was convicted for an offence under Sections 452/ 307 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”- for short) vide judgment dated 9.4.2009 by the Sessions Judge, Sirsa. Vide order dated 16.4.2009, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with a fine of ` 1,000/- under Section 452 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with a fine of ` 1,000/- under Section 307 IPC. Hence, the present appeal. 2. Prosecution case, as noticed by the trial Court in para Nos. 2 to 5 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “ As per the prosecution version in view of statement of Smt.Rabri Devi Ex.P-1 made by her before the police on 16.9.2007 are that the complainant was aged about 40 years and was residing in Khairpur near Durga Mandir, Sirsa and her husband was managing a Rehri and that she had one daughter and four sons and that on 16.9.2007 at about 12.00 noon her husband had come back to the house for lunch and the family members were also present in the house and the accused, who was a rickshaw-puller, used to be their tenant for 3 years and the house was got vacated 3 months back came there and he objected as to why he was asked to vacate the house at the instance of neighbours and exhorted to teach a lesson on which he took out a knife from his pocket and inflicted its blow towards right plank and fled from the spot and her family members raised raula upon which many persons also appeared there and she was then taken to civil hospital Sirsa. On this statement Subhash Chander SI, Incharge, Police Post Khairpur made his endorsement Ex.P-1/A and sent the same to police station city Sirsa on the basis of which this case came to be registered under Sections 452/ 307 IPC as the injury was declared dangerous to life.” 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no independent witness had been examined by the prosecution to establish the offence alleged to have been committed by the appellant. The appellant had no motive to inflict injury on the person of the complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no independent witness had been examined by the prosecution to establish the offence alleged to have been committed by the appellant. The appellant had no motive to inflict injury on the person of the complainant. 4. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the appellant was residing as a tenant in the premises of the complainant. Since he had been made to vacate the house, the appellant had inflicted injury on the person of the complainant. The injury had been inflicted on the person of the complainant in her house and hence, there was no independent witness present at the scene of occurrence. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. The complainant, while appearing in the witness box as PW-1, deposed that appellant had remained as a tenant in her house for about three years. They had got the house vacated about three months prior to the occurrence. On 16.9.2007, she was present in her house along with her husband and children. At about 12.00 noon, appellant entered their house and said that he would teach them a lesson for getting the house vacated at the instance of the residents of the area. Appellant inflicted a knife blow below her right arm pit and then fled away from the spot. She was got admitted in the hospital by her husband. The statement of the complainant is duly corroborated by her husband Kanhaya Lal-PW 2, who deposed that on the same day, police had visited the spot and had lifted blood stains from the spot. Accused was arrested on 18.3.2008 and during interrogation, he had suffered a disclosure statement and on the basis of the same, knife was got recovered by the appellant from the disclosed place. 7. PW-6 Dr. Subhashini Gupta deposed that on 16.9.2007 at about 12.20 pm, she had medico legally examined the complainant and found following injury on her person:- Incised wound 5 cam x 2 cm present over the right lateral side of lower one third of chest with corresponding cut in the blouse. Fresh blood was oozing out profusely.” 8. She declared the nature of injury as dangerous to life. Fresh blood was oozing out profusely.” 8. She declared the nature of injury as dangerous to life. She further deposed that on the same day she operated complainant Rabri Devi and a chest tube was also inserted in the stab wound. 9. PW-9 Dr.Ashok Kumar Gupta deposed that he had declared the complainant fit to make the statement at 2.30 p.m on 16.9.2007. He had also conducted an ultra sound examination of the complainant on 26.9.2007. 10. PW-10 Inspector Subhash Chander deposed with regard to the investigation conducted by him. The appellant, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., took up the plea that he was innocent. The victim had borrowed money from him and when he had demanded the same back, he had been falsely involved in this case. The appellant did not lead any evidence in his defence to support his said plea. 11. In the present case, prosecution had been successful in proving its case. The appellant had entered the house of the complainant at about 12.00 noon and inflicted a knife blow on her person in the presence of her husband and her children. Since occurrence has taken place in the house of the complainant, there was no public person present at the spot. In these circumstances, there is no force in the submissions made by learned defence counsel to the effect that the prosecution case was liable to be disbelieved as no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. Both the complainant and her husband have duly proved the prosecution case. Their statements being natural inspire confidence. The complainant has suffered an injury, which was declared dangerous to life. Hence, there is no occasion for the complainant and her husband to falsely involve the appellant in this case and shield the real culprit. The ocular version is duly corroborated by medical evidence. The knife used at the time of occurrence was recovered on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by the appellant during investigation. There is also no force in the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant that there was no motive with the appellant to inflict injury on the person of the complainant. The knife used at the time of occurrence was recovered on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by the appellant during investigation. There is also no force in the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant that there was no motive with the appellant to inflict injury on the person of the complainant. The complainant has specifically deposed that the injury had been inflicted on her person by the appellant as about three months prior to the occurrence, the appellant had been made to vacate the premises of the complainant taken on rent by the appellant. In these circumstances, learned trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant under Sections 452/ 307 IPC. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. 12. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. -------------------