http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SHANKAR LAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       22/07/1998

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, S.P. KURDUKAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T NANAVATI.J.      The appellant  was tried  for the  offences  punishable under Sections  324 and  307 IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act and section  6 of  the Terrorist  and Disruptive  Activities (prevention) Act,  1985 in  the Designated Court, Bhiwani at Hissar. The  Allegations against  the appellant were that on 25.6.86 at  about 8.30  p.m. he  assaulted Devi  Lal with  a knife and  gave repeated   stab blows to him, in view of the previous enmity  between him  and the appellant. In order to prove its case the prosecution mainly had heard the cries of Devi Lal himself and his father Hari Singh, who according to the prosecution had heard the cries of Devi Lal and seen the assault on  him. The  Designated Court believed the evidence of both  the witnesses  and convicted  the appellant for the offences punishable  under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act read with Section 6(1) of the TADA Act.      Aggrieved by  the  order  of  conviction  and  sentence imposed upon him, the appellant has filed this appeal.      Learned counsel  for the appellant has taken us through the evidence  of PW 7 Hari Singh and PW 6 Devi Lal. From the cross examination  of PW  6 Devi  Lal, it  appears that  the attempt of  the defence  was to  point out that he was in an intoxicated condition  on the  date of  the incident and was beaten by the villagers as he  was found teasing women. This suggestion was  denied by  the witness and there is no other material on  the basis  of which  it can  be said  that this witness was  under influence  of liquor  and had  misbehaved with anyone.  He had  categorically stated  that when he was returning after taking medicine for this mother and was near Sri Ram  Mandir, he  was attacked  by the appellant. Nothing was brought  in the  cross examination on the basis of which it can  be said  that he  was not  telling the  truth.   The defence was  able to extract only 2 or 3 omissions which are on minor  points and  do not  affect the  veracity  of  this witness. There  is evidence  to show  that  there was enough light at  the place  of incidence.  The accused  was a known person  and,   therefore,  there   was  no   difficulty   in identifying him.  As  soon  as  this  witness  and  regained consciousness and  was in a position to give a statement, he

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

had named  appellant as  the person  who had  given him  the knife blows.  Even if  evidence of  his father Hari Singh in discarded on  the ground  that possibly  he could  not  have seen the actual assault on his son as he had come out of his house after  hearing his  cries, as contended by the learned counsel for  the appellant, that will not have any effect on the conviction  of the appellant as the evidence of Devi Lal is quite  sufficient to  sustain it. As we find no infirmity in the trial court’s judgement even after reappreciating the evidence,  the   appellant’s  conviction   deserves  to   be maintained.      This appeal  is, therefore,  dismissed. The bail of the appellant is cancelled. He is directed to surrender to serve out the remaining sentence.