Important PointIn a murder trial merely because a witness is interested or inimical, his evidence cannot be discarded unless same is otherwise found to be not trustworthy.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302/34—Conviction of Respondent-accused for offence of murder with aid of Section 34 I.P.C. by trial Court—Accused caught hold of deceased while other accused (since dead) inflicted injuries on victim and victim was declared dead when brought to hospital—High Court set aside the conviction—State appeal—FIR was corroborated by medical evidence as doctor who examined deceased opined that injuries were received by knife and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature—High Court was not justified to observe that medical evidence did not fit in with prosecution case—Two eye witnesses were not examined for reasons beyond control of prosecution and High Court was not justified in drawing adverse inference against prosecution—Two other eye witnesses namely father and uncle of deceased fully supported prosecution charge against appellant—Their evidence was consistent, natural and both stood test of cross-examination—High Court was not justified in disbelieving them on sole ground that they were interested persons—Copy of FIR was sent to Magistrate in Court on next day morning but mere delay in sending report to Magistrate could not be a ground to throw out prosecution case—Conviction recorded by trial Court was liable to be restored. (Paras 6 & 8 to 12)

Judgment

B.N. Agrawal, J.—Respondent No. 1- S. Mohan Singh was convicted by the trial court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months. Respondent No. 2 - S. Prithpal Singh was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months. On appeal being preferred, the High Court acquitted both the respondents. Hence, this appeal by special leave has been filed by the State of Jammu & Kashmir.

2. Prosecution case, in short, was that a dispute was going on between Yush Paul Singh son of Ram Lal and one Titu, nephew of Balwant Singh, on the one hand and the two respondents on the other hand and for resolving the same, a meeting was convened on 23rd July, 1985 at 6.00 p.m. on the bank of river near Gurdwara in village Sawan Chak. In the said meeting, no decision could be arrived at, as such, respondent No. 1 – S. Mohan Singh is said to have left the meeting in the midway and other people also dispersed after this. Thereafter, Ram Lal heard cries of his son Yush Paul Singh from the compound of Gurdwara and on arrival there, he found that respondent No. 1 had caught hold of Yush Paul Singh and respondent No. 2 was inflicting injuries upon him with knife. Seeing this, Ram Lal made an attempt to catch hold of respondent No. 2 in order to save his son but in the meantime, respondent No. 1 is said to have hurled a stone on him, as a result of which, Ram Lal sustained injuries and fell down. Apart from Ram Lal, the occurrence is said to have been witnessed by Babu Ram (PW 6), Pritam Singh (PW 4), Balwant Singh and Satnam Singh. Thereafter, Yush Paul Singh was immediately taken to the hospital on a truck where the doctor declared him dead. Thereupon, Ram Lal accompanied by witnesses, Pritam Singh and Balwant Singh went to Kathua police station to lodge a first information report where upon the statement of Ram Lal, a case was registered by the police on the same day i.e., on 23rd July, 1985 at 7.20 p.m. against the respondents. The police after registering the case, took up investigation and on completion thereof submitted charge-sheet, on receipt whereof the learned Magistrate took cognizance and committed the respondents to the court of Sessions to face trial.

3. Defence of the accused persons was that they were innocent, had no complicity with the crime, no occurrence much less the occurrence alleged had taken place and the prosecution party had received injuries in some other manner of occurrence at some other place inasmuch as they have been falsely roped in in this case to feed fat the old grudge.

4. During trial, both the parties adduced evidence and upon conclusion thereof, the trial court recorded conviction of the respondents, as stated above, which having been reversed by the High Court, the present appeal by Special Leave by the State of Jammu & Kashmir.

5. During the course of hearing, it has been submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that respondent No. 2 – S. Prithpal Singh died during pendency of this appeal on 27th November, 2003 which fact has not been denied on behalf of appellant – State. As such, the present appeal against respondent No. 2 stands abated. In view of this, in the present appeal, we are required to consider the case of respondent No. 1 – S. Mohan Singh alone.

6. The prosecution case as disclosed in the first information report is corroborated by the medical evidence as the doctor who examined deceased Yush Paul Singh opined that he received injuries by knife and the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Upon the disclosure statement made by respondent No. 2, a knife was recovered from his house. The said knife was shown t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document