The prosecution must prove its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution fails to do so, the accused must be acquitted.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - Murder - Conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code - Appeal - Whether the prosecution has proved the case against the appellants beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt - Whether the evidence of the eye-witnesses is reliable - Whether the delay in recording the statements of the witnesses casts a doubt on their presence at the time of the occurrence - Whether the First Information Report was recorded on the date of the occurrence itself or on the next day - Whether the appellants deserve to be acquitted.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants were convicted and sentenced for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. They appealed against their conviction and sentence, arguing that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against them beyond a reasonable doubt, that the evidence of the eye-witnesses was unreliable, and that the delay in recording their statements cast doubt on their presence at the time of the occurrence. They also argued that the First Information Report was not recorded on the date of the occurrence itself but on the next day.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. It held that the evidence of the eye-witnesses was unreliable, as there were contradictions in their statements and they had not explained the reason for their delay in recording their statements. The court also found that the First Information Report was not recorded on the date of the occurrence itself but on the next day, which raised a suspicion on the prosecution case.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution has proved the case against the appellants beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the evidence of the eye-witnesses is reliable. 3. Whether the delay in recording the statements of the witnesses casts a doubt on their presence at the time of the occurrence. 4. Whether the First Information Report was recorded on the date of the occurrence itself or on the next day.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. It held that the evidence of the eye-witnesses was unreliable, as there were contradictions in their statements and they had not explained the reason for their delay in recording their statements. The court also found that the First Information Report was not recorded on the date of the occurrence itself but on the next day, which raised a suspicion on the prosecution case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences of the appellants, and acquitted them of the charges levelled against them.

JUDGMENT

1. - In a trial for the charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code against Teja Singh appellant and under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code against appellants Bhajan Singh and Mukhtyar Kaur they were held guilty for the aforesaid offences and by the judgment dated August 25, 1982 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh all of them were sentenced to imprisonment for life.

2. Feeling aggrieved by their conviction and sentence the appellants have preferred this appeal in this Court.

3. Succinctly narrated the prosecution case is that on August 15, 1981 at about 4-4.30 p.m. Hazoora Singh (PW 6), his daughter Amro (PW 7) and Sadho Singh (PW 9) were sitting on cots beneath a tree out side the house of Hazoora Singh. When they heard cries from the house of Billoo Majhabi, all the three lushed towards that house and saw Malkiat Singh son of Hazoorasingh lying on a cot. Mukhtyar Kaur and Bhajan Singh appellants were catching hold of the legs of Malkiat Singh and Teja Singh was inflicting 'Kirpan' blows to him. The three appellants then jumped the wall going to the compound of Noor Samad and ran away. Malkiat Singh died instantaneous. Hazoora Singh (PW 6) went to Sarpanch Ram Pratap and on being asked by the latter to lodge the report at Police Station went to the Police Station Hanumangarh Junction and lodged the report with ASI Ikbal Singh (PW 10). The information reduced in to writing is Ex P 16. The ASI went to the site and prepared the inquest memo, site inspection memo and Panchnama of the dead body. On the next day. the ASI again went to the site and continued the invesigation. Teja Singh was arrested vide memo Ex. P 10 on August 23, 1981. On the information of Teja Singh Ex. P2. one 'Kripan' was recovered from his house which was taken in possession. Bhajan Singh appellant was also arrested on August 23, 1981 vide memo Ex. P.H. Mukhtyar Kaur was arrested on August 31, 1982 The post mortem examination on the dead body of Malkiyat Singh was conducted by Dr. Ram Lal Beniwal (PW 5) on August 16, 1981. The Doctor noted following external injuries on the dead body:

1. An incised wound 71/2" x 11/2'x 11/2" on right lower jaw from angle of mendible to across mid-line;

2. An incised wound 3" x 1" x 1" on left side cheek from angle of mendible to angle of mouth and upper lip;

3. An incised wound 21/2" X 2" X 1/2" on right side of neck anterally middle part;

4. Fracture of right left mendibles 1st, IInd, IIIrd and IVth lower teeth.
Upon opening the body, the Doctor noted as under:Injury to the neck on right side included the injury of right big vessel as the same was found to be cut.Apart of left side upper lip, tip of tongue, left side cheek, a part of left phrynx were found to be cut as a consequence of external injury No. 2, stated above.The above cut of big vessel was the result of above injury No. 3.

4. In the opinion of the Doctor injuries Nos. 1 to 3 were individually and collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injury No. 4 was the result of injuries Nos. 1 and 2. The port mortem examination report is Ex. P 15.

5. Upon completion of necessary investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellants in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hanumangarh. The learned Magistrate finding it a prima facie case exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, committed the case to the court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangrah. The learned Additional Sessions Judge charge-sheeted the appellants Tejasingh for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and other two appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and recorded their pleas. All of them denied the charges and claimed to be tried. To substantiate its case prosecution examined ten witnesses in all. All the appellants in their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the allegations levelled against them. Ram Prat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1988 Supreme(Raj) 383

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTKanta Bhatnagar, Sobhag Mal Jain, JJ.Teja Singh And Others - AppellantVersusState Of Rajasthan - RespondentD.B. Criminal Appeal No. 329 of 1982.Decided On : 12-01-1988

The prosecution must prove its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution fails to do so, the accused must be acquitted.

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Kanta Bhatnagar, Sobhag Mal Jain, JJ.
Teja Singh And Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 329 of 1982.
Decided On : 12-01-1988