Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : B.R.ARORA,J.C.VERMA
PANNEY SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
Criminal Appeal 29 Of 1992
Decided On : 07/16/1996
CRIMINAL APPEAL - Murder - FIR - Information given on telephone - Whether cryptic in nature - Whether statement recorded by investigating officer after starting investigation - Whether names of assailants known to witnesses - Whether false implication of accused - Reliability of eye witnesses - Corroboration of evidence.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants were convicted for the murder of Khema Ram. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, along with co-accused Teel Singh and Balwant Singh, hatched a conspiracy to commit the murder of Khema Ram in order to take revenge for the murder of Karan Singh, which was committed by Khema Ram. The appellants came to Khema Ram's Dhani and opened fire. Khema Ram went upstairs and hid himself in a room. The appellants broke the door and assaulted Khema Ram. Balwant Singh separated Khema Ram's head from his neck and took it with them.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the telephonic message given by Jetha Ram was not cryptic in nature and the investigating officer was satisfied about the commission of a cognizable offence. The court also held that the statement recorded by the investigating officer was not recorded after starting the investigation, but was recorded first and the investigation started thereafter. The court further held that the names of the assailants were known to the witnesses and the accused were not falsely implicated in the case. The court also held that the eye witnesses were reliable and their evidence was corroborated by the medical evidence and the evidence of other witnesses.
Issues: 1. Whether the telephonic message given by Jetha Ram was cryptic in nature and the investigating officer was satisfied about the commission of a cognizable offence? 2. Whether the statement recorded by the investigating officer was recorded after starting the investigation? 3. Whether the names of the assailants were known to the witnesses? 4. Whether the accused were falsely implicated in the case? 5. Whether the eye witnesses were reliable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the telephonic message given by Jetha Ram was not cryptic in nature and the investigating officer was satisfied about the commission of a cognizable offence, as the message contained sufficient details of the incident and the investigating officer proceeded to the place of occurrence to investigate the matter. 2. The court held that the statement recorded by the investigating officer was not recorded after starting the investigation, but was recorded first and the investigation started thereafter, as there was no evidence to suggest that the investigating officer had made any recoveries or conducted any other investigation before recording the statement. 3. The court held that the names of the assailants were known to the witnesses, as the witnesses had clearly identified the appellants and the co-accused as the assailants. 4. The court held that the accused were not falsely implicated in the case, as there was no evidence to suggest that the witnesses had any motive to falsely implicate the accused. 5. The court held that the eye witnesses were reliable, as their testimony was consistent and they had no motive to falsely implicate the accused.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants.
B. R. ARORA, J.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the-judgement dated 30-11-91 passed by the Additional District R Sessions Judge, Banner, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants for the offences under Sections 148, 302/149, 449, 324/149 and 323, IPC and sentenced each of the accused-appellants to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 148, IPC, Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC, seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 449, IPC, one years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 324/149, IPC and three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 323 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
( 2 ) APPELLANTS Panney Singh, Sawai Singh, Bhoor Singh, Jograj Singh and Swaroop Singh, along with one Teel Singh, were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 120-B, IPC. They were, also, tried for the offences under Sections 148, 302/149, 449, 323 and 324/149, IPC. The case of the prosecution, in succinct, is that the appellants along with co-accused Teel Singh and Balwant Singh hatched a conspiracy to commit murder of Khema Ram. In pursuance to this conspiracy, on 26-2-89, at, about 6. 30 p. m. , the accused Balwant Singh, Swaroop Singh, Bhoor Singh, Jograj Singh, Sawai Singh and Panney Singh came to the Dhani of Khema Ram situated in village Oundka (district Barmer ). Balwant Singh was armed with a sword, Swaroop Singh was armed with a gun, Bhoor Singh was armed with a Kulhari while the remaining three accused were armed with Dharias. They came there to commit the murder of Khema Ram in order to take a revenge of the murder of Karan Singh, which was committed by Khema Ram. At that time, Khema Ram, his mother Smt. Parwati, wife Smt. Gawari, Chandu W/o Bheera Ram, Khema Rams sons Prakash and Harish and daughters Miss Kamla and Miss Nenu were, also, present in the Dhani. Immediately after coming to the Dhani, accused Swaroop Singh opened a fire by the gun. Khema Ram was standing in the Dhani. The fire did not hit him and being scared, Khema Ram went in the room situated in the first floor and bolted the door from inside. All the ladies present in the Dhani intervened and requested the accused not to kill Khema Ram. The accused inflicted injuries to the ladies as well as to the children present there and stated that they have to take revenge and they will not leave Khema Ram alive. After giving beatings to the ladies and the children, the accused went up-stairs, made a fire at the door and thereafter broke the door, went inside the room and assaulted Khema Ram. Thereafter Balwant Singh separated the head of Khema Ram by cutting it from the neck and took the head of deceased Khema Ram with them and threw the head at a distance of ten Paundas by saying that they were offering the head to Karan Singh. After the accused went away, Prakash (Son of Khema Ram) brought the head of Khema Ram back and placed it near the deadbody. PW 11 Amra Ram S/o Poonma Ram-nephew of the deceased - came to the Dhani in the night and he was informed by PW 12 Smt. Parwati - the mother of the deceased - regarding the incident and the names of the assailants. Amra Ram, from the Dhani, went to Barmer and reached there at about 4. 00 a. m. He informed Jetha Ram regarding the incident. Jetha Ram thereafter asked Amra Ram to inform his father at Guda Malani. Amra Ram thereafter went to Guda Malani and informed his father regarding the murder of Khema Ram. PW 10 Jetha Ram thereafter went to Loona Rams house and from there he and Loona Ram went to Sona Rams house and requested them to go to village Oundka.
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
