1984 Supreme(Raj) 550
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
G.M.Lodha, D.L.Metha, JJ.
Pappu and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Cr. Jail Appeal No. 274 of 1978.
Decided On : 18-12-1984
The absence of an accused's name in the first information report and the inquest report, signed by an eye-witness, can create doubt regarding the accused's involvement in the crime, especially when the accused is a relative of the person who took the first information report to the police station.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC - SECTION 302 READ WITH SECTION 109 IPC - ABETMENT - EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNT - INQUEST REPORT - ABSENCE OF ACCUSED'S NAME - BENEFIT OF DOUBT - INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE - BALLISTIC EVIDENCE - GUNSHOT WOUNDS - CAUSATION OF DEATH - CONVICTION AND ACQUITTAL.
Fact of the Case:
Pappu and Jinsi were convicted by the Sessions Judge for the murder of Shiv Ji under Section 302 IPC and Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC, respectively. Pappu appealed, arguing that his name was not mentioned in the first information report as an abettor and that he had helped the deceased and his brother against Jinsi. Jinsi also appealed, challenging the ballistic evidence and the credibility of the eye-witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the absence of Pappu's name in the first information report and the inquest report created doubt regarding his involvement in the crime. However, the court upheld the conviction of Jinsi, finding that the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he had intentionally caused the fatal injuries to the deceased.
Issues: 1. Whether the absence of Pappu's name in the first information report and the inquest report created doubt regarding his involvement in the crime. 2. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Jinsi had intentionally caused the fatal injuries to the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the absence of Pappu's name in the first information report and the inquest report, which were signed by the deceased's brother, an eye-witness, created a strong circumstance that cast doubt on his involvement in the crime. The court found it difficult to believe that the brother of the deceased would have omitted to mention Pappu's name if he had been involved. 2. The court found that the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Jinsi had intentionally caused the fatal injuries to the deceased. The court relied on the consistent and credible testimony of the eye-witnesses, as well as the ballistic evidence, which showed that the injuries were caused by a gun fired by Jinsi.
Final Decision: The court acquitted Pappu of the charges against him and dismissed Jinsi's appeal, upholding his conviction.
JUDGMENT
1. - These are two appeals, one filed from jail by both the accused persons Pappu and Jinsi and the second filed by pappu duly represented by his counsel.
2. According to the written report filed by Chouthilal on behalf of Bhanwar Lal, the prosecution case was that Bhanwar Lal was living with his father and brothers in the village Todpura. There was a dispute between his brother Ram Niwas and Bhondu Sarpanch about a year back. About eight days back, Jinsi, Lakhan, Brij Mohan and Shiv Ji took liquor and there was a dispute between them. Jinsi with a gun, came at his hoc abused them and challenged them to come out. Since no body came out, Jinsi went away saying that he would kill Shiv Ji.
3. It was then stated that yesterday on the occasion of Holi at about I I a.m. Jagan Nath, Brij Mohan came to his house and took him and his brother Shiv Ji etc. out-side the village. They drank liquor there. In the evening Shiv Ji came to house. Brij Mohan and Sagan Nath then came to house and took Shiv Ji again for. Holi-Danda celebration. Witness Bhanwar Lal also accompanied with Rahubeer and Pappu followed. At the place where Holi-Danda was being celebrated they were sitting and at that time Brij Mohan and Jagan Nath went and came back and told Shiv Ji that Lakhan is calling. Shiv Ji and witness accompanied Jagan Nath and reached there. There Batwa, Kanti. Lakhan and Brij Mohan were sitting. Behind them Jinsi was sitting who came on the spot with a gun. Lakhau and Brij Mohan told Jinsi to kill Shiv Ji. Jinsi then fired at Shiv Ji. He tried to save Shiv Ji. Pappu was called and came there. Batwa threw stone on him and Kanti pushed him. Jinsi then fired Shiv Ji with a gun which resulted in falling down of Shiv Ji by the injury of gun. Jinsi then ran away and witness Bhanwar Lal caught him but he tried to run-away after pushing him. Pappu caught him. Brij Mohan, Kanti. Lakhan and Sagan Nath ran-away. He stayed with Shiv Ji and then his mother and relatives came. Jinsi later on informed that the gun was given by Bhodu Sarpanch. This report was submitted by Chouthi Lal on behalf of Bhanwarlal though it was signed by Bhanwar Lal.
4. The Station House Officer registered a case and prepared the inquest and made other investigation and then during the investigation he found that Pappu was also involved in the incident as on abator. The SRO challaned both Jinsi and Pappu. After the commitment proceedings, evidence was recorded by the Sessions Judge. The accused denied the charge in the statement. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing both accused and the prosecution convicted the accused Jinsi under Section 302 IPC and accused Pappu under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC.
5. In this appeal, Mr. Tibrewal learned counsel for Pappu has drawn our attention to the pertinent feature of the case that in the first information report which was signed by brother of the deceased who is an injured eye-witness, name of Pappu was not mentioned at all so far as the part of abatement is concerned. Contrary to it, was mentioned that Pappu helped him in catching the accused Jinsi when he was running. A reading of first information report, according to Mr. Tibrewal, clearly shows that Pappu was not only an abator but contrary to it he was helping the deceased and his brother against the accused Jinsi.
6. Shri Tibrewal then read before us the inquest report prepared soon after the incident by the S.H.O. which has been signed by Bhanwarlal. The deponent of the first information report and the injured eyewitness. It was pointed out that this inquest report was not without significance that there was no mention any where direct or indirect that Pappu was an accused in this case.
7. On the above premises Mr. Tibrewal pointed out that name of Pappu is a case of deliberate improvement in the prosecution story at the later stage on account of some enemity. The statement of Bhanwar Lal was also read as a whole. Bhanwar Lal admitted the signatures on the first information
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
