IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Motive for doing a criminal act is generally a difficult area for the prosecution to prove since one cannot normally be seen into the mind of another.
2. Merely because the witness is related to eye-witnesses or the family of the deceased is not a ground for rejection.
3. Mere non-recovery of pistol or cartridge does not detract the case of prosecution where clinching and direct evidence is acceptable.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 r/w Section 3/27 of Arms Act, 1959-Prosecution of accused persons for causing death of two persons and injuries to others by firing on them and assaulting them with deadly weapons-Conviction by Trial Court-Appeals thereagainst- High Court while acquitting A1to A6 ,altered conviction of A7to A9 under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 IPC to Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC-Appeals- Complete consistency and credible evidence as far as three accused persons, A7 to A9 were concerned-However, in respect of other six, there was no direct evidence and case pleaded by prosecution being unacceptable High Court rightly acquitted them of all the charges- Though there was little discrepancy as to distance from upper portion of house and actual scene of occurrence, it could not be concluded that injuries on deceased persons were not caused by fire arms- Again mere non-recovery of pistol or cartridge does not detract the case of prosecution where clinching and direct evidence is acceptable- Likewise, absence of evidence regarding recovery of used pellets, blood stained clothes etc. could not be taken or construed as no such occurrence had taken place- Apart from that gun shot injuries tallied with medical evidence-Deposition of doctor PW1 that deceased received 8 and 7 gun shot wounds respectively while PW-2 also received 8 gun shots scattered in front of left thigh- The reliable eye-witnesses stated that there was previous enmity between them and litigation was going on between the accused and the complainant-Even in absence of motive, in view of assertion of eye-witnesses, coupled with the medical evidence case of prosecution could not be thrown out- The materials placed by prosecution clearly proved the guilt against three convicted accused, who were armed with guns and with their common intention they fired gun shots resulting in death of two persons as well as causing injuries to PW-2 –Acquittal of accused persons A1 to A6 called for no interference-Appeals dismissed. (Paras 11 to 20)
       Facts of the Case :
        Accused persons were prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of two persons and injuries to one other by firing on them and assaulting them with deadly weopans. Trial Court convicted accused persons .On Appeals thereagainst, High Court while acquitting A1to A6 ,altered conviction of A7to A9 under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 IPC to one under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC
        2. Present appeals have been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        There was Complete consistency and credible evidence as far as three accused persons, A7 to A9 were concerned. However, in respect of other six, there was no direct evidence and case pleaded by prosecution was s unacceptable .Hence High Court rightly acquitted them of all the charges. Though there was little discrepancy as to distance from upper portion of house and actual scene of occurrence, it could not be concluded that injuries on deceased persons were not caused by fire arms. Again mere non-recovery of pistol or cartridge did not detract the case of prosecution where clinching and direct evidence was acceptable. Likewise, absence of evidence regarding recovery of used pellets, blood stained clothes etc. could not be taken or construed as no such occurrence had taken place. Apart from that gun shot injuries tallied with medical evidence.Deposition of doctor PW1 that deceased received 8 and 7 gun shot wounds respectively while PW-2 also received 8 gun shots scattered in front of left thigh. The reliable eye-witnesses stated that there was previous enmity between them and litigation was going on between the accused and the complainant.Even in absence of motive, in view of assertion of eye-witnesses, coupled with the medical evidence case of prosecution could not be thrown out. The materials placed by prosecution clearly proved the guilt against three convicted accused, who were armed with guns and with their common intention they fired gun shots resulting in death of two persons as well as causing injuries to PW-2 .Acquittal of accused persons A1 to A6 called for no interference. Appeals were dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The motive behind the criminal act is generally difficult for the prosecution to prove, as it involves understanding the mental state of the accused (!) .
The fact that witnesses are related to the victims or witnesses does not automatically lead to rejection of their testimony; such testimonies can be credible if they are consistent and free from discrepancies (!) .
The non-recovery of weapons or cartridges does not necessarily weaken the prosecution’s case if there is direct and credible evidence linking the accused to the crime (!) .
The medical evidence showing gunshot injuries, along with the testimony of medical experts, supports the conclusion that injuries were caused by firearms, even if some discrepancies exist regarding the exact distance from which shots were fired (!) (!) .
The prosecution's evidence, including eye-witness testimonies and medical reports, collectively establish the guilt of certain accused persons who fired guns resulting in deaths and injuries. The credibility of these witnesses is reinforced by their consistent statements and the medical findings (!) (!) .
The absence of certain physical evidence, such as pellets or blood-stained clothes, does not negate the occurrence of the incident, especially when direct evidence and medical findings support the prosecution’s case (!) (!) .
The case law recognizes that motive is not always necessary to establish guilt, particularly when there is direct evidence of the act, such as eyewitness testimony and medical reports indicating firearm injuries (!) .
Witnesses who are related to the victims or interested parties are not automatically discredited; their testimonies are to be evaluated carefully and can be accepted if consistent and credible (!) (!) .
The evidence indicates that the accused acted with a common intention, firing guns from a roof, which resulted in the deaths and injuries. The courts found the evidence sufficient to uphold convictions for these acts (!) (!) .
The courts’ decisions to uphold or modify convictions are based on a thorough analysis of the evidence, including witness credibility, medical reports, and the circumstances of the case. The appeals challenging these findings were dismissed, affirming the original judgments (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance with this case.

JUDGMENT

P.Sathasivam, J. —

1) These appeals are filed against the common final judgment and order dated 26.04.2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Criminal Appeal Nos. 504, 533 and 673 of 1995 whereby the High Court disposed of the appeals acquitting Karan Singh, Laxman Raigar, Bahadur Singh, Smt. Swaroop Bai, Smt. Gyan Kanwar and Smt. Bhagwan Kanwar of all the charges and altered the conviction and sentence of Shivraj Singh, Banney Singh and Arjun Singh from Sections 302/149 IPC and 307/149 IPC to Section 302/34 and 307/34 IPC passed by the trial Court.

2) Brief facts:

(a) On 24.12.1991, at about 09:30 a.m., an information was received by the In-charge, Police Out-post Anwa that cross firing had taken place between the Rajputs of that village. After recording the said information in Rojnamcha (Ex. P31), immediately the police proceeded towards the spot and recorded Parchabayan of injured Himmat Raj Singh (Ex. P32) at about 11.40 a.m. It was stated by Himmat Raj Singh (since deceased) that at 9.30 a.m., when he was standing outside his house, Arjun Singh fired at him from a muzzle loaded gun from the roof of Karan Singh thereby 2-3 bullets hit him on the left hand and another 2-3 hit his abdomen and left thigh. On hearing his cries, two of his brothers, namely, Raghuraj Singh (since deceased) and Raj Singh (PW-2) came there and took him inside the house and after leaving him there, when they were going to inform the police at Police out-post, Anwa, Bheem Singh and Gajender Singh (who are now absconding), Banney Singh, Karan Singh and Shivraj Singh fired gunshots at them, as a result of which, both of them received injuries. Thereafter, accused Bahadur Singh came with a gandassa. The other accused, Laxman Raigar also jumped into their house. It was also stated that Smt. Swaroop Bai, Smt. Gyan Kanwar and Smt. Bhagwan Kanwar were also present on the roof of Karan Singh and they tried to kill the other family members of the deceased with deadly weapons.

(b) The moment Raghuraj Singh and Raj Singh (PW-2) received injuries, Roop Singh, their father immediately rushed to the Police Out-post to inform the Police about the incident. The police officials reached at the spot and on the basis of the statement of Himmat Raj Singh, a First Information Report (in short ‘the FIR’) being No. 228/1991 was registered against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148 and 149 IPC. The injured persons, Raghuraj Singh, Himmat Raj Singh, Dhiraj Raj Singh and Raj Singh were taken to the M.B.S. Hospital at Kota for treatment.

(c) Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta, (PW-18), Munsif and Judicial Magistrate (North), Kota recorded the statements of Himmat Raj Singh and Raj Singh (PW-2). Since Raghuraj Singh was not medically fit to make a statement, his statement was not recorded. On the same day, Raghuraj Singh died in the Hospital, therefore, offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was added. On 29.01.1992, Himmat Raj Singh also died in the Hospital. After due investigation, the police submitted four charge sheets at different stages against Arjun Singh, Banney Singh, Shivraj Singh, Bahadur Singh, Smt. Swaroop Bai, Smt. Gyan Kanwar, Smt. Bhagwan Kanwar, Karan Singh and Laxman Raigar.

(d) On 07.09.1995, the Additional Sessions Judge, Kota, after examining 30 prosecution witnesses and 8 defence witnesses convicted Karan Singh under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 IPC and Section 3/27 of the Arms Act, 1959, Shivraj Singh, Banney Singh and Arjun Singh under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 IPC and Smt. Swaroop Bai, Smt. Gyan Kanwar, Smt. Bhagwan Kanwar, Laxman Raigar and Bahadur Singh under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 and 452 IPC and sentenced all of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment.

(e) Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, Arjun Singh, Banney Singh, Shivraj Singh, Bahadur Singh, Smt. Swaroop Bai, Smt. Gyan Kanwar and Smt. Bhagwan Kanwar filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 50

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 842

2011 (6) Supreme 69SUPREME COURT OF INDIAP. Sathasivam and H.L. Gokhale, JJ.State of Rajasthan — Appellant(s)versusArjun Singh & Ors. etc. — Respondent(s)Criminal Appeal Nos. 552-554 of 2003withCriminal Appeal Nos. 555-557 of 2003and Criminal Appeal No. 558 of 2003Decided on : 2-9-2011

Cases Referred (2)