Judgment:
Charanjit Talwar, J.
(1) By this appeal, the two appellants Dm Singh and Doonger Singh who are father and son, are challenging their conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having murdered one Subhash @ Bhasi on 1st July, 1983. They are further challenging the order sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life.
(2) We have gone through the record with the assistance of Mr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants. As we are affirming the findings, we do not consider it necessary to notice the facts of the prosecution in detail as those have been extensively dealt with by the learned trial court. The gravamen of the allegations against the appellants were that two days prior to the date of incident, there was a quarrel between Subhash (the deceased) and Doonger Singh @ Babli, who were both residents of J. J. Colony, Mangolpuri, Delhi. The deceased's mother, PW-4 Smt. Darshana has deposed to that fact in the following words :-
'TWO days prior to 1-7-83, my son Subhash @ Bhasi deceased had told me that there was a quarrel between him and Dhir Singh and his son Babli and for that reasons, the relations between them were sttained'.
(3) The appellants in their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when asked about the said quarrel, replied that they did not know about it. However, in a suggestion made to PW-1 Surinder Pal, it was practically admitted that there was such a fight about 2 or 3 days prior to the date of incident. We are of the view that the prosecution has established through the testimony of Smt. Darsbana that there had been a quarrel between the appellants and her son two days prior to 1st July, 1983 and that on the date of the incident, Dhir Singh was the one who had gone to the house of the deceased at about 9 P.M. and took him away. Darshana's elder son Surinder Pal (Public Witness -I), who is a three-wheeler scooter driver arrived home at about 10 P.M. when his mother told him that Subhash had been called by Dhir Singh and had not by then returned. It was at that time that she informed him about the earlier quarrel. Thereupon, Surinder Pal left his house in order to search Subhash. On his way, he met Satpal (Public Witness -2) who is also a scooter driver and Subhash Chand (Public Witness -3), both of whom were of the same locality. They all proceeded towards the house of Dhir Singh. At this stage, it is appropriate to quote from the testimony of Surinder Pal :-
'HARDLY had we gone few paces when we heard the voice 'Bachao Bachao' coming from the side of Dhir Singh's house. I could identify the voice 'Bachao Bachao' as that of my brother Subhash. On hearing this voice we started going ahead and then I found in the middle of the park Dhir Singh had caught hold of my brother Subhash from his arm from bebind. Babli accused present in court (correctly identified) alias Dungar Singh was giving knife blows to my brother on his chest. He was giving knife blows continuously on my brother. Dhir Singh who had caught hold of my brother is present in court (correctly identified). When I saw my brother being inflicted injuries by the accused I started raising alarm for help and so did may companions Sat Pal and Subhash. When we raised alarm and sought help hearing this both the accused left my brother Subhash there and ran away towards Mangolpuri village side. We did not chase the accused persons because we apprehended danger to our lives as the accused was carrying knife in his hand. When I reached near my brother Subhash he had already breathed his last. In the meantime my mother also came at the spot. The police party on patrol duty also came at the spot in the meantime I lodged a report with the police party who arrived at the spot. My report is Ex. PWI/A. It bears my signatures at point-A which I signed in token of its correctness.'
(4) The report Ex. PWI/A was recorded by A.S.I. Harish Chander of Police Station Mangolpuri, Delhi. The report with his endorsement was dispatched to the Police Station at 12-05A.M. on 2nd July. 1983. In the said report, the date and time of occurrence has been shown as '1-7-83 at about 10.30 P.M.' The formal F.I R., translation of which has been Ex. PW6/A, was recorded on the basis of Ex. PWI/A at 12. 10 A.M.
(5) The prosecution in support of its case has examined the first informer Surinder Pal as PW-I, Satpal and Subhash Chand who had accompanied Surinder Pal in search of Subhash Bhasi have been produced as PWs 2 and 3 respectively. These two witnesses support Surinder Pal completely. All the three eye-witnesses were cross-examined at length but nothing worthwhile has been brought out to shake their credibility.
(6) We do not see any reason for differing with the findings of the learned trial court that testimony of the eye-witnesses read with the evidence of the mother of the deceased proves the case of murder against the appellants herein.
(7) The attack on Subhash resulted in as many as 16. incised wounds. According to Dr. L.T. Ramani (Public Witness 9) 'Injuries 5,6,7,9, 11,12 and 12 were individually sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Death was due to haemorrhage shock, resulting from injuries.'
(8) The post-mortem report conclusively brings out the fact that it was a case of brutal murder.
(9) After hearing counsel and going through The record, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed.