1979 Supreme(Raj) 340
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
K.D.Sharma, S.N.Deedwania, JJ.
The State Of Rajasthan - Appellant
Versus
Balbir Singh And Anr - Respondent
D.B. Cr. Murder Reference No. 1/79 and D.B. Cr. Appeal Nos. 245, 246 and 247 of 1979.
Decided On : 21-07-1979
For the Appellants :Than Chand Mehta and Roopraj Vyes, Advocates.
For the Complainant :D.S. Shishodia P.P. Bhagwati prasad, Advocate.
The evidence of a single eyewitness, even if uncorroborated, may be acted upon in convicting the accused in a murder case, but the court must be satisfied as to the reliability and trustworthiness of the testimony.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - Murder - Conviction and death sentence - Challenge - Appreciation of evidence - Identification of assailants - Corroboration of evidence - Motive - Legality and propriety of conviction and sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted of murder and sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh. The prosecution's case was that the appellants had murdered three persons, namely, Meetsingh, Bhagwansingh, and Punjab Kaur, with sharp-edged weapons in the night. The appellants challenged their conviction and sentence on the ground that the evidence of the sole eyewitness, Gurdeep Kaur, was unreliable and that there was no corroboration of her testimony.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the evidence of the sole eyewitness, Gurdeep Kaur, was unreliable and could not be relied upon to convict the appellants. The court found that Gurdeep Kaur had been demonstrated to be an untruthful witness and that her testimony suffered from several serious infirmities. The court also found that there was no corroboration of Gurdeep Kaur's testimony from independent sources.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of the sole eyewitness, Gurdeep Kaur, was reliable and could be relied upon to convict the appellants. 2. Whether there was any corroboration of Gurdeep Kaur's testimony from independent sources. 3. Whether the motive alleged by the prosecution was sufficient to fasten the guilt on the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence of the sole eyewitness, Gurdeep Kaur, was unreliable and could not be relied upon to convict the appellants. The court found that Gurdeep Kaur had been demonstrated to be an untruthful witness and that her testimony suffered from several serious infirmities. 2. The court found that there was no corroboration of Gurdeep Kaur's testimony from independent sources. 3. The court held that the motive alleged by the prosecution was insufficient to fasten the guilt on the appellants.
Final Decision: The court accepted the appeals filed by the appellants, set aside their convictions and sentences of death, and acquitted them of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC.
JUDGMENT
1. - D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 245/79 filed by Bholasingh and Balbirsingh, D.B. Criminal Jail appeal No. 246/79 preferred by Bholasingh and D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 247/79 filed by Balbirsingh are directed against one and the same judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh whereby Bholasingh and Balbirsingh appellants were convicted under Section 302 IPC and each of them was sentenced to death subject to confirmation thereof by the High Court. The Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh also has submitted the proceedings before us for confirmation of the sentences of death awarded by him to both the aforesaid appellants. This reference is D.B. Criminal Murder Reference No. 1 of 1979 The State of Rajasthan v. Balbirsingh and Anr. As the murder reference and the three appeals arise out of one and the same judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Hanumangarh and as common questions of Jaw and fact do arise for consideration in all of them, they are disposed of together by our one judgment.
2. The prosecution story runs as follows : In the night intervening 25th and 26th June, 1977, Meetsingh and his son Bhagwansingh deceased were sleeping on their cots outside their house Gurdeep Kaur wife of Bhagwan Singh deceased was sleeping with-her mother-in-law Punjab Kaur deceased in the court yard inside the house, Both the appellants, namely. Bholasingh and Balbixsingh who had gone to sleep on the cots in the court-yard inside the house at some distance from the cots of Gurdeep Kaur and her mother-in-law. Some time before 3 or 3.30 A.M. Gurdeep Kaur aroused from sleep when her husband's brother Balbirsing appellant struck a 'kassi' blow on the body of he mother-in-law Punjab Kaur. She saw Bholasingh appellant also striking a blow on the body of Punjab Kaur with a 'gandasi'. She tried to rescue her mother-in law bit Balbirsingh appellant pushed her aside she claimed to have seen her father-in-law Meet Singh and her husband Bhagwansingh also being murdered by both the appellants with the weapons in their hand, Gurdeep Kaur raised an outcry which attracted Bhagwan Kaur to the place of occurrence. At the sight of Bhagwart Kaur both the appellants ran away from there, On hearing her cries Angrej Lumberdar and Karatra Ram Sikh came there and ran after the appellants but they could not overtake and apprehend them Kartara Ram then rushed to the house of Suja along with Balvir, Bhima and Angrej Lumberdar informed him about the three murders Suja came to the spot and was informed by Gurdeep Kaur that the two appellants had killed Meet Singh, Bhagawnsingh and Punjab Kaur with 'kassi' and 'gandasa'. Then Surja accompanied by one Nathu rushed to the field of Gurdeosingh PW 5 and informed him about three murders committed by the appellants. Upon receiving the above information Gurdeo Singh left, his field and hurriedly rime to the place of the incident. He saw Meetsingh, Bhagwansingh and Punjab Ksur lying dead on their cots having multiple injuries en their bodies. Gurdeosingh saw Gurdeep Kaur weeping by the side of the dead bodies. She related the whole of the incident to Gusdeosingh PW5 who then rushed to the Police Station Sangaria making a first information report of the incident to the police. Gurdeo Singh reached the Police Station at 6 A.M. the very day and lodged a verbal report of the occurrence with Sitaram Incharge Police Station Sangaria The report is Ex. P.1 In the report it was further alleged that the motive on the part of the appellant to commit three murders was that Balbirsingh appellant wanted 15 Bighas of land in excess of his share from his father Meet Singh deceased while the latter had given him his due share i.e. 10 Bighas of land only upon partition that took place a few days prior to the occurrence. On the basis of the report, Sitaram registered a criminal case under Section 302 IPC & took up the usual Investigation into the matter.
3. He went to the spot and prepared
Click Here to Read the rest of this document