1993 Supreme(Raj) 602
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
M.B.Sharma, M.R.Calla, JJ.
Nadan and Meda - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 444 of 1992.
Decided On : 26-07-1993
In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The testimony of witnesses must be reliable and consistent with the other evidence in the case. If the prosecution fails to meet this burden, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and must be acquitted.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302/34, INDIAN PENAL CODE - FACTUAL DISPUTE - EYE-WITNESS TESTIMONY - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - RELIABILITY OF WITNESSES - BENEFIT OF DOUBT - ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
Fact of the Case:
Two accused-appellants were convicted of murder under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of the deceased, Kailash, with a knife and lathi. The prosecution's case was that the accused-appellants had an enmity with the deceased's father, Bodan, and had previously assaulted him and killed his brother's son. The prosecution relied on the testimony of Bodan, who claimed to have witnessed the attack, and his wife, Sarsa, who was also presented as an eye-witness.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the testimony of Sarsa was unreliable as she was not an eye-witness to the occurrence and had been wrongly presented as such. The court also noted that Bodan's testimony was not of sterling worth due to the strained relationship between him and the accused-appellants, the introduction of unreliable eye-witnesses, and the inconsistencies between his statement and the medical evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the testimony of Sarsa was reliable and could be relied upon to convict the accused-appellants. 2. Whether Bodan's testimony was credible and sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. 3. Whether the medical evidence supported the prosecution's case and corroborated the testimony of the eye-witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the testimony of Sarsa was unreliable as she was not an eye-witness to the occurrence and had been wrongly presented as such. The court also found that Bodan's testimony was not of sterling worth due to the strained relationship between him and the accused-appellants, the introduction of unreliable eye-witnesses, and the inconsistencies between his statement and the medical evidence. The court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond a reasonable doubt and extended the benefit of doubt to them.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence awarded under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and acquitted the accused-appellants.
JUDGMENT
1. - Two accused-appellants are sons of Umarao, who is the real brother of Bodan PW/1. Umarao, Bodan and two other brothers were having a joint well in village Rajgarh Police Station Rajgarh. Many cases were pending in between the accused-appellants on the one hand and Bodan on the other As per the case of the prosecution, on 12th July, 1990 at 8:00 or 8:30 A.M. Bodan had sent his son Kailash in search of she-buffalo. When he did not return for some time, it is alleged, Bodan PW/1 went in his search towards the well and there he saw that accused appellant Nadan and Meda were giving beating to him with lathi and knife. Nadan was having knife in his hand and Meda lathi. Each of them gave blows with the respective weapon to the deceased Kailash Bodan PW/1 raised an alarm. On hearing it, his wife-mother of the deceased Kailash namely Sarsa PW/2 also came on the spot. Accused persons are said to have made good the escape. Bodan PW/1 immediately went to the village and from a public booth gave a telephonic message to the police Station, Tehla, tehsil Alwar The said report was written at No 350. at 9:40 A.M. in the general diary. The SHO reached the spat and Parcha Bayan of Bodan was recorded. The usual investigation took place. The accused persons were arrested. In the statement of accused-appellant Nadan it is stated that he got recovered the knife which was blood-stained. It was seized and sealed. Blood-stained knife along with blood-stained soil, cloth etc. of the deceased were sent to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, who bad examined the same and vide his report Ex. P/9 found that they were stained with human blood. So far as knife is concerned, it was found to be stained with 'B' group blood. So also pieces of stones, blood smeared soil, control soil, chaku, Bushirt, Lugari etc. were found to be stained with blood.
2. The charge-sheet was filed. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. After close of the prosecution evidence each of the accused persons was examined under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code to explain the circumstances alleged against each of the accused persons. They stood on a bare plea of denial. Accused Nadan came out with the case that neither he gave any information for recovery of knife, nor got recovered any knife. According to him, he has been falsely implicated because of previous enmity. The accused persons did not examine any person in defence. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. I, Alwar convicted each of the accused under his judgment dated 13th November, 1992 under Section 302/74, Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life, and to pay a fine of Rs 2000/- and in default to suffer five months' simple imprisonment. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge further ordered that out of the amount of fine realised, a sum of Rs. 3.000/- will be paid to the father of deceased Kailash as compensation.
3. In assailing the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that even if the case of the prosecution is admitted that there was enmity between the accused persons on the one hand and Bodan (PW/l) on the other, but the leaned Addi Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the statement of Sarsa (PW/2) wife of Bodan (PW 1) and mothor of deceased Ka dash; but she was not an eye-witness to the occurrence and, thus, reliance has been wrongly placed on her statement. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the case rests on the solitary statement of Bodan (PW/1) and he has made imprisonment on the previous statement made in the trial Court and has introduced his own wife as an eye-witness when in fact she was not an eye-witness. Ranjeeta and Prabhudayal's presence was stated by Bodan (PW/1) on the soot when they reside in other village which is 5.6 kosh away from the place of occurrence. The learned counsel for the appellants has
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
