HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Click here to view full judgement.
M.L.JAIN, J. -
(1.)THE appellant Ashok Kumar was convicted on 31-7-1982 under section 307 IPC by the learned Addl Sessions Judge and was sentenced on 2-8-1982 to under go rigorous imprisonment for five years and to a fine of Rs. 250/- in default whereof to rigorous imprisonment for one month. Hence, this appeal.
(2.)ON 7-11-1980 at about 6.30 p.m. Sanjiv Kumar (PW 1) complainant was going towards Ranjit Nagar on his cycle via Tank Road. When he reached Gali No. 3 Gobind Garh appellant Ashok Kumar was standing there, dragged him from the bicycle, caught hold of him and gave fist blows and also a knife blow on the left side of his abdomen and another knife blow on the right buttock. The assailant then escaped into the Gali. The occurrence was said to have been witnessed by Tirath Ram (PW 2) a friend of the complainant, and Gajraj Yadav (P W 5) a tenant in his house. The petitioner went running to the nearby police post and from there he was taken by Gajraj (PW 5) to the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. He was admitted there around 7 00 p.m. The duty constable Dhanpat informed the police post. Dharam Singh (PW 3) was on duty at the police post from 8 a.m. to 9.00 p.m. He received the information at 7.55 p.m. from Dhanpat and recorded D.D. No. 30. Thereafter, Ranbir Singh A.S.I. went to the hospital with constable Kanwar Singh (PW 4), obtained the M.L.C. and recorded the statement of Sanjiv Kumar on which a case was registered in the Police Station Karol Bagh.
The MLC report of Sanjiv Kumar was prepared by Dr. G.S. Kohli who could not be produced. because he left the service of the hospital and his whereabouts were not known. His signatures were identified by Ram,Niwas (PW 10) a clerk of the hospital. Upon X-ray Dr. J. Chatterji (PW 7) noticed intraparenial bleedings. Dr. C S. Rao operated on him. Dr. Rao is at present serving at Chandigarh, but was not produced However, Dr. A. Bhatnagar (PW 9) who was working in the surgical unit of the hospital under Dr. C. S. Rao deposed that Duedo Jejunal junction of the intestine of Sanjiv Kumar was injured. This injury in his opinion was dangerous
(3.)THE two eye witnesses have turned hostile, Gajraj (PW 5) said that Sanjiv Kumar was his tenant while Sanjiv Kumar said Gajraj was his tenant. Thus the prosecution was left only with evidence of Sanjiv Kumar. The trial court believed his statement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.