1979 Supreme(Raj) 284
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
P.D.Kundal, K.S.Sidhu, JJ.
Ramsahai - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Cr. (Jail)) Appeal No. 597 of 1974.
Decided On : 03-04-1979
Advocates:
For the Appellant : A.K. Gupta and G.C.
For the State : A.I. Khan, Public Prosecutor.
Eyewitness testimony, confessions, and recoveries of weapons must be reliable and credible in order to be admissible in court.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - SECTION 302 INDIAN PENAL CODE - CONVICTION BASED ON EYE WITNESSES, CONFESSION AND RECOVERY OF WEAPON - EVIDENCE FOUND UNRELIABLE - ACCUSED ACQUITTED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code based on the testimony of eyewitnesses, a confession made to the police, and the recovery of a bloodstained knife at the instance of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the eyewitness accounts were unreliable and contradictory, the confession was not credible, and the recovery of the weapon was not believable.
Issues: 1. Whether the eyewitness accounts were reliable and credible. 2. Whether the confession made to the police was voluntary and admissible. 3. Whether the recovery of the weapon was lawful and admissible.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court found that the eyewitness accounts were unreliable and contradictory because the witnesses made inconsistent statements and could not have possibly seen the occurrence. 2. The court found that the confession was not credible because the accused denied making it and there was no independent evidence to corroborate it. 3. The court found that the recovery of the weapon was not believable because the accused was seen running away from the scene of the crime and had no time to bury the weapon.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the accused of the murder charge.
JUDGMENT
1. - The appellant Ram Sahai has been convicted by the learned District Sessions Judge, Gangapur City under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
2. The case of the prosecution which resulted in the conviction and sentence of the appellant as aforementioned may be shortly stated here. On March 8, 1974 at about 5 30 P.M., Ram Narain son of Chuniya, resident of village Hitrapura, lodged a report with the police post Hitrapura that a little earlier he had caught hold of Ram Sahai accused who was on the run after committing this crime. He told the police that on hearing the shouts raised by Gaindiya (PW 4) and Gangadhar (PW 6), he become alert and saw the accused running near his field. He caught hold of the accused and asked him the reason why he was running. The accused confessed to Ram Narain that he had killed Chhotiya, one of his own friends & that he could take Ramnarain and others to the fields where the dead body who lying. The accused led Ram Narain & others to the field of Bhawaniya Regar where a man was lying grievously injured in a corner of the field. Ram Narain identified the injured as his own brother Chhotiya. He found that he was still alive, but was in extremic. He immediately went to the village and brought Iliash Khan, a compounder, from the re. Ram Narain and Iliashs Khan saw Chhotiya breathing his last in their presence. Ram Narain then went to the police post Mitrapura and lodged the aforementioned report there.
3. On investigation, Bhanwar Singh, the Investigation Officer is said to have discovered that Mr. Gaindiya and Gangadhar had seen the accused sitting on the chest of Chhotiya deceased with a knife in his hand. On seeing Gaindiya and Gangadhar, the accused ran away, but was intercepted and caught by PW Ram Narain near his field. Bhanwar Singh claims to have recovered the blood stained knife, Article 9, lying buried underground in consequence of the information supplied by the accused.
4. The prosecution produced threefold evidence in support of its case. First, PWs Gangadhar and Gaindiya were examined as eye witnesses of the occurrence. Secondly, PWs Gangadhar, Gaindiya and Ram Narain are said to have heard the accused making a confession that he had killed Chhotiya. Lastly, reliance was placed on the recovery of the blood stained knife, Article 9, at the instance of the accused.
5. The accused denied the allegations made against him He did not produce any evidence in defence.
6. The learned trial Judge has relied on the aforementioned evidence to hold the accused guilty of the offence of murder of Chhotiya.
7. Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant, has taken us through the statements of PWs Gaindiya and Gangadhar, the alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence, and pointed out that they could not have possibly seen the occurrence and that their evidence is inconsistent and unreliable. We are inclined to agree. It will be seen that PW Gaindiya had to admit in cross examination that, in fact, he had not witnessed the occurrence & that he had given hear-say evidence on the basis of what his brother Gangadhar (PW 6) told him about it.
8. After giving our careful consideration to the deposition of Gangadhar (PW6), we are convinced that even he had not witnessed the occurrence. He made a contradictory statement in respect of one of the most material particulars in the case. He stated in the first instance that on hearing hue and cry, he went from his field to the dol of that field and saw from there that a man was sitting on the chest of another man with a knife in his hand He categorically stated in this context that the occurrence was taking place in "Rungti Ka Rasta". A little later in his cross examination, he contradicted himself" & stated that he saw the culprit with a knife in his hand sitting on the chest of another man in a corner of Bhawania Regar's field Now, if both Gandiya and Gangadhar had been present together in their field and it on seeing the accused
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
