Surinder Grover vs Delhi Administration

Mr. Mudgal appeared as amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant at the instance of the Court.

The sole appellant is the accused who is convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life for causing the death of one Raj Kumar by inflicting injuries with a knife. The occurrence took place on 2-11-1978. One Savita (P.W. 11) aged about 12 years is the eye witness on whose evidence both the courts below relied and convicted the appellant.

The prosecution case is as follows :-

There had been bitter enmity between the accused and his brother Subhash (PW-20). The father of these two persons had been siding with the accused. There had been a number of civil as well as criminal litigations bet ween the accused and his father on one side and Subhash on the other side. A case under Section 392 IPC had been registered against Subhash and Raj Kumar (deceased) by the accused. The accused also filed a complaint under Sections 506 and 511 Indian Penal Code against his brother and the deceased Raj Kumar which was pending. While so on the date of occurrence PW-11, a student, who was residing with her family members in the house of one Saraswati as tenant witnessed the occurrence. She deposed that she had accompanied the deceased for going to the house of Subhash as she was to apply Teeka on Subhash''s son''s forehead being a Bhaiduj day. The deceased had taken out his bicycle and PW-11 sat on the front rod and at about 7.30 A.M. they had reached in front of the house in Gujrawalan Town. The accused came and stopped the cycle of the deceased and hurled abuses at the deceased. He took out a knife from his pocket and attacked the deceased. PW-11 became panicky and stood aside. She saw the accused inflicting injuries on the decea sed. The deceased who was severely wounded was put on a bullock-cart for taking to the hospital but meanwhile PW-9 (A.S.I.) who came on a police patrol took the injured to Bara Hindu Rao Hospital but he died very soon at about 8.55 a.m. Within half-an-hour the statement of PW-11 was recorded in which she had given all the details. The inquest was held on the dead body and it was sent for post-mortem. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem found ten incised wounds mostly on the forearm and chest and one on the back of the abdomen and another on the right side. He opined that the injuries 8, 9 and 10 were sufficient to cause death to the ordinary course of nature. The accused was absconding and he was arrested later. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid.

The accused pleaded not guilty and stated that on that day he was at Hoshiarpur and was treated as an out patient in the hospital. DWs 1 to 5 were examined, some of them are doctors.

The trial court as well as the appellate Court found that PW-11 was a natural witness and there was no infirmity whatsoever worth mentioning which affects her veracity. Coming to the alibi evidence both the Courts have examined the evidence adduced on be half of the accused in support of his alibi. DW-4 Dr. Yashvir, Senior Medi cal Officer-in-charge of Civil Hospital Hoshiarpur, gave evidence to the effect that an out-patient ticket was always issued from the Out-Patient Depart ment to an out patient. However, a chit has not been produced. Their evidence only go to show that two persons by name of Surinder were treated. This evidence is not at all conclusive. How ever, on 10-12-1978, the accused sent two telegrams to the Metropolitan Magistrate for adjournment of case on the ground of serious illness. That would show that he was seriously ill on 10-12-1978 but the accused did not produce any documentary evidence in support of the same and there was no evidence regarding the nature of illness. Both the courts having examined the stand taken by the accused and the evidence adduced in support of an alibi reached the conclusion that the alibi has not at all been established. Having gone through the record and PW-11''s evi dence which is natural, cogent and convincing both the courts having ac cepted the same, we see no merits in this appeal, the appeal is dismissed accord ingly.