1990 Supreme(Raj) 396
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
S.N.Bhargava, J.
Pal Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Cr. Appeal no. 1 of 1979.
Decided On : 5-01-1990
Advocates:
For the Appellant:M.L. Garg, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Vimal Mathur, P.P.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence presented must be reliable and consistent.
Headnote:
Prosecution Failure - Conviction Under Section 307, Indian Penal Code - The court acquitted the accused appellant due to the prosecution's failure to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted under Section 307, Indian Penal Code based on the evidence of a sole witness and the recovery of a licensed pistol. However, the witness did not fully support the prosecution's story, and the evidence was contradictory.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, especially considering the contradictory evidence and lack of support from other witnesses.
Issues: The key issue was the reliability of the evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly the sole testimony of the witness and the recovery of the licensed pistol.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and in this case, the evidence presented was not sufficient to establish the guilt.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the accused appellant was acquitted of the charges under Section 307, Indian Penal Code. The accused appellant was not required to surrender, and the licensed pistol was ordered to be returned to him.
JUDGMENT
1. - This appeal has been directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, convicting the accused appellant Under Section 307, Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to three years's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-.
2. FIR in this case has been lodged by PW 1 Heeranand who has been declared hostile. Similarly all other alleged eye witnesses, namely, PW 2 Ram Chander, PW 4 Subhash Chandra, PW 6 Hansraj, PW 7 Norangrai and PW 8 Bodaldas have been declared hostile None of them has supported the prosecution story as given in the FIR. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has based his conviction solely on the evidence of PW 10 Radhey Shyam and the recovery of the pistol at the instance of the accused. It may be mentioned at the outset that the pistol was a licensed one and the licence was also in the name of the accused appellant and he had handed over the pistol along with the licence.
3. I have carefully gone through the First Information Report as also the statement of all the witnesses, including PW 10 Radhey Shyam. Radhey Shyam also has not fully and entirely supported the prosecution story as given in the FIR and a bare perusal of the evidence will show that entire evidence is contra-distinction of the other PWs, as mentioned above. It is very difficult to believe and rely on the sole testimony of PW 10 Radhey Shyam. His evidence does not show, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that the pistol could be fired and injured any of the persons, including Radhey Shyam. Therefore, in my opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused appellant and the accused appellant is entitled to be acquitted.
4. In the result, this appeal is allowed, the conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge is acquitted of charges Under Section 307, Indian Penal Code.
5. The accused appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are hereby discharged.
6. The licenced pistol may be returned to the appellant.Appeal allowed.
*******
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
