Arjun vs State Of Rajasthan - 1994 Supreme(SC) 643

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1994 Supreme(SC) 643

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. A.S. ANAND AND FAIZAN-UDDIN, JJ.
Arjun and others, Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 1993,
D/ 14-7-1994.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Hardev Singh Mr. Sushil Kumar, Sr. Advocates and Ms. Madhu Moolchandani,Advocate with them, for Appellant Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta and Mr. K.S. Bhati, Advocates, for Respondent.

Advocates:
ARUNESHVAR GUPTA, HARDEV SINGH, K.S.BHATT, MADHU MULCHANDANI, SUSHIL JAIN

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Conviction under - Appeal - Eye-witnesses being relation witnesses - Evidence fully corroborating the statement of P.W.1 with regard to the weapons appellants were armed with and the individual assaults made by them on the deceased - Their statement fully consistent Evidence of eye-witnesses further finds corroboration from the medical evidence - Injuries found on the person of the deceased tally with the ocular version of all the eye-witnesses - No reason to differ from the concurrent view taken by the two Courts below - Evidence is fully reliable and trustworthy - Conviction recorded legally sustainable. (Para 12)
        (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Conviction of four appellants under - Four acquitted accused were given benefit of doubt with regard to their participation in the incident - Both in F.I.R. and in their police statement made u/s. 161, Cr. P.C. no disclosure about the actual beating by the four acquitted accused - Their acquittal sustainable - Consistent evidence of the five eye witnesses - Consistent evidence of the five eye-witnesses is not liable to be rejected merely on the ground that their evidence has not been accepted with regard to the four acquitted accused.
       Held: It is well settled that maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, that is to say, false in one thing, false in everything is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice. In such a circumstance the Court has to analyse the prosecution evidence carefully and on such analysis if the evidence is found to be consistent and reliable the Court can accept the same with regard to the other accused persons and hold them guilty, even though the Court is unable to rely fully on the prosecution evidence with regard to some of the accused persons. In the present case as we have seen earlier the two Courts below have examined the evidence of the five eye-witnesses very closely and having found their statement wholly consistent with regard to the participation and assault made by the four appellants on the deceased resulting into his death, have accepted the same to be fully truthful. We too have minutely examined the said evidence and find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the Courts below. (Para 14)
        (iii) Evidence - Murder case - Relation witnesses - It is not a safe rule to reject their testimony merely on the ground that the complainant and the accused persons were on enemical terms - Evidence could not be rejected merely on the basis of relationship of the witnesses with the deceased - Solemn duty of Court to make a deeper probe and scrutinize the evidence with more than ordinary care.
       Held: It is needless to emphasis that enmity is a double edged sword which can cut both ways. However, the fact remains that whether the prosecution witnesses are close relatives of the deceased victim or on enemica1 terms with the deceased involved in the crime of murder, the witnesses are always interested to see that the real offenders of the crime are booked and they are not, in any case; expected to leave out the real culprits and rope in the innocent persons simply because of the enmity. It is, therefore, not a safe rule to reject their testimony merely on the ground that the complainant and the accused persons were on enemical terms. Similarly the evidence could not be rejected merely on the basis of relationship of the witnesses with the deceased. In such a situation it only puts the Court with the solemn duty to make a deeper probe and scrutinize the evidence with more than ordinary care which precaution has already been taken by the two courts below while analysing and accepting the evidence. (para 9).

Judgment

FAIZAN UDDIN, J.:- This appeal by special leave of this Court has been directed against the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan passed in Criminal Appeal No. 285/90 affirming the conviction of the four appellants for an offence under Section 302. I.P.C. by the Additional Sessions Judge. Deeg in Sessions case No. 8/89; imposing sentence of life imprisonment on all the four appellants (herein).

2. The four appellants, namely Arjun, Rampal, Bhagwan Singh and Mukhoram were charged and tried along with four other acquitted accused, namely, Nathu, Pannalal, Damodarlal and Badley under Sections 302 and 148 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C.

3. The prosecution case was that on 27-11-88 at about 11 a.m. when the deceased Jyoti Ram followed by his brother Bohari PW 1, was going from his village Baroli Dhau to an adjoining village Pasopa to purchase water pipe, he was way laid and surrounded by the appellants and four other co-accused who emerged from mustard field. The appellants Bhagwan Sahai, Rampal and Arjun were armed with Farsas and the appellant Mukho Ram was armed with Ballam while the rest of the four acquitted accused are said to be armed with lathies. It is said that the appellant Arjun exhorted the other accused persons to kill Jyoti Ram and then all assaulted Jyoti Ram with the weapons they were armed with. When the assault was opened on Jyoti Ram he raised hue and cry inviting the attention of Puran, PW 3 who was present in the nearby field and Bhagwan Sahai, PW 2, Harish Chandra, PW 4, Sat Pal Singh, PW 7, who had just come out of the Panchayat Bhavan after the meeting. They all rushed to the place of occurrence to rescue Jyoti Ram. The appellant and the other four acquitted accused on seeing the villagers and witnesses approaching the place of occurrence made their escape good.

4. A written report Ex. P8 was lodged same day at about 12.40 PM by Sat Pal Singh, PW 7, the son of the victim in the Police Station, Kama about 13 Kms. away from the place of occurrence on the basis of which First Information Report Ext. P9 was recorded by Rup Narayan, PW 11, the Station House Officer, Kama.

5. The victim Jyoti Ram died on the way while he was being taken in the tractor of Ram Dhan, PW 6 to Kama Hospital. The police also arrived in the hospital along with the informant, Sat Pal, PW 7. In the hospital inquest report Ext. 2 was prepared. The blood stained clothes of the deceased Jyoti Ram were seized by the police by seizure memo Ext.P7. Sample of blood stained earth was also seized from the place of occurrence as per seizure memo Ext. P5.

6. Dr. Mangal Ram, PW 8 performed an autopsy over the dead body of Jyoti Ram in Government Hospital, Kama on 27-I 1-88 itself at 4 PM. As per post mortem report Ext. P.17 Dr. Mangal Ram found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:

(1) Incised wound 4" x 1" x Bone deep on right parietal region.

(2) Incised wound 3" x 1" x bone deep on left parietal region.

(3) Oediamation - Ecling mossis over right eye diffused area.

(4) Incised wound 1" x 1/2" x 1/4" on middle part of the right ear.

The aforementioned injuries were caused by sharp weapon.

(5) Stab wounds five in number all on the right side of the face, near right side of the face, near ear. All these stab wounds in the opinion of the doctor were caused by sharp weapon and may be inflicted by lance (Ballam).

(6) Stab wound 1/2" x 1/4" x 1" at right side of occipital region behind the right ear caused by sharp weapon.

(7) Abrasion 1" x 1/4" at right shoulder.

(8) Lacerated wound with fracture of 5th metacarpal bone of right hand.

7. Injuries Nos. 7 and 8 described above were caused by blunt weapon. The Doctor also found congestion in the scalp and skull bones. Membrane was ruptured both over left and right parietal area and right temporal area was also ruptured. He also found brain haemorrhage. In the opinion of Doctor Mangal Singh Injury Nos. 1 and 2 independently was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document