Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 711

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature For Rajasthan at Jaipur)
UDAY UMESH LALIT, AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Bablu @ Om Prakash – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1475 of 2021(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.8676 of 2019)
With
Sunil – Appellant
Versus
Kaptan and ors.- Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. of 2021 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.8677-8682 of 2019)
With
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Kaptan – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. of 2021 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.9003 of 2019)
With
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Ranjeet - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. of 2021 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.9004 of 2019)
With
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Ramu @ Ram Singh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. of 2021 Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.9124 of 2019)
With
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Radhey Shyam @ Golu and ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. of 2021 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No………………..of 2021) (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)D.No32279 of 2019)
AND
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Rajendra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. of 2021 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No………………..of 2021) (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)D.No31873 of 2019)
Decided on : 24-11-2021

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Vishal Meghwal, Milind Kumar, Archana Pathak Dave, Kumar Prashant, Vanya Gupta, Avnish Dave, Pramod Kumar Vishnoi, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Aditya Kr. Choudhary, Gurmehar Vaan Singh, Vaibhav Prasad Deo, Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Randhir Kumar Ojha, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Even version of a single witness, if his testimony is found reliable by Court, can be foundation of order of conviction.
(2) Order of acquittal cannot be recorded by Court by going against mass of evidence.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 149, 450 or 450/149, 452 or 452/149, 302 or 302 read with Sections 149, 307 or 307 read with 149 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Murder, attempt to murder and house trespass – Common object of unlawful assembly – Appeal against acquittal of all except two accused persons – Evidence of eye witnesses was completely consistent with that of injured witness except for certain minor variations – Fact that one of these witnesses had suffered injuries in transaction and rest of them had taken deceased as well as injured to medical centre immediately after occurrence lends credibility to case of prosecution unfolded through these eyewitnesses – Nothing has been brought on record in their cross-examinations to dislodge credibility of these witnesses – Even version of a single witness, if his testimony is found reliable by Court, can be foundation of order of conviction – In instant case, evidence of brother of deceased itself would normally be sufficient – In face of such clear, consistent and cogent evidence on record, High Court was not justified in proceeding on the basis that eyewitnesses had not named other accused in specific terms or entertaining any doubt and then recording order of acquittal – Approach of High Court was completely against settled principles of law and no valid reasons were given by High Court as to why evidence of all eyewitnesses could not be relied upon in so far as role played by acquitted accused was concerned – Order of acquittal recorded by High Court held to be completely unjust and its conclusion totally against record – Appeals against original accused A1, A6, A7, A8, A10 and A13 allowed while rest of accused-respondents given benefit of doubt and their acquittal, as recorded by High Court confirmed. (Paras 11, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24)
Facts of the case:
State of Rajasthan and original informant challenging acquittal of 11 accused persons by High Court vide its judgment and final order dated 04.12.2018 in D.B. Criminal Appeal Nos.179 of 2018, 832 of 2017, 946 of 2017, 993 of 2017, 1123 of 2017, 1191 of 2017, 1475 of 2017 and 26 of 2018, from offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 450 or 450/149, 452 or 452/149, 302 or 302 read with Sections 149, 307 or 307 read with 149 of IPC.
Findings of Court:
As there was an earlier incident just four days prior to the occurrence in question, in order to lend complete assurance and as a matter of prudence, a criteria may be adopted where, if any of the eyewitnesses (other than PW6), apart from and in addition to PWs 1 and 27 had adverted to and attributed overt acts to any of the accused, the role of such accused can be taken to have been established beyond any doubt.
Result : Appeals Partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are preferred by:

ii) Sunil S/o. Govindram, the original informant (appeals arising out of pecial Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.8677-8682 of 2019) :-

challenging the acquittal of 11 accused persons namely Radhey Shyam alias Golu (A1), Ramu alias Ram Singh (A4), Bablu alias Om Prakash (A5), Jeetu alias Jeetmal (A6), Ghan Shyam alias Pintu (A7), Rajendra (A8), Ram Gopal (A9), Sattu alias Satya Narain (A10), Kaptan (A11), Bhuria alias Dhara Singh (A12) and Ranjeet (A13) by the High Court¹[High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur] vide its judgment and final order dated 04.12.2018 in D.B. Criminal Appeal Nos.179 of 2018, 832 of 2017, 946 of 2017, 993 of 2017, 1123 of 2017, 1191 of 2017, 1475 of 2017 and 26 of 2018.

3. 13 persons, i.e. aforementioned 11 acquitted accused and 2 convicted accused [Rajendra alias Tanti (A2) and Janak Singh (A3)] were tried in Sessions Case No.80 of 2013 on the file of the Trial Court²[Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Act, Kota, Rajasthan] in respect of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 450 or 450/149, 452 or 452/149, 302 or 302 read with Sections 149, 307 or 307 read with 149 of the IPC³[he Indian Penal Code, 1860].

4. The gist⁴[As recorded by the High Court in the judgment under appeal.] of the First Information Report (FIR No.75 of 2012) in respect of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323 and 307 IPC, lodged at the instance of Sunil S/o. Govindram (later examined as PW1) registered with Police Station Kaithun on 08.03.2012 was to the following effect:-

“An FIR was registered on a written report made by complainant Sunil on 8.3.2012. It was stated that apart from him, Dhanpal, Madanpal, Narayan, Tulsi, Kalu Meena and Roop Singh Pahalwan were sitting at his residence on the festival of Holi. At that time, the accused Rajendra, Janak, Ramu @ Ramsingh, Vijendra, Pintu, Golu, Mukat, Tanti @ Rajendra, Ramgopal, Atar, Dinesh, Bhuria @ Dharasingh residents of Ganeshpura and Sukhpal resident of Ummedganj and Kashiram along with 10-12 persons came equipped with the weapons. They entered into complainant’s house and attacked Dhanpal. Accused Rajendra and Pritam caused a blow by a sword, whereas, Janak has been assigned Gandasi and caused injury to Dhanpal. Other accused Ramgopal, Tanti, Satyanarayan, Bablu, Golu, Pintu, Dinesh and Sukhpal also caused injuries to Dhanpal. Accused Mukut, Bhuria @ Dharasingh, Atar, Hansraj, Vijendra, bablu and Satyanarayan caused head injury to complainant.”

5. The initial medical attention to said Dhanpal was given by PW19 Dr. Krishna Hari Sharma. However, Dhanpal died during the course of treatment whereafter the offence under Section 302 IPC was added.

Informant PW1 Sunil was medically examined and treated by PW17 Dr. P.P. Bansal.

6. The post-mortem on the body of Dhanpal was conducted by PW30 Dr. Rakesh Sharma on 09.03.2012 who found following ante mortem injuries over the body of the deceased:

Injury No.2:- 03 stitched wounds sized respectively 7 Cms, 6 Cms and 4 Cms long present on the rear part of the head.

Injury No.3:- Stitched wound sized 1 Cms long present on the right side of the head.

Injury No.4:- Thin abrasion mark sized 1 Cms long present on the right side of neck.

Injury No.5:- Abrasion 1 X 1 Cms present on the right shoulder.

Injury No.6:- Abrasion sized 2 X 1 Cms present on the right elbow.

Injury No.7:- Abrasion sized 1 X 3 Cms present on the spine.

Injury No.8:- Abrasion sized 1 X 1/2 Cms present on the left elbow.

Injury No.9:- Abrasion sized 1 X 1 Cms present on the left forear

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(SC) 711

IMPORTANT POINTS(1) Even version of a single witness, if his testimony is found reliable by Court, can be foundation of order of conviction.(2) Order of acquittal cannot be recorded by Court by going against mass of evidence.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Even version of a single witness, if his testimony is found reliable by Court, can be foundation of order of conviction.
(2) Order of acquittal cannot be recorded by Court by going against mass of evidence.