C.M. Totla, J.
1. Appellants per judgment dated 17.10.2002 are held guilty and sentenced as under:
(i) Appellant Shiv Kumar for the offence of (a) Section 302 IPC - life imprisonment with fine Rs. 500/-, in default one month's simple imprisonment; (b) Section 148 IPC - three years rigorous imprisonment; (c) Section 145 Railways Act - two months simple imprisonment with fine Rs. 100/-, in default seven days.
Appellants (ii) Purshottam Lal, (iii) Satiya, (iv) Balia, (v) Omprakash (and also (vi) Subhash) (a) of Section 147 IPC - two years rigorous imprisonment; (b) Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC - life imprisonment and fine Rs. 500/- in default one month's simple imprisonment; (c) Section 145 Railways Act - two months simple imprisonment with fine Rs. 100/-, in default seven days.
2. Appeal No. 945/02 challenges conviction and sentence of appellant Shiv Kumar @ Pappu, whereas other appeals are of remaining five. Appellant Subhash (No. in appeal No. 878/02) expired so appeal for him abates and wherever his name appears, is only in context of continuity and determining role whatever of other appellants. All above appeals are being decided by this common judgment.
3. On March 3rd, 2000, at platform No. 6 railway station, Hanumangarh Junction, one Anil 22 years, stabbed at chest, collapsed then and there and per post-mortem Ex.P15 and evidence of medical officer PW 7, deceased Anil died due to following injuries:
Stab wound at mid chest just above left nipple 1.25 x .25' depth 2.25' upto thoracic cavity, interiorly found wound of 1' dimension piercing left lung then a wound of same dimension on layer cover (membranes) heart and of depth wound of 1.25' in left ventricle of heart.
4. Just at that time, constables PW 1 and PW 2 of RPF police station at platform observed a person barefooted and with a knife in his hand runningly passing from in front of police station and people gathering at platform. Constables informed their commander PW 10 who in turn telephoned SHO, police station, GRP PW 12 who making entry in roznamcha proceeded to place of occurrence. There, at platform No. 6 was dead body of Ani in a pool of blood and was his brother Gaurishanker PW 11 giving written report Ex.P 20, informed that brother Anil was out to bazar at 1 O'clock, then, he (PW 11) with Chiranji Lal PW 5 at about 3 O'clock went to bazar returning to their quarter, were passing through platform No. 6, observed Shiv Kumar, Omprakash, Purushottam, Subhash, Satiya and Balia, all in intoxicated state, abusing to and quarreling with Anil - PW 11 and PW 5 counselling and reconciling calmed them, also advised to refrain from doing so, thereafter, as they both PW 11 and PW 5 proceeding towards their home, covered about 40 steps, heard from behind crying sound of Anil, so they turning observed that Shiv Kumar stabbing a knife in chest of Anil. In this report, FIR, PW 11 also mentioned that as they runningly reached there, saw that Shiv Kumar leaving his sandals ran away passing from in front of RPF who - also seen by constables Bhomaram PW 1 and Gordhan PW 2. Further, in the FIR also mentioned of a quarrel some days prior between Shiv Kumar and Anil and of injury at right hand to Anil. SHO PW 12 making own endorsement forwarded report Ex.P20 with accompanying constable PW 8 to police station, where the then incharge head constable PW 13 registered FIR No. 13/2000 Ex.P19 for the offences of Sections 302, 147, 148 IPC and also Section 145 Railways Act.
5. Commencing investigation, PW 12 (i) inspecting place of occurrence, prepared memo and site plan Ex.P11, (ii) place was photographed by PW 4 - negatives Exs. P3A to 5A and positives P3, P4 and P5, (iii) dead body was at platform, head in north eastern direction and at a distance of about 20' to body, was a shoe of deceased which seized and sealed, preparing memo Ex.P7, (iv) at distance of 30' from body was a pair of sandal type chappal, one with little blood which seized and sealed, preparing memo Ex.P9 and packet marked A, (v) samples of spread blood with dead body and of scratches of concrete floor separately collected and sealed, preparing memo Ex.P8 and packets marked A1 and A2, (vi) examining body, memo Ex.P6 prepared, (vii) post mortem conducted and report Ex.P15 prepared by PW 7 and handed over shoe on body of deceased and also blood stained shirt to SHO who sealed marking packet F and preparing memo Ex.P10, (viii) all accused persons arrested between 8 to 9.30 p.m. and subjected to medical examination conducted by PW 7 who all were found to be intoxicated - report Ex.P16, (ix) on information and per disclosure recorded as Ex.P29 and at the instance of Shiv Kumar, PW 12 on March 7th recovered-from a depleted water hut near railway loco shed a knife of about 24 cm having 13.5 cm sharp fulcrum cm and also a blue shirt having some blood like stains preparing memo Ex.P21. Packets of collected and recovered articles intactly delivered at FSL. After usual investigation, charge-sheet submitted.
6. Appellants are charged that they on 3.3.2000 at 3.30 p.m. afternoon at platform railway station Hanumangarh armed with knife like weapon with unlawful object of killing and injuring Anil Kumar constituted unlawful assembly and in pursuance of the common object, Shiv Kumar stabbing knife, caused his death.
7. Prosecution examined 13 witnesses, who all broadly deposed per above description. PW 3 father of deceased is a motbir of body examination and PW 9 a motbir of recovery of knife and shirt, at the instance of appellant Shiv Kumar. Others relate to safe keeping and delivering articles at FSL etc.
8. Stand of all appellants, including that of Shiv Kumar has been that witnesses telling lie and false case implanted because of enmity.
9. In defence, examined witness Gulam Mohammed DW 1, state that he a railway water man was on duty at platform No. 6 and he called brother of deceased PW 11 only after death of Anil.
10. Heard learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants and also the learned Public Prosecutor.
11. Learned Counsel for the appellants extensively arguing on facts urged that presence of PW 11 or PW 5 is highly coincidental and they are not only chance witnesses, but also interested witnesses. Mentioning said inconsistencies, contradictions and non-probabilities appearing in testimony of PWs 1, 2, 5 and 11, urged that their evidence is not of any credence. Also thrustly submitted that stabbing, if taken to be proved, is by appellant Shiv Kumar who neither had an intention, nor knowledge of causing death and the incident occurred in and because of sudden fight and/or spur of moment so cannot go beyond Section 304 Part II IPC for Shiv Kumar alone. For other appellants, thrustly submitted that their presence is not proved and no unlawful assembly was - and if at all any of them was present, they had no object or knowledge of likelihood of causing any such injury.
12. Also submitted that for determining liquor investigation blood test is a must.
13. In support of contentions, cited are (i) Sandhya Jadav v. State of Maharashtra : 2006 (4) SCC 653, (ii) : 2009 Crl. L.J. 360 Budhi Lal v. State of Uttarakhand, (iii) : 1971 (3) SCC 930, Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra, and (iv) 2008 (2) CJ (Raj.) Cr.759 Chauth Mal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan.
14. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that all appellants constituting an assembly together were abusing and quarreling with Anil who was alone and even after advise of PW 11 and PW 5 soon after one of them inflicted injury by a sharp knife at very vital part, chest.
15. Thoughtfully considering arguments, we have carefully gone through the evidence, perused record, the judgment assailed and memo of appeal.
16. A look the testimony of PW 11 and PW 5 supported by PW 1 and PW 2, stands proved that deceased Anil died then and there within minutes of stabbing sustaining above injury. As such death is proved to be homicidal one.
17. Also stands established by the evidence of Dr. Gupta PW 7 incharge Government hospital, Hanumangarh that at about 11.10 p.m. of same night 3.3.2000, all accused appellants were under intoxication of liquor and further, appellant Shiv Kumar had injuries (i) abrasion of 1.25' behind left elbow, (ii) Linear wound caused by sharp object of 1' at left palm. Injuries were of 12 hours duration and report Ex.P16.
18. Needless to say that depending on other facts and circumstances, sustaining (with nature in relation to incident) of injuries by a person said to be assailant may be of relevance.
19. Direct evidence for the incident is of PW 11 and PW 5 corroborated and supported by PW 1 and PW 2. PW 1 is real brother of deceased who says that they with other family members resided in quarter railway colony, Haunmangarh junction. PW 5 is brother of wife of PW 11. PW 11 and PW 5 both say that at about 3 p.m., they were out to bazar for getting some kerosene needed by PW 5. PW 11 and PW 5 both categorically state that while returning from bazar, they passing through platform No. 6, observed that these six persons (named) were quarreling with and abusing Anil, so they counselling calmed them and advised to refrain of any such. Both say that after advising, they asked Anil to accompany them to home and Anil accompanied them a little distance, then telling of some assignment at Gandhi Nagar separated. Both witnesses straightly say that no sooner they proceeded 40-50 paces, they hearing crying voice of Anil, turning back, saw that they (appellants-some) getting hold of Anil, were beating him by hands and instantly Shiv Kumar pierced a knife at chest of Anil and then Shiv Kumar leaving his sandals ran away through across front of RPF station. Gauri Shanker PW 11 states that turning back, observed that Purushotam, Omprakash and Balia were holding and others were beating ('thappa-mukki') Anil and then Shiv Kumar stabbed and instantly as they (PW 11 and PW 5) Shiv Kumar stabbed Anil. PW 5 states that as they turned back, saw that Omprakash and Subhash were holding and Subhash and Balia beating to Anil. Both these material witnesses say that they remaining there were taking care of Anil and police came-information Ex.P 20 handed over by PW 11 and SHO PW 12 did as above before them. Different memos of site inspection, body examination etc. bear their signatures.
20. Regarding credence of above two witnesses, argued on behalf of the appellants is that they are not only interested but also chance witnesses as well whose presence on the site cannot be taken to be normal. Submitted is that FIR Ex.P20 lodged by PW 11 specifically mentions of earlier violent quarrel between Shiv Kumar and Anil and also causing of injury to Anil which shows of deep enmity. Further submitted is that if and as is the prosecution case, deceased accompanied PW 11 and PW 5 for their home and then soon came back show that he was aggressor. Also argued is that per PW 11, he wrote FIR Ex.P20 taking out a paper from his own pocket, whereas Ex.P20 per own admission of PW 11 does not have any folds so possibilities of manipulations of may types are.
21. In our considered opinion, analysing evidence and established circumstances, the arguments cannot stand.
22. Definitely, the witnesses PW 11 and PW 5 are relatives but only being relatives can hardly be any reason for doubting, much less discarding evidence. In these materialistic time, when persons for whatever or so many reasons are reluctant or at least do not come actively forward to testify or to be witnesses, this shall indeed be too much to expect any other (no called independent) evidence. Credence and worth believeness of witnesses depends on innumerable factors and circumstances. Moreover, it was a railway platform. Per oral evidence stands established that over railway tracks of Hanumangarh railway station is a over bridge, connecting railway medical colony and bazar. PW 11 resided in medical colony quarter - bazar and settlement are on the either side or ends of the railway station, so very much is the normal and at least not abnormal is presence of PW 11 and PW 5 who else could have been available witnesses, either stranger or persons wandering there, or passenger and railway employees, if any, there. No fact shows availability, arrival or departure of any train. PW 1 and PW 2 are employees posted there and produced defence witness Gulam Mohd. DW 1 is a water man for whom suffice to mention that not is disclosed as to where and for what specific purpose he was. In any case, he did not see incident and no reluctance can be hold circumstance apart only Shiv Kumar stabbed deceased. Nearby is the RPF check post and if at all for the sake of argument any corroboration of oral evidence is required, then is of PWs 1 and 2 whose presence is disputable. PW 1 says that he was on guard duty at the police station. PW 2 another constable says that he was there to find out about his duty which commenced at 4 p.m. PW 1 and PW 2 both say very straight and categorically that they observed a person running barefoot with knife and little blood stains on his hand from across RPF station and observed some crowd gathering at the platform where a person had died soon before caused injury they also says that subsequently on very same day and not late they came to know of names of the persons. No identification conducted but when identity is very much certain name disclosed soon and presence established, it is not of significance as also is observed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in : 2009 (9) SCC 719 Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab.
23. The point of ascertainment of identify also becomes meritless as PW 1 instantly informed his commander Shri Dixit PW 11 who immediately informed on phone to SHO GRP, entry of which, Ex.P32, in roznamcha GRP is. Non-entry in roznamcha of RPF is irrelevant. Thus, stands established that appellant Shiv Kumar stabbed the deceased at the place of occurrence.
24. SHO PW 12 says that appellant Shiv Kumar was arrested on March 3rd at about 9.00 p.m. on March 7th told him of having concealed the knife and own shirt in a depleted house and so recorded information as Ex.P29. SHO PW 12 states, and is corroborated by motbir PW 9, that Shiv Kumar leading, they were at a depleted construction water hut near loco shed from where Shiv Kumar taking out a knife and shirt handed over which seized and sealed preparing memo Ex.P21. Other evidence establishes that the sealed packets kept intactly and delivered at FSL. Report Ex.P31 proves that on all articles, that is on pant and shirt of the deceased and also on recovered knife, were stains of human blood. Though, no particulars regarding blood group of appellant is available but this fact itself and blood also (group not determined) was on a pair of chappal recovered (not of deceased), is a important circumstance and piece of evidence against the stabber.
25. Again as above were the injuries at palm of sharp on the person of Shiv Kumar caused at about the same time. This too is a very strong circumstance, As is established, appellants were in drunken stage-smelt liquor till 1.00 P.M.
26. Contention that for proving intoxication, blood test is essential, is devoid of merit as in this particular case guilt is for consuming liquor nor other act is to be established on this count alone. Stands established that smell was coming out from the mouth of the appellant.
27. Therefore, finding that it was appellant Shiv Kumar who stabbed deceased is perfect and the same is affirmed.
28. Now to be determined is whether the act is murder. Very clear is that some quarrel was on-deceased proceeding a little with PW 11 and PW 5 than stayed around there and soon within a minute or two, the incident occurred. As is proved PW 11 and PW 5 did calm appellants - after calming down, no overt act till deceased parted from PW 11 and PW 5, is attributed to anyone. It may be noted that in the quarrel between appellants and Anil, which counseled and calmed down by PW 11 and PW 5 - not is attributed beating or inflicting injury by any to any which shows that abuses and quarrel was of intensity but oral. Had there being any intention of causing any injury, some attempts or like little overt act for it would have been. Even just before stabbing, only a little beating by hands was and injury except stabbing on the person of deceased found, meaning thereby that by hand beating no worth injury caused. One injury is inflicted by sharp weapon. Before stabbing, none claims to have seen knife or any other article which may be used for causing injuries. Per PW 11 and PW 5 both, suddenly Shiv Kumar taking knife out, stabbed. Had there been any intention to cause death or intention to cause such injury as likely to cause death, than certainly, in normal course, some overt act by any for causing some injury would have been. Deceased in no way was prevented from going. All these factors taken cumulatively, in the opinion of the Court, strongly suggest that neither was any intention to cause death, nor intention to cause a injury likely to cause death. Hon'ble the Apex Court in several authorities have held that intention or otherwise is to be gathered on numerous factors and circumstances during and leading to occurrence.
29. Though no intention, was but again, stabbing is by knife and at a very vital part, mid of chest. Stabbed with such force and intensity that only injury pierced up to and in heart. All these conclusively establish though that no intention to kill but inflicter did know and had every reason to know that as a result of injury, death is very likely. Therefore, the act of the appellant Shiv Kumar falls well within Section 304 Part I IPC.
30. Regarding unlawful assembly and nuisance definitely in the quarrel upto the point of calming down by PW 11 and PW 5, every appellant totalling more than five were involved and every some how was abusing and quarrelling with Anil, so unlawful assembly is proved-and such assembly at a railway platform with aggressive quarrel and abuses and they also guilty of nuisance.
31. Now to be determined id responsibility and culpability of other members of the assembly for the act of stabbing by Shiv Kumar.
32. Subsequent to calming down when on hearing cries of the deceased, PW 11 and PW 5 turned, they observed per PW 11 that Purushottam, Omprakash and Balia got hold of and others beating and pushing to Anil and then Shiv Kumar stabbed. Per PW 5, among involved Omprakash and Subhash caught hold, whereas Subhasn and Balia did beat and Shiv Kumar stabbed. Therefore, presence of Purushottam at the place of incident, (after calming down of earlier quarrel), becomes doubtful but including appellant proved is assembly of five. But they were simply beating and as is observed during going on and calmed down auarrel occurred, only a few minutes earlier, no attempt or act or overt act of causing injury attempted and than (subsequently) Shiv Kumar, all of a sudden, taking knife out, stabbed. Therefore, in the circumstances, it becomes highly doubtful, if persons other than actual stabber (Shiv Kumar) had any knowledge, likelihood and object of causing injury by sharp article.
33. Common object is to be inferred from the acts, behavior and other surrounding elements, including conduct and reaction prior and after. In certain circumstances, different may be object at different intermittent stages, in determining common object, the conduct of each member of the unlawful assembly before or at the time of incident and even after is relevant. Here no else other than Shiv Kumar carried any article for causing injury and nothing to suggest that knife with Shiv Kumar was in knowledge of any other member of unlawful assembly. No injury even of hard object is only Shiv Kumar ran away and others though disbursed soon but not so much hurriedly, therefore, in the opinion of the Court, only common object of causing but could have been and so stands proved. Therefore, members, other than Shiv Kumar common object only was of causing simple injuries. Hon'ble the Apex Court has also observed in (i) : 2009 (10) SCC 773 Pandurang Chandrakant v. State of Maharashtra and (ii) : 2009 (7) SCC 415 Akbar Shekh v. State of West Bengal, that when many who participated in the commission of crime, are to be convicted with the aid of Section 149, needed is consideration of particular fact situation, including overt act proved. Here, it was only Shiv Kumar who stabbed and became away runningly fast.
34. Accordingly, appellants other than Shiv Kumar (Satiya @ Satyanarain, Balia, Purshottam Lal & Omprakash @ Kalu) are held guilty of offences punishable under Sections 147, 323 read with Section 149 IPC and also Section 145 Railways Act.
35. For the aforesaid reasons, appellant Shiv Kumar is to held guilty of Section 304 Part I IPC and also of Section 147 IPC and Section 145 Railways Act. Appellants Satiya, Balia, Purshottam and Omprakash are guilty of offences under Sections 147, 323 read with Section 149 IPC and also Section 145 Railways Act. All are to be acquitted if the offences of Section 302 or 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
36. Appellant Shiv Kumar is in custody since March, 3, 2000 and by now, has suffered imprisonment little more than ten years. All other circumstances remaining normal, he should have also earned remission so now, therefore, in the opinion of the Court, sentence for the period already undergone with fine of Rs. 10,000/- shall be just and appropriate. Other appellants, broadly remained in custody for about four months so for them also for the offences they have been guilty, sentence of period already undergone shall meet ends of justice.
37. Accordingly, partly are to be allowed appeals.
38. Allowing appeals partly -
(A) appellant Shiv Kumar @ Pappu is held guilty, convicted and sentenced for the offence of (i) Section 304 Part I IPC - 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine Rs. 2000/- - in default four months rigorous imprisonment, (ii) Section 147 IPC - two years rigorous imprisonment, (iii) Section 145 Railways Act - two months simple imprisonment and fine Rs. 100/- - in default seven days and acquitted for the offence of Section 302 and also Section 148 IPC.
(B) appellants (1) Satiya @ Staya Narain, (2) Balia, (3) Omprakash @ Kalu are held guilty, convicted and sentenced for the offences of (i) Section 147 IPC - sentenced for the period already undergone - (ii) Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC - sentenced for the period already undergone and fine Rs. 500/- - in default 15 days simple imprisonment, (iii) Section 145 Railways Act - two months simple imprisonment and fine Rs. 100/- in default - 7 days. All above are acquitted for the offence of Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
(C) Appellant Purshottam Lal is acquitted for all the offences charged of.
39. All substantive sentences for all to run together.
40. Appellants other than Shiv Kumar are on bail which shall stand discharged on payment of fine imposed as above setting off the amount paid earlier, if any. Fine to be deposited before trial Court on or before April 30, 2010, failing which to present before that Court.
41. Accordingly is ordered in above different appeals.