1983 Supreme(Raj) 321

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
M.C.Jain, S.C.Agrawal, JJ.
Mohansingh and ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal Nos. 30 and 71 of 1977.
Decided On : 25-03-1983

The court held that the FIR was admissible in evidence, even though it was not entertained by the police, as it was the first version of the घटना given by the informant.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114(g) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 302, 302/149 - First Information Report (FIR) - Admissibility - Identification of accused - Corroboration - Circumstantial evidence - Recovery of blood-stained weapons and clothes - Motive - Common object - Unlawful assembly - Murder - Conviction and sentence - Appeal.

Fact of the Case:

The prosecution case was that the accused-appellants, along with eight Kanjars, came to the house of the deceased Nandsingh and pelted stones at him and his house. Nandsingh entered the kitchen and bolted it from inside. The accused-appellants then entered the verandah and demanded that Nandsingh come out. Mohansingh was armed with a kulhari and the other Kanjars were armed with farsa and lathis. They started knocking the door of the kitchen with force. Mst. Sajjankanwar, who was in another room, bolted it from inside. Mst. Bhanwarkanwar, the wife of Nandsingh, then called Mst. Sajjankanwar to open the door. The accused-appellants then entered the room where Mst. Sajjankanwar was and damaged the belongings lying in that room. A blow was wielded on Sajjan Kanwar by Mohansingh, which was warded off by one kanjar saying not to wield a lathi on a woman. The accused-persons then came out from that room and asked, where Nandsingh is. Nandsingh concealed himself under the cot. Mst. Bhanwarkanwar then uttered that he had gone to attend the court. The accused Najariya, thereupon, said that Thakurani referring Mst. Bhanwarkanwar, does not speak a lie. Mohansingh then said that he had seen him sitting on the cot. The accused Bhagliya then told after peeping into the window having iron bars that Nandsingh is sitting beneath the cot. It is alleged that accused Mohansingh then went to fetch one iron 'subbal' and then with the use of sabbel, the door and its frame were broken, whereby, the door fell down. Nandsingh came out of the kitchen. Soon thereafter, he was caught hold of by the accused Najariya, Bhagwaniya, Saniya and Manohariya. At some distance of the house, the accused Mohansingh inflicted a blow on the head of Nandsingh with Kulhari and the accused Saniya inflicted a blow on his neck with farsi. Mohansingh and Saniya with their weapons and the other accused-persons with lathis then inflicted the blows. The accused-persons then stated from the place of occurrence. But, it is said that the accused Mohansingh called them and asked them to threw away the body in the well. Thereupon, the accused Heeriya. Saniya, Kaniya and Mohansingh carried the body of Nandsingh end threw it in the well which is situated just close to the kitchen. The accused-persons thereafter left the place. Mst. Bhanwarkanwar then went to the hilly forest and informed of the occurrence to Gordhansingh. In the meantime, Ramsingh had gone to the village and called some villagers. One Jagannath Bali was sent it to the police station, Mandalgarh at a distance of six miles, from the place of the occurrence with a written report but it appears that, that report was not entertained. Two constables, however, visited the place of occurrence Thereafter, Gordhansingh, accompanied with Ramsingh, went to the police station, Mandalgarh and lodged a report at 5.15 p.m. on that very day.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accused-appellants Mohansingh and Saniya were guilty of the offences Under Sections 148 and 302, IPC and the accused Kaniya and Bhagwaniya were guilty of the offences Under Sections 147 and 302/149, IPC. However, the court found that the accused-appellants Najariya, Manohariya and Bagliya were entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquitted them.

Issues: 1. Whether the first information report (FIR) was admissible in evidence? 2. Whether the identification of the accused-appellants was reliable? 3. Whether the circumstantial evidence corroborated the testimony of the eyewitnesses? 4. Whether the accused-appellants had a common object to kill the deceased? 5. Whether the accused-appellants were guilty of the offences charged?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the FIR was admissible in evidence, even though it was not entertained by the police, as it was the first version of the घटना given by the informant. 2. The court held that the identification of the accused-appellants Mohansingh and Saniya was reliable, as they were known to the eyewitnesses and their identity was corroborated by the recovery of blood-stained weapons and clothes. 3. The court held that the circumstantial evidence, such as the recovery of blood-stained weapons and clothes, corroborated the testimony of the eyewitnesses. 4. The court held that the accused-appellants had a common object to kill the deceased, as they came to his house armed with deadly weapons and assaulted him with the intention of causing his death. 5. The court held that the accused-appellants Mohansingh and Saniya were guilty of the offences Under Sections 148 and 302, IPC and the accused Kaniya and Bhagwaniya were guilty of the offences Under Sections 147 and 302/149, IPC.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal of Mohansingh and the appeal of the accused-appellants Saniya, Kaniya and Bhagwaniya. However, the court allowed the appeal of the accused-appellants Najariya, Manohariya and Bagliya and set aside their convictions and sentences.