- (1.) K. Narain, J. These two appeals by Ajai Kumar and Bachchan are directed against the judgment and order dated 20. 12. 78 rendered by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, in S. T. No. 258 of 1978 convicting the appellants of the offence under Section 3u2/34, I. P. C. in respect of an occurrence of the evening of 24. 3. 78 in which Pramod Kumar alias Kallu was murdered.
(2.) PAPPU alias Aruj Raju and Munnn ware also tried in the same trial and were acquitted with a benefit of doubt in respect of the same charge. According to the prosecution, the conten tion as set forth before the trial court, one Nemi Chand, uncle of deceased Pramod Kumar alias Kallu runs a Halwai shop in Mohalla Bajria, Ferozabad. In the evening of incident, which took place around 9. 00 a. m. , his brother Chhotey Lal and his son Kallu deceased also had come to his shop. Chhotey Lal is in the business of goldsmith. Chhotey Lal and Kallu were just standing infront of the shop when accused Bachchan, Munna, Ajai Kumar, Raju, Pappu alias Arun came there and asked for 50 grams sweet for each, which was supplied. After eating the sweets, they began to leave the place, whereupon Nemi Chand asked for payment. They replied that they never paid anybody after eating and how could Nemi Chand dare ask for the same. The matter was then brought to the notice of Chhotey Lal and Kallu, who were standing infront of the shop. Since the accused had moved a few steps, Kallu went towards them and insisted that when they had eaten the sweet, they would have to pay for it. After some altar nation Munna, Ajai Kumar and Arun held the deceased from back and Bachchan and Ajai who by that time had taken out knives gave two -stab blows. As the deceased began to fall, the accused made good their escape. Kallu was taken to the hospital where he died before any medical aid could be rendered. A report of the incident was lodged by Nemi Chand. There was some difference about the names and aliases which shall be considered below. It may, however, be made clear that the said difference could be in respect of Pappu alias Arun who already stands acquitted. After necessary inquest etc. the body of Kallu was sent for post mortem examination which was conducted at 9. 45 a. m. on 25. 3. 78 by Dr. Prem Prakash, P. W. 5. He found two stab wounds upon the person of the deceased one in the chest region and the other in the abdomen. From the latter, the omentum was protruding, which fact will be material in respect of bleeding inasmuch as a protruding omentum would tie a cork from inside, which will mere obstruct when pressure increases inside.
(3.) THE prosecution had examined five witnesses in all in order to bring home the charge against the accused. THEy were P. W. 1 Nami Chand, P. W. 2, Chhotey Lal, the witnesses of occurrence itself, P. W. 3 R. D. Tyagi S. I. of Police who had investi gated the case and P. W, 4,h. C. Moharrir Lal Bahadur Singh, who had prepared the chik on the basis of first information report and P. W. 5 Dr. Prem Prakash. The testimony of P. W. 1, Nemi Chand and P. W. 2 Chhotey Lal has been vehemently challenged before us on behalf of the accused appellants. The first ground of attack was that they were very interested persons, being uncle and father of the deceased. Nobody can deny that they were interested in the deceased but had they any interest against the accused also. The answer can be only No as there has been no such sugges tion. The suggestion which we will deal below relates to different factors which would not obtain. In order to be interested witness, one should have some perceivable interest for or against one or the other. The interest in the deceased was not an interest but a love and affection for the later generation. Would they get any tangible or intangible benefit by giving false evidence against the accused. Naturally they are not going to gain anything, and that interest could not be achieved by getting another man on the street hanged or convicted The interest of such persons would weigh in their favour and cannot be a reason for discarding their testimony.;