- (1.) This appeal arises from the following facts: Satish Chandra (PW.3) was running a video and tea shop in Tagore Villa, Dehradun and had employed Shanichar (PW.2) as a servant. It appears that Shanichar and Satish Chandra fell out over the payment of wages on which the former left his employment and accepted fresh employment with Rakesh Bahal, one of the appellant's herein, as a servant in his shop. On account of this development the relations between the parties, who were otherwise well known to each other, became extremely strained and some threat was given by the Rakesh Bahal that in case Shanichar was not returned to his employment, dire consequence would follow on the complainant party. As a result of some compromise, however, it was ultimately agreed that Shanichar would return to Rakesh Bahal and for that purpose Satish Chandra took Shanichar on his scooter to the residence of Rakesh Bahal. It is further the case of the prosecution that there was some altercation between Rakesh Bahal on the one hand and Satish Chandra, Neelam appellant (sister of Rakesh Bahal) and mother Raj Bahal on the other, and in the course of this altercation Rakesh Bahal, caused two injuries with a knife which he was carrying on the person of Satish Chandra. Satish Chandra was removed to the hospital but en route he told his brother Rajiv (PW.4) as to what had transpired and on this information a report was lodged by (PW.4) in the police station. The investigation was thereafter started and various steps therein were taken and on the completion thereof a charge under Section 307/34 was framed against the three accused - Rakesh Bahal his mother Raj Bahal and sister Neelam Bahal. The trial Court in its judgment dated 27/5/1991 relying on the statement of Shanichar (PW.2) and the injured himself Satish Chandra (PW.3) as also on the evidence of Dr. S.M. Sehgal (PW.1) who had examined Satish Chandra on his admission to the hospital on the crucial day, convicted appellant Rakesh Bahal under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo seven years R.I. and Neelam Bahal and Raj Bahal under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo two years R.I. each.
(2.) An appeal was thereafter filed in the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital by all three and was ultimately dismissed qua Rakesh Bahal and Neelam Bahal, the appellants herein, but as Raj Bahal had in the meanwhile passed away the appeal qua her was disposed of as having abated. It is in this situation that the matter is before us after grant of special leave.
(3.) Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, the learned Counsel for the appellants has raised several argument in the course of the hearing. She has pointed out that there was absolutely no justification in believing the story given by PW.2 and PW.3 as several other witnesses from the locality including one Rajender Kapur and Bablu were admittedly present at the place of incident and though examined by the police, had not been produced as witnesses in Court. It has further been pleaded that the evidence of PW.2 did not inspire confidence and as it suffered from glaring improvements vis-a-vis his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., the entire story stood falsified. It has also been contended that in any case Neelam Bahal, appellant could not have been roped in with the aid of Section 34 as no injury had been attributed to her, and as per the prosecution story she had only held Satish Chandra along with her mother so as to facilitate the infliction of the injury and that she was unaware that Rakesh Bahal was carrying a knife on his person. It has also been submitted that in any case in the background of the fact that Dr. S.M. Sehgal (PW.1) had not given a categoric opinion as to the nature of injury, the conviction, if at all, would fall under Section 323 or 324 of the IPC. Ms. Jaiswal's arguments have been controverted by the learned Counsel for the State. He has submitted that there was absolutely no reason to discard the evidence of PW.2 and PW.4 and the mere ipsi dixit of the accused in their statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. with regard to the fact that Satish Chandra had an evil eye on Rakesh Bahal's sisters including Neelam, which had led to the incident was not borne out from the evidence. It has also been pleaded that a case of common intention vis.-a-vis. Neelam Bahal was also made out and that from the overall tenor of the evidence of Dr. S.M. Sehgal (PW.1) it was apparent that the injury caused to Satish Chandra was dangerous to life.;