1993 Supreme(Raj) 628
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
M.B.Sharma, M.R.Calla, JJ.
Ram Pal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 434 of 1989.
Decided On : 16-08-1993
The testimony of eyewitnesses must be reliable and consistent in order to be relied upon to convict an accused person.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC - CONVICTION FOR MURDER - EVIDENCE - RELIABILITY OF EYE-WITNESSES - MOTIVE - BLOOD AT THE SCENE OF CRIME - DISCLOSURE OF NAMES OF ASSAILANTS TO DOCTOR - COURT'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED.
Fact of the Case:
Accused-appellant Rampal was convicted by the trial court for the murder of Lalchand under section 302 IPC. The prosecution alleged that Rampal, along with another person named Satya Veer, attacked Lalchand while he was sleeping inside his house. Rampal allegedly stabbed Lalchand with a knife, causing his death. Two eyewitnesses, Phool Singh and Guddu @ Jitendra, testified that they saw Rampal inflicting the fatal injury.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses was unreliable. Phool Singh made contradictory statements at different stages of the investigation and trial. He also introduced two additional eyewitnesses in his court statement who were not mentioned in the FIR. Guddu @ Jitendra did not actually see the accused giving the blow by knife but only saw him taking out the knife from the chest of the deceased. The court also noted that there was no blood found at the scene of the crime, despite the nature of the injury. Additionally, the names of the assailants were not disclosed to the doctor who treated Lalchand.
Issues: 1. Whether the testimony of the two eyewitnesses was reliable. 2. Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses was unreliable and could not be relied upon to convict the accused-appellant. The court also found that there was no other evidence to establish the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that there was no blood found at the scene of the crime, despite the nature of the injury, and that the names of the assailants were not disclosed to the doctor who treated Lalchand.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant, and acquitted him of the charge under section 302 IPC.
JUDGMENT
1. - Accused appellant Rampal has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar, vide his judgment dated 10.11.1990, under section 302 IPC and has been sentenced for the said offence to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-.
2. The case relates to the alleged murder of one Lalchand. As per the case of the prosecution, at about 12.30 noon on 18.5.88, Lalchand was sleeping inside his house. Accused-appellant Rampal along with one Satyaveer came there. Satyaveer caught hold of Lalchand by leg and accused-appellant Rampal gave a blow by his knife which caused injury on the abdomen of Lalchand, on account of which Lalchand died. The accused-appellant along with his companion Satya Veer made his escape good. The occurrence is said to have been witnessed by PW 2 Phool Singh and PW5 Guddu @ Jitendra. The report of the incident was lodged by PW 2 Phool Singh at the Police Station Mandhan, where a case was registered under section 302 IPC.
3. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused-petitioner and so far as the other accused person mentioned in the FIR i.e. Satya Veer is concerned, the police found the case against him to be false and no charge-sheet was filed against him. The case was committed and an application was filed under section 319 Criminal Procedure Code before the Sessions Judge to take cognizance against Satya Veer but the said application was also dismissed. In other words, the trial proceeded against the present accused-appellant and the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as aforesaid.
4. The plea of the accused-appellant in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. was of bare denial and therefore, he came out with the case that he is a student. He was aged 19-21 years and that he had been falsely implicated in the case on account of party factions. He did not examine any witness in defence.
5. Learned Counsel for the accused-appellant in assailing the judgment of the Trial Court has contended that the occurrence does not appear to have taken place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution witnesses, because no blood was found at the place where the occurrence is said to have taken place and looking to the nature of the injury, blood must have oozed out from the wound and there should have been blood at the spot. Learned Counsel for the appellant further contends that the accused-appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. According to the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant when the case put forward by the prosecution was not found to he correct, rather was found to be false, so far as the accused Satya Veer is concerned and even after investigation, no charge-sheet was filed against him, the statements of the witnesses should not be relied upon even so far as the appellant Rampal is concerned.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant does not dispute and there cannot be any dispute and no dispute can be raised, that Lalchand died as a result of injuries caused to him. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that there is no reason to place reliance on the statements of the two witnesses that the accused appellant is the author of the fatal injury and therefore, the case will not be covered u /Sec. 302 IPC but will be covered under section 304-I IPC.
7. On behalf of the prosecution, as many as four eye witnesses were examined i.e. PW-2 Phool Singh, PW-4 Smt. Rameshwari, PW-5 Guddu @ Jitendra and PW-9 Santosh. The Trial Court has not placed reliance on the statements of PW-4 Smt. Rameshwari and PW-9 Santosh but has placed reliance on the testimony of PW- 2 Phool Singh and PW-5 Jitendra and on the basis of their testimony, the learned Court has convicted the accused-appellant. After having gone through the statements of PW-4 Smt. Rameshwari and PW-9 Santosh, we are in agreement with the Trial Court that they had not witnessed the occurrence. The Trial Court has given reasons for holdin
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
