Judgment:
Malik Sharif-Ud-Din, J.
(1) The appellant has made a grievance against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 12th of May 1985 by which the appellant was convicted under section 302 Indian Penal Code . and was awarded imprisonment for life.
(2) The date of incident is 12th of February 1983 at 6.30 a.m. at Bhikam Singh Colony, Viswas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. The first informant is Public Witness . 8 Lal Mohammad (brother-in-law of Zarina, .deceased), Lal Mohmmad along with his wife Hasina was putting up in a Jhuggi at the said place and at a distance across the nullah. Shabir (P.W.10.) father of the deceased was residing in another Jhuggi along with his children. Deceased Zarina was the daughter of Shabir (P.W. 10), his another daughter Hasina is married to Lal Mohammad (P.W.8) who is also a first informant in this case. According to the first information which Lal Mohammad gave to the police at about 6.30 a.m. on 12th of February 1983 he was sleeping in his Jhuggi when he heard an alarm and on opening the door he found the appellant grappling with the deceased. The appellant was known to him as he was a tenant of his father-in-law. When he asked the appellant as to what was the matter, the appellant inflicted a number of blows with knife on Zarina which hit her on different parts of the body. His wife Hasina also came out of the house and some more people collected on the spot. The appellant thereafter escaped and even though be chased him, be was unable to over-power the appellant. While escaping the appellant left his chappals behind at the place of incident and managed to escape with the knife. When be returned be found his sister-in-law Zarina dead in the courtyard of his Jhuggi.
(3) On the same day at 12.30 p.m. the post-mortem of the dead body was conducted by Public Witness .7 Dr. L.T. Ramani. He noticed the injuries on the person of the deceased and also opined that the cause of death was the injuries received by the deceased with a sharp edged weapon on the same date and the time of the incident. There is no need for us to make reference to the detailed statement of Dr. L.T. Ramani as it has been mentioned in detail in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and there is no dispute about the cause of death.
(4) It may be noticed that the information regarding the incident was given to the police by one Lok Pal Singh (now dead) and consequent to the information the police immediately reached on the spot and recorded the statement of Lal Mohammad, marked Ex. Public Witness 3/A, which formed the basis of the F.I.R. The investigating officer besides seizing other material connected with the commission of the crime also seized two pairs of chappals Ex.P-l and Ex. P-2, respectively, belonging to the appellant and the deceased and also a Tasala which was being carried by the deceased with cow dung In fact, as would appear from the statement of Shabir (P.W.10) father of the deceased, she had that morning gone to prepare dung cakes. After the appellant was arrested on the same day be made a disclosure statement Ex. Public Witness 12/A pursuant to which the weapon of offence (chhuri) was seized at his instance from the Nullah. The accused at the time of his arrest was wearing blood stained clothes comprising of Kurta (Ex. P-5), Coat (Ex. P-6), Pant (Ex. P-8) and was having a towel (Ex. P-7). These were also seized and were subsequently sent to the serological department for examination and opinion On Chemical examination of these clothes seized from the appellant were found to contain human blood of Ab group, same as was found on the clothes of the deceased.
(5) The entire case of the prosecution, in fact, hinges on the testimony of Public Witness 8 Lal Mohammad and his wife Public Witness .9 Hasina who had seen the incident and both of them have corroborated the prosecution case that they saw the appellant inflicting injuries on the person of the deceased at about 6.30 a.m on the date of incident. Public Witness s 11 and 12 Mangal and Babu Khan are also supposed to have been the incident but it appears to us from their testimony that they reached the scene of incident while the appellant was being chased with a chhuri in his hand by Lal Mohammad Public Witness .8. According to both these witnesses, on the morning of the incident they had gone to ease themselves when they heard the alarm as a result of which they reached the spot and saw the incident. A close perusal of their testimony shows that they, in fact, reached the spot when the appellant with a chhuri in his hand was escaping and was being chased by Lal Mohammad. 267
(6) The stand of the appellant is that he was being asked by Shabir, father of the deceased, to leave his house and since he wanted to evict him, he was involved in this false case. Shabir (P.W.10) has admitted that the appellant was his tenant and that since he had teased his daughter he bad asked him to vacate the premises. He further has added that even though there was an altercation on this issue it was finally settled with the intervention of Mohallawalas. indeed, it cannot be denied that the appellant was being asked to vacate the premises by Shabir, but that by itself is no reason to implicate him in such a heinous crime. There is nothing in the testimony P.Ws 8 and 9 Lal Mohammad and Hasina which could reader them untruth worthy. In fact, we find their evidence most satisfactory particularly, in view of the fact that there was no time for manipulation and the entire case was investigated by 12.30 p m. on the same date. In the light of this the statement of Public Witness .8 Lal Mohammad Ex. Public Witness 3/A which formed the basis for this F.I.R. is the correct version of the incident.
(7) This ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses is further corroborated by the fact that the clothes of the accused Exts.P-5 to P-8 which are seized by P. W.I 6 Inspector Jai Singh in the presence of Public Witness . 8 Lal Mohammad bear the human blood of A B group which was similar to that of the deceased as found on serological examination. The report of the Serologist Ex. Public Witness 16/D is on the record. This directly goes to provide corroboration to the testimony ofP.W8 Lal Mohammad and Public Witness . 9 Hasina that the appellant inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased and it was in that incident that he got these blood stains on his clothes. Now apart from this, the other piece of evidence which provides corroboration to the fact that the accused was involved in the commission of this crime is the seizure of pair of chappals of the accused from the scene of the incident. Lal Mohammad (.P.W 8) has clearly testified that while escaping, the appellant left this pair of chappals behind and he has, as such, identified it as that of the appellant. This seizure was also witnessed by Lal Mohammad (P.W 8) and Mushtaq Ali (P. W.I 4) who have signed the seizure memo Ex. Public Witness 8/A after the same was prepared by the investigating officer. The chhuri seized pursuant to the disclosure of the accused could not, however, be connected with the commission of the crime as it bad been thrown by the appellant in the nullah and in all probability in the process the blood stains got washed. The autopsy surgeon Dr. L.T. Ramani, however, is of the view that the injuries inflicted on the person of the deceased could be inflicted with the weapon of offences seized in this case. In our view, thereforee, the eye witness account of Public Witness s 8 and 9 which has been corroborated by circumstantial evidence mentioned above sufficiently goes to show that the appellant committed this crime.
(8) In our view, thereforee, the Additional Sessions Judge has rightly passed the order under appeal. We find no infirmity in the said order. The result is that this appeal is dismissed and the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall stand confirmed.