Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
VERSUS
Chandgi Ram & Ors. – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.937 of 2008
Decided On : 09.09.2014.
(2011) 4 SCC 786; (2013) 5 SCC 705 – Relied upon
(b) Criminal trial – Eye witness – Conduct of – Husband being brutally assaulted and killed in front of the wife – Wife making hue and cry – Neighbours watching but not lending any help – Other eye witnesses children of very tender age – Might be in state of shock – Their conduct and behaviour not unnatural – Conviction cannot be set aside on that ground. (Para 16)
(c) Criminal trial – Related witnesses – Evidence credible, reliable, trustworthy, admissible – No scope of any doubt as to veracity of the statement – No reason to reject testimony of such witness, simply because he/she is related to the deceased or any of the parties. (Para 18)
(2012) 4 SCC 79; (2008) 8 SCC 270 – Relied upon
(d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 154 – FIR delay in filing – Incident occurring at 10 pm – FIR lodged at 10 am next day – Place of occurrence, a village – Only bereaved wife and minor children left in the house with the dead body – She naturally seeking put her relatives for help and consolation – Considering the facts and circumstances, slight delay in lodging FIR not material. (Para 20)
(e) Criminal trial – Conviction – Eye witnesses evidence corroborated by medical evidence – Establishing guilt of respondents – No infirmity in conviction. (Para 22, 29)
1989 Supp. (2) SCC 21; (2013) 6 SCC 417; (1999) SCC (Crl.) 892; (2009) 13 SCC 670; (1972) 3 SCC 639; (2003) 1 SCC 398; (1987) 3 SCC 480 – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
The appellants dragged the deceased from his house, assaulted and killed and then threw his dead body at his house.
The Sessions Court found the appellants guilty of offences u/s 302 read with 34, and 452, IPC.
The High Court, however, set aside the conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment is erroneous.
JUDGMENT :-
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.
1. This appeal, at the instance of the State of Rajasthan is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench dated 08.02.2007 in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.977 of 2002.
2. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the Respondents-accused by the trial Court in Sessions Case No.3/2001 (108/2000) vide judgment dated 10.07.2002. The trial Court found the Respondents-accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with 34, IPC for which they were sentenced to life imprisonment, apart from imposing a fine of Rs.500/-each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days each. They were also convicted for the offence under Section 452 IPC and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment apart from fine of Rs.200/-each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days each.
3. The case of the prosecution as projected before the trial Court was that on 12.03.2000, at around 9 p.m., the deceased Surender was conversing with his wife Choti (PW-1) and children Kumari Sarita (PW-3) and Vikram (PW-15) in their house. At that moment, the four accused suddenly barged into the house of the deceased declaring that they wanted to kill him, and that in order to save himself from them, the deceased ran to the back side of the house and hid himself in the Khudi, from where the accused pulled him out, dragged him to the house of Rajesh (A-3 herein) s/o Pitram and while dragging him to the house of A-3 they kept on assaulting him with the aid of iron rod, iron pipe and lathis. After killing the deceased, the accused brought back the body to the house of the deceased and left the same on a cot lying in the verandah.
4. According to Choti (PW-1), her husband was killed by the Respondents-accused due to prior animosity. It is not in dispute that Rajesh (A-3) and the deceased are second cousins as their grand fathers are blood brothers. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses (PWs-1 to 15) and marked 29 documents (Exhibits P-1 to 29). On the defence side, 2 witnesses (DWs-1 and 2) were examined and 24 documents (Exhibits D-1 to 24) were marked. Of the 15 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, PWs-1, 3, 8, 12 and 15 were eye witnesses. The High Court, having interfered with the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the State has come forward with this appeal.
5. We heard Mr.Ram Naresh Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant and Mr.Abhishek Gupta, learned Counsel for the Respondents-accused. Learned Counsel for the Appellant took us through the evidence of the eye witnesses, the evidence of Dr. Nathu Singh (PW-7), the post-mortem doctor, Exhibit P-1, the written report filed by Choti (PW-1), Exhibit P-10, the postmortem certificate and Exhibit P-29, the FSL report and submitted that the prosecution proved the offence alleged against the Respondents-accused with substantive legal evidence and the interference by the High Court was wholly unjustified.
6. As against the above submissions, Mr. Abhishek Gupta, learned Counsel for the Respondents-accused contended that the version of the eye witnesses was wholly unnatural, contradictory with each other and was improbable in nature. The learned Counsel contended that there were material discrepancies in the version of the eye witnesses account and, therefore, it was wholly unreliable in order to convict the Respondents-accused. He also contended that the delay in lodging the FIR was inexplicable which was fatal to the case of the prosecution as the real genesis of the occurrence was suppressed. The learned Counsel further contended that considering the stand of the Respondents-accused in their 313 statement which was also supported by the defence witnesses and the other evidence placed before the Court, the judgment of the High Court does not call for interference.
7. In support of his submission, learned Coun
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
