Full Text
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 367/1998
Through Mr. A. J. Khan, Advocate.
Through Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J. :
Jamir Ahmed @ Jamiruddin has challenged his conviction vide impugned
JUDGMENT
Judge in Sessions Case No. 86/95 arising out of FIR No. 216/1994, Police
Station Jama Masjid. The impugned judgment accepts that the prosecution has been able to prove that the appellant had stabbed and murdered Mohd.
Asgar on 24th December, 1994 at about 9.30 P.M. in house No. B-42, Gali
Karim Hotel, Matia Mahal, Jama Masjid and had caused injuries to
Khursida, sister of Mohd. Asgar on the same date and time. Appellant had
2014:DHC:2261-DB trespassed into the said dwelling house for the purpose of causing hurt. By the same impugned judgment, Mohd. Sabir, brother-in-law of the appellant herein, had been acquitted. State has not preferred any appeal against the said acquittal. As per the prosecution version, Shah Jahan @ Sajjo was an equal co-participant, who shared common intention in the said offences.
Shah Jahan, mother-in-law of Mohd. Sabir, has not been arrested and was declared a Proclaimed Offender (PO).
2. In order to appreciate the prosecution version, undisputed facts may be noticed. Mohd. Kamil, Akbar Khan and Mohd. Jabbar were three brothers. Mohd. Kamil had adopted Mohd. Sabir as he did not have any children. Mohd. Sabir is married to one Noor Jahan, daughter of Shah Jahan (PO). The appellant-Jamir Ahmed is brother-in-law of Mohd. Sabir.
3. Akbar Khan (PW-12) was residing at house No.42, Gali Kababian, Jama Masjid along with his seven children, including daughter Khursida (PW-1), and sons; deceased Mohd. Asgar and Mohd. Aslam (PW-4). There is dispute whether Mohd. Sabir was also residing at the said property or not, but as noticed below, the said factual dispute need not be conclusively answered for decision of the present appeal.
4. There is ample evidence in view of the testimonies of Khursida (PW- 1), her father Akbar Khan (PW-12), Mohd. Aslam (PW-4) and Mohd. Sahid (PW-10) to show and establish that there were disputes and differences between Mohd. Sabir and the deceased- Mohd. Asgar and his family on the entitlement and use of the property No. B-42, Gali Karim Hotel, Jama Masjid, Matia Mahal, Delhi (the property, for short). Deceased Mohd. Asgar was to get married in about a month‟s time and he wanted to partition the said property to make provision for additional accommodation, but this was not acceptable to Mohd. Sabir. Khursida (PW-1) has deposed that altercation had taken place between deceased Mohd. Asgar and Mohd. Sabir and a police report was filed with Police Station Jama Masjid, but the matter was resolved/compromised with intervention of the family members and persons from the locality. Noor Jahan, wife of Mohd. Sabir had made a complaint to the said police station alleging that Mohd. Asgar had outraged her modesty. Mohd. Aslam (PW-4), brother of the deceased Mohd. Asgar, has similarly deposed about repeated quarrels between Mohd. Sabir and the deceased on the issue of partition, raising of the wall, etc. Mohd. Sahid (PW-10) has equally and affirmatively stated about the tension and quarrel on the question of partition and division of the house. Akbar Khan (PW- 12), father of the deceased has deposed on identical lines about the quarrel between the two families, which he had described as a small incident and had stated that Mohd. Sabir and his wife Noor Jahan had objected to raising of the wall to divide the house into two portions, etc.
5. Khursida (PW-1), Mohd. Aslam (PW-4), Mohd. Sahid (PW-10) and Akbar Khan (PW-12) have claimed and deposed that they were present at the property at the time of occurrence when the appellant along with Mohd. Sabir and Shah Jahan entered and trespassed into the property. The appellant inflicted knife blows on Mohd. Asgar at about 9.30 P.M. In the impugned judgment, the trial court has accepted the presence and eye-witness testimony of Khursida (PW-1) and the father of deceased Akbar Khan (PW- 12), but has not accepted the testimony of Mohd. Sahid (PW-10), uncle and Mohd. Aslam (PW-4), brother of Mohd. Asgar, to the effect that they were eye witnesses to the occurrence. We shall be referring to the reasons given by the trial court and examine the testimony of the four witnesses, who have claimed that they were eye witnesses, a position, which is disputed and under challenge in this appeal.
6. Before we examine their statements, we would like to refer to the statement of Taj Mohd (PW-5), maternal uncle (mama) of the deceased, who was residing in the neighbourhood. He has deposed that on 24th December, 1994 at about 9.45 to 10 P.M. he was present in his house B-29, Duzana House, Bazar Matia Mahal, Jama Masjid, when children of his locality informed him that his nephew Mohd. Asgar has been stabbed. He reached Irwin Hospital and found that Mohd. Asgar had suffered stab injuries and the doctor had declared him brought dead. He identified the dead body. In the cross-examination, PW-5 deposed that when he had reached the hospital, his nephew was still alive and had spoken to him. The police arrived after the death of Mohd. Asgar. Dr. Ravi Preet Singh (PW-
25) had examined the deceased Mohd. Asgar in Irwin Hospital on 24th December, 1994 at 10.15 P.M. vide MLC marked Exhibit PW-25/A. He has deposed that on 24th December, 1993, he had examined one patient Mohd. Ajwar (sic Asgar) Khan with alleged history of assault by knife by “Lachi”. On examination, he noticed lacerated wounds on the left shoulder, left leg, right hip joint and two lacerated wounds on the left elbow. The patient was admitted for surgical emergency and kept under observations. He has also proved MLC prepared/written by Dr. Rakesh Dogra for Khursida (PW-1). The said doctor had left the services of the hospital and the MLC of PW-1 was marked PW-25/B. The deposition of PW-25 in respect of PW-25/A remained unchallenged in the cross-examination. In the MLC (Exhibit PW- 25/B), it stands recorded that Khursida (PW-1) herself had informed about history. It is not disputed and under-challenge that the appellant-Mohd. Jamir Ahmed is also known as “Lachi”, a fact deposed to by Khursida (PW-
1) and Mohd Aslam (PW-4). Thus, the MLC (Exhibit PW-25/A) specifically records that the patient was brought by Taj Mohd. (PW-5). Dr. Ravi Preet Singh (PW-25) was informed that the patient had been assaulted by knife by Lachi. The patient i.e. Mohd. Asgar expired on 24th December, 1994 at
10.50 P.M. The MLC of Khursida (PW-1) records alleged history of assault by someone known to her. The MLC records the date and hour of arrival of Khursida (PW-1) on 24th December, 1994 at 10.15 P.M. and that she was declared unfit for statement at 11.46 P.M. Subsequently, she was discharged after observation on 25th December, 1994. She had simple injuries. It is, therefore, clear that the appellant had been named as the perpetrator, who had caused the injuries on Mohd. Asgar immediately after the occurrence and when the patient was taken to the hospital at 10.15 P.M. Khursida (PW-1) had also suffered injuries though simple in nature and was taken to the same hospital at about the same time. Khursida (PW-1) is an injured witness.
7. Presence of Khursida (PW-1) at the time of occurrence, we feel should be accepted. She has deposed that at that time she was watching television when the appellant along with Mohd. Sabir and Sajjo entered their house and exhorted. The appellant gave knife blows and repeatedly stabbed Mohd. Asgar. PW-1 tried to save Mohd. Asgar but Sajjo had pushed her aside, due to which she fell down and became unconscious. Mohd. Asgar was bleeding and blood was oozing from his body and was taken to Irwin Hospital. PW-1 was also taken to Irwin Hospital in unconscious state but regained consciousness after about half an hour. Later on PW-1 came to know that Mohd. Asgar was declared as brought dead. We do not think there is anything, which creates debate or doubt about her version as to the occurrence and that the appellant had caused injuries to Mohd. Asgar. As noticed above PW[1] is an injured eye-witness.
8. Similarly, we are inclined to accept the testimony of Akbar Khan (PW-12), the father of the deceased and Khursida (PW-1). PW-12 has deposed that appellant-Jamir, Sajjo and Sabir had suddenly barged into the house. Upon entering, Mohd. Sabir caught hold of Mohd. Asgar and the appellant had given knife blows and stabbed him on abdomen, chest, hip, etc. Khursida (PW-1) rushed to rescue Mohd. Asgar but Sajjo had pushed her and she fell down. Thereafter, he, Mohd. Aslam and Mohd. Sahid rushed to save Mohd. Asgar but the appellant and others ran away from the spot. Mohd. Aslam, Mohd. Sahid along with other residents had taken Mohd. Asgar to Irwin Hospital. Mohd. Asgar was profusely bleeding from the injuries sustained by him. He died in the hospital after being examined by the doctors. Khursida (PW-1) was also rushed to the hospital by Taj Mohd.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant, drew our attention to the site plan marked (Exhibit PW-15/A) and submitted that there are discrepancies in the statements of PWs-1 and 12 and the occurrence could not have been seen by the said witnesses. It was highlighted that blood at point „C‟ as per Exhibit PW-15/A was at a distance and in cemented gallery, whereas the alleged occurrence was in the room. We have considered the said contention but do not find any merit in the same. Blood is also shown at point „A‟ where the occurrence had taken place as well as at point „C‟, that is the cemented passage. The site plan clearly indicates the place from where Mohd. Akbar Khan (PW-12), Mohd. Aslam and Mohd. Sahid had witnessed the occurrence. Mere fact that Mohd. Akbar Khan (PW-12) had not suffered any injury, does not mean that he was not present at the spot on 24th December, 1994 at about 9 to 9.30 P.M. It was his own house. It is also apparent that Khursida (PW-1) had immediately rushed to protest/save, when the occurrence took place and knife blows or stab wounds were given to Mohd. Asgar. We have noticed the injuries suffered by Mohd. Asgar, which indicate that there were a number of knife blows and not one. The property in occupation was a small one with the open area in the middle. It consisted of one room in front, open courtyard and a veranda on the back side with two cots. It would have taken only a few seconds to move from one end to other.
10. Trial court has disbelieved presence of Mohd. Aslam (PW-4) and Mohd. Sahid (PW-10) at the spot and has observed that they probably reached the spot after the occurrence for the following reasons: They had not suffered any injuries and had allowed the appellant and others to run away from the spot. PWs-4 and 10 were not able to point out how many blows were given. PW-4 had stated that he was sitting in the interior room of the house. In the cross-examination he had stated that he was sitting in the interior room of the house and saw his sister was lying unconscious when he came out of the room on hearing cries. PW-4 has deposed that his sister Khursida had told him in detail about the incident, which shows that he may not have witnessed the actual incidence himself. Clothes of PWs-4 and 10 were not blood stained and both of them had not got the deceased and the Khursida admitted to the hospital. Inspector Chander Kant (PW-26) had stated that he had not observed blood stains on the clothes of PWs-4 and 10. Their clothes if blood stained should have been seized by the police. PW-10 had deposed that Mohd. Asgar had narrated the incident to him, which almost certainly points to the assertion that PW-10 himself had not witnessed the occurrence. There were contradictions in the testimony of PW-10. Mohd. Aslam (PW-4) had deposed that Mohd Sahid and he took Mohd. Asgar and Khurshida (PW-1) to the hospital, but this was not correct as per the MLC PW25/A and PW25/B of Mohd. Asgar and Khurshida respectively.
11. We have considered the said reasoning and examined depositions of PWs-4 and 10. We have reservations on the reasoning given by the trial court but it appears that PWs-4 and 10 were in the house and had rushed to the room where the occurrence had taken place within seconds after the first stab wound was given. We do not think the failure of the police to collect the blood stained clothes of PWs-4 and 10 should be read as a ground to disbelieve their version that they were present in the house. PW-4 has deposed that he was sitting in the interior room of the house and in fact the main entrance was not visible from the place where he was sitting and her sister Khursida was sitting at a place near the entrance door. On hearing cries, he came out of the room and Mohd. Sahid (PW-10) followed him. He had rushed Mohd. Asgar along with Mohd. Sahid to the hospital. 30 to 40 people had assembled at the spot. His clothes and that of his uncle (PW-10) had become blood stained but he did not remember whether they were seized by the police. The fact that his sister Khursida (PW-1) had told him details of the incident once she regained consciousness is not a ground to disbelieve the testimony of PW-4. Even if PW-4 was an eye witness along with PW-1, the latter could have reiterated and narrated the incident. The two MLCs (Exhibits PW-25/A and B) record presence of Taj Mohd as the relative or friend, who had brought the injured PW-1 and deceased-Mohd. Asgar, but this does not mean that others had not come to the hospital. It is not mandatory and required that presence of all persons, who had come to the hospital, or brought the deceased or injured person, should be recorded. Taj Mohd. (PW-5) in his deposition has affirmed that he had reached the hospital after being informed that his nephew Mohd. Asgar had been stabbed by some children of his locality. He did not claim or state that he had taken Mohd. Asgar to the hospital. Mohd. Sahid (PW-10) has deposed on more or less on similar lines and identically. He has stated that he and his brother-in-law were sitting in the inner room and in the first room Khursida (PW-1) and the nephew Aslam were sitting. There are no material contradictions in the testimonies as noticed and also elucidated below.
12. On the question of blood, which was splashed over in the house in question, i.e. house No. 42, Gali Karim Hotel Wali, Matia Mahal, Jama Masjid, we have evidence that the place was cleaned in form of testimony of Akbar Khan (PW12), who has stated that Noorjahan wife of accused-Mohd. Sabir had washed out the floor of the house where blood was lying. Mohd. Shahid (PW-10) had also proved the seizure memo (Exhibit PW-10/A) dated 25th December, 1994 prepared by Inspector Chander Kant (PW-26). As per the seizure memo, police had taken into possession, evidence from the place of occurrence in the form of cutting a corner of the blood stained wooden table, blood stained wrapper of „Dove Beauty Bar‟soap lying on the floor, blood stained pieces of floor after dismantling/cutting the same and piece of floor as earth control sample by cutting/dismantling the same. Blood was detected on the wood piece, the soap bar and small chips of cement material but could not be detected on earth control. CFSL report (Exhibit PX) also records that the earth sample and small piece of cemented material were similar to each other in respect of general physical characteristics and density gradient distribution of particles. The blood on the pieces of wood and wrapper of the soap were found to be of Group „B‟, which matches with the blood group of the deceased as per serological report (Exhibit PY) on the basis of blood group on the shirt, sweater, pants, etc. However, blood group on blood stained earth could not be ascertained because of no reaction. Photographs of the crime spot marked Exhibit P-2/1 to P-2/6 were taken by Satya Prakash (PW-2). The blood, which had fallen on floor and other areas has been indicated in the said photographs.
13. We have also referred to the MLC of Mohd. Asgar and Khurshida (Exhibits PW-20/A and 20/B) respectively. The post-mortem report of Mohd. Asgar (Exhibit PW-20/A) was proved by Dr. Basant Lal Sarohiwal (PW-24). He had conducted the post-mortem on dead body of Mohd. Asgar and had found four incised stab wounds; first on the chest cavity deep on the right side of the chest measuring 2.[5] x 0.[8] cm and the second stab wound 2.[6] x 1.[2] cm on the outer back of the left elbow perforating the skin and muscle underneath. The third incised stab wound 1.[8] x 0.[8] x 2.[5] cm on the upper outer side of the right thigh, back aspect and the fourth incised wound 1.[4] x 0.[6] x[1].[8] cm on the middle front of left arm. In addition, Mohd. Asgar had two abrasions on the lower front of right knee and on the left chest. The injuries were ante mortem and recent. The four stab wounds were caused by a single edged sharp cutting and stabbing weapon. Injury No. 1, it was opined, was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
14. In view of the aforesaid position, the medical evidence and the MLCs (Exhibits PW-20/A and 20/B) and the post-mortem report (Exhibit PW- 24/A) corroborate and affirm the ocular evidence of the eye witnesses.
15. Inspector Chander Kant (PW-26), who was also the Investigating Officer, has not contradicted any of the witnesses and has stated that he had reached JPN Hospital where ASI Udai Veer Singh (PW-18) was already present and had already obtained the MLC of both the injured. Subsequently, Mohd. Asgar expired and Khurshida, the doctors opined, was unfit for making any statement. PW-26 recorded the statement of Mohd. Akbar Khan (PW-12), father of the deceased (Exhibit PW-12/A), made endorsement (Exhibit PW-6/A) and sent the rukka for registration of the case though Const. Ram Prakash was handed over a sealed parcel containing underwear, vest, pant, shirt and sweater of the deceased-Asgar into possession. He then went to the spot of crime and got the place of occurrence photographed. The Crime team was summoned by him but, they could not lift any chance prints. He had taken into possession samples of the soap wrapper, piece of the wooden table, etc. Subsequently, at about 2 to 2.15 P.M. on 25th December, 1994, he arrested Mohd. Sabir, who, as noted above, has been acquitted. The accused/appellant Jamiruddin, however, was arrested only on 13th January, 1995 at about 6 P.M. outside the office of Deputy Commissioner of Police (Central), when he was going to appear before him. The weapon of offence, however, could not be recovered, but this, to us, is immaterial noticing the fact that there was a long delay since the occurrence in question happened on 24th December, 1994 and the accused/appellant was arrested on 13th January, 1995. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he had gone to the house of Sajjo(PO), mother of the present appellant, who is since absconding. At that time, there was nobody in the house.
16. ASI Udai Veer Singh (PW-18) has deposed identically and that he was handed over copy of DD No. 22A (Exhibit PW-9/A) which was recorded at 10.10 P.M. ASI Uday Veer Singh (PW18) along with Const. Ram Prakash went to the spot and came to know that occurrence had taken place in house No. 42 and not in 43 and also the factum that the injured has been removed to J.P.N. Hospital. He then went to house No. 42 and came to know that the appellant Jamir Ahmed, and Mohd. Sabir (who has been acquitted) and Sajjo had stabbed Mohd. Ashraf (Asgar). He did not find any eye-witness there and he along with Ct. Ram Prakash left for the J.P.N. Hospital. MLC of Ashraf (Asgar) and injured Khurshida were obtained. Ashraf (Asgar) had expired and Khurshida was declared unfit to make statement. Insp. Chanderkant along with other police officers reached the hospital and handed over the MLCs to him i.e. PW18. In the meanwhile, copy of DD entry No. 41B (Ex. PW18/A) was received in the hospital. Mohd. Akbar Khan‟s statement marked PW12/A was recorded by Insp. Chanderkant (PW26) in the presence of PW18. Rukka was sent after making endorsement through Const. Ram Prakash for recording FIR. Insp. Chanderkant along with others including PW18 then went to the spot where further proceedings were conducted. Mohd. Sabir was arrested from his house No. 1154, Churiwalan Matiya Mahal, Jama Masjid and interrogated. PW18 had stated in his cross-examiantion that the Investigating Officer had not got the place of occurrence photographed in his presence. He has also stated that crime team had not reached the spot though they had been summoned. He had not made enquiries from Taj Mohd. in the hospital and only later on came to know that Taj Mohd. had got the injured admitted to the hospital. He testified that except for Mohd. Akbar and Taj Mohd. he had not come across any other eye witness. He left after handing over the investigation of the case to Insp. Chanderkant. He visited the spot for the second time at 12.45 AM and subsequently again at 3.15 AM. Blood was lifted from three places from the corridor (gali) and the compound of the Katra. PW18 also deposed that the blood was lifted from outside the house No. 42 at different places. Mohd. Sabir, who has been acquitted, was taken to the hospital for medical examination as he had also suffered injuries. He was arrested from house No. 1154 from the first floor of the double storey house.
17. ASI Udai Veer (PW18) had described Mohd. Akbar (PW12) and Taj Mohd. (PW[5]) as eye-witnesses. However, Taj Mohd. was not an eyewitness. Aforesaid statement of ASI Udai Veer Singh (PW18), we do not think is a good ground or reason to disbelieve the ocular testimony of Khurshida (PW[1]), Mohd. Shahid (PW10) and Mohd. Aslam (PW[4]). It is apparent from the testimony of PW18 ASI Udai Veer Singh that he was constantly on move. Further, he was not present when the crime team visited the spot, and evidence/material from the place of occurrence was lifted. Moreover, his testimony was recorded on 20th March, 1997 nearly two and a half years after the occurrence on 24th December, 1994.
18. Const. Ram Prakash (PW[6]) who was with ASI Udai Veer (PW18), stated that when they visited the spot they came to know that the injured Mohd. Asgar‟s condition was serious as he had suffered knife blows and had been taken to Irwin Hospital. He along with ASI Yudhvir Singh rushed to the hospital and in the meanwhile Insp. Chanderkant, Addl. SHO reached there. Statement of Mohd. Akbar was recorded and after the endorsement was made rukka was given to him for registration of the FIR. He had taken the rukka (PW6/A) from the hospital to the police station.
19. Looking at the nature of the stab wounds which were on the hand, back side as well as front, it is apparent that there was a scuffle and the deceased Mohd. Asgar had resisted the attempt/attack. It would have taken some time for the appellant to inflict the stab incise wounds which were four in number. The fact that there were four incised wounds, is indicative that the occurrence did not take place in split seconds but comparatively and slightly a longer time. It must also be noted that for a person in the back room of the same property to walk across required taking 10-20 steps to reach the place where there was actual occurrence took place. Therefore, as long as we are satisfied that Mohd. Aslam (PW[4]) and Mohd Shahid (PW10) were present in the house of occurrence; it would be unrealistic and wrong not to accept their testimonies that the appellant was the perpetrator who had inflicted the knife blows. Although, it is possible that initially all the knife blows would not have been given in their presence and by the time they reached, the appellant was already in the process of fleeing from the spot. Therefore, the statements of Mohd. Aslam (PW[4]) and Mohd. Shahid (PW10) should not be completely disregarded or overthrown as unreliable and untrustworthy. Their versions can be relied upon subject to certain amount of discounting on account of exaggerations that they were present when the first stab wound was inflicted. The said discounting perhaps is necessitated due to the fact that both Mohd. Aslam (PW[4]) and Mohd. Shahid (PW10) did not move forward to resist or apprehend the appellant, rather the said step was taken by Khurshida (PW[1]). Testimonies of Mohd. Aslam (PW[4]) and Mohd. Shahid (PW10) can be relied upon only to a limited extent i.e. they reached the spot possibly upon the last wound being inflicted and they managed to see the appellant fleeing from the spot. The version that they reached the very spot in the house where the offence had occurred within a short time and they noticed that the appellant had fled and were aware that the appellant had earlier entered the property is truthful and creditworthy.
20. As already stated above, the question/issue whether Mohd. Sabir was residing in the same property i.e. property No. 42 Gali Karim Wali, Jama Masjid, Delhi is superfluous and inconsequential. Jamir Ahmed @ Jamiruddin, the appellant herein, it is accepted, was not residing in the property. Mohd. Sabir by the impugned judgment has been acquitted. Thus, the contention that Khurshida (PW[1]) has vacillated after initially stating that her taya Mohd. Kamil (who had adopted Mohd. Sabir) was residing in the same property, is inconsequential. The issue in question is whether the appellant had come to the place of occurrence on 24th December, 1994 at about 9/9.30 PM and had inflicted stab wounds on the deceased Mohd. Asgar. Khursida (PW-1) it is apparent got confused on the said aspect. The appellant-Jamir Ahmed in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had accepted police version and evidence that Akbar Khan (PW-12) was residing in house No. 42, Gali Kababian, Jama Masjid, Delhi and also the fact that Mohd. Kamil was residing in the same property prior to the incident. He also accepted that Mohd. Sahid (PW10), was residing at B-29, Duzana House, Jama Masjid, Matia Mahal, Delhi. Statement of Mohd. Sabir under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who has been acquitted by the trial court, is to the same effect.
21. We do not agree with the counsel for the appellant that the prosecution version and the testimonies of Khurshida (PW[1]), Akbar Khan (PW12) and of Mohd. Aslam (PW[4]) and Mohd. Shahid (PW10) should be disbelieved as the neighbours and other public persons who possibly may have seen the occurrence were not cited as witnesses and their testimonies were not recorded. The reasons being that the actual stabbing occurrence had taken place in a residential house thus, the possibility of neighbours or third persons being present was ruled out, unless for fortuitous reasons a neighbour etc. happened to be present. Even if the occurrence had taken place in the courtyard, chances of a third person or neighbour being present at that time, was rather faint and improbable. The neighbours and others who had come to the place of occurrence thereafter, cannot be treated as eye witnesses. The Trial Court has rejected the similar plea for identical reasons and has noted that the occurrence had taken place on a winter night. The Trial Court has further recorded that people by and large do not like to interfere in the internal affairs of others especially when there is a quarrel among family members. No one in the neighbourhood would like to be involved in an internal family dispute or could have perceived that violence of the present nature i.e. murder would/could take place. Actual stabbing may have lasted a minute or slightly less or more, but this time span could not have been sufficient for the neighbours to come to the spot and witness the occurrence.
22. Judicial pronouncements are lucid and clear that statements of relatives of the deceased cannot be disbelieved as such or on the ground that they are not independent witnesses. The testimonies of the relatives have to be scrutinized and examined with a degree of care and caution to ensure that there is no exaggeration or occasion to rope in family members or others who were not the actual perpetrators. Normally, family members would not try to implicate a third person to save the actual perpetrator unless there are grounds and reasons to hold the contrary. Having carefully examined the testimonies, we are satisfied that the appellant was the perpetrator. The appellant was named at the very first opportunity i.e. the MLC (Ex. PW25/A) which was recorded immediately after the occurrence. False implication of the appellant is ruled out.
23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. Order of conviction under Sections 302, 323 and 452 IPC and sentence are affirmed and upheld. The appellant was released on bail pursuant to suspension of sentence in this appeal vide order dated 17th November, 1999. He shall surrender within a period of one month from today to undergo the remaining sentence. The appeal is disposed of. (SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE (G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE April 30th, 2014 VKR/kkb