IMPORTANT POINT
Lengthy cross-examination of a witness may invariably result in contradictions – But these contradictions are not always sufficient to discredit a witness.

JUDGMENT :

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.

1. Both the above appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 08.08.2007 passed by the Rajasthan High Court in Criminal Appeal No.976 of 2002, whereby all the accused who stood convicted by the Trial Court for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 325, 447, 147 /148 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, were acquitted for the major offences under Sections 302 and 307, and were convicted only for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325/149. Their sentences were also reduced to the period already undergone by them, which roughly varied from two to five years.

2. The complainant as well as the State have approached this Court by way of the above two appeals, which were admitted and leave was granted on 26.09.2008.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, Dr. Charu Mathur for the victims and Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior advocate for State of Rajasthan respectively, as well as senior advocate Mr. Ramakrishan Veeraraghavan on behalf of the accused-respondents.

4. An FIR was lodged on 22.05.2001 at about 3.00 PM by complainant-Birbal Nath at Police Station, Pachori, District Nagaur, Rajasthan which disclosed that at about 1:00 o’clock that afternoon, while the informant’s uncle ‘Chandernath’ and his aunt ‘Rami’ were working in their agricultural field, seven men, armed with weapons approached their field. They were as follows :

(1) Jethnath having an ‘axe’

(2) Dhurnath having a ‘dang’

(3) Meghnath having a ‘farsi’

(4) Rughnath having Favda (Shovel)

(5) Babunath having a ‘dang’

(6) Malanath having an ‘axe’ and

(7) Devnath having a ‘dang’

All the above named accused, who were armed, started assaulting the aunt and uncle of the complainant-Birbalnath, in which both were grievously injured. Jethnath was the first to assault Chandernath with his axe and the rest joined the attack. Rami was also attacked, by these assailants. This incident was also witnessed by Pratapnath, Ramunath, Dhurnath, their sister-in-law Rampyari, Cheni Devi and Ruparam as they had reached the spot in a few minutes, who tried to intervene in the matter and save their relatives, but in vain. Chandernath died in the ambulance while being taken to the hospital at Jodhpur. Meanwhile the police started its investigation, and filed its chargesheet against all the accused except Devnath in the case. The case was later committed to the Sessions Court where charges were framed under Sections 147, 148, 302, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 447, 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code against all the six accused, named in the chargesheet.

5. There were in all 24 witnesses who were examined by the prosecution. The star eye witness being Rami (PW-2) who is the wife of the deceased and was herself grievously hurt in the incident. Apart from her there were other eye witnesses as well such as PW-3, PW-6 and PW-7 i.e., Rampyari, Mohannath, Birbalnath respectively. There was also recovery of clothes and weapons which was made on the disclosure of the accused.

6. In their statement under Section 313 of CrPC, all the accused denied the charges and the evidence against them and also presented defence witnesses in the form of – Birmaram (DW-1), Hanutaram (DW-2), Khemaram (DW3), Dr. Devkaran (DW-4) and Hukmaram (DW-5).

7. Out of all the prosecution witnesses which were examined by the prosecution, Rami (PW-2) is the most important witness, as she was the wife of the deceased and at the relevant point of time was working in the field, along with her husband. In addition, this witness had sustained grievous injuries in the incident, including a near fatal injury on her head and therefore the testimony of this particular witness is the most credible evidence produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court. The examination-in-chief and cross examination of Rami was done before the Trial Court on 27.11.2001. She was cross examined at length by the defence, but nothing has come out in the cross examination, except minor discrepancies.