The court emphasized the importance of carefully scrutinizing the testimony of interested and chance witnesses, especially when their conduct raises doubts about their credibility. The court also stressed the need for strong corroborative evidence to support the testimony of such witnesses in order to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - CONVICTION - EVIDENCE - EYE WITNESSES - CORROBORATION - RECOVERY OF WEAPONS - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - INTERESTED WITNESSES - CHANCE WITNESSES - SUSPICIOUS CONDUCT - FAILURE TO INFORM POLICE OR VICTIM'S FAMILY - LACK OF INDEPENDENT WITNESSES - INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS - DOUBT - ACQUITTAL.
Fact of the Case:

Two accused appellants were convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for killing the deceased, Ramesh. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of two alleged eyewitnesses, Narsingh and Shankar, who claimed to have witnessed the murder while taking tea near the crime scene. The prosecution also presented evidence of the recovery of knives at the instance of the accused appellants.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not convincing and did not establish the guilt of the accused appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that the two eyewitnesses were highly interested witnesses who had a friendly relationship with the deceased and had attended his funeral. Their conduct in not informing the police or the victim's family about the murder immediately after the incident was suspicious and raised doubts about their credibility.
Issues: 1. Whether the testimony of the two eyewitnesses was reliable and sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused appellants. 2. Whether the recovery of the knives at the instance of the accused appellants was sufficient to connect them to the crime. 3. Whether the prosecution had established a strong case of circumstantial evidence against the accused appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses was not reliable due to their highly interested nature and suspicious conduct. The court also found that the recovery of the knives was not sufficient to connect the accused appellants to the crime, as the knives were found in an open area accessible to all and sundry. The court further held that the prosecution had failed to establish a strong case of circumstantial evidence against the accused appellants, as there was a lack of independent witnesses and the statements of the eyewitnesses were inconsistent.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals filed by the accused appellants, set aside their conviction and sentence, and acquitted them of the murder charges.

JUDGMENT

1. 1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment dated 26th August, 1991, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer, in Sessions Case No. 73/1993, whereby he convicted both the accused appellants for offence under S. 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. Both the accused-appellants filed separate appeals bat having arisen out of the same judgment, they are being disposed of together.

2. Brief facts leading to these appeals are that on 8th Jan. 1990, a first information report Ex. P/20, was taken down on the statement of Shri Lakshman, recorded by the SHO Police Station, Civil Lines, Ajmer, wherein it was stated by Lakshman that his brother Ramesh @ Trilok son of Burnomal and himself are running a tea stall at Ganj On the date of occurrence at about 3 30 p m. when his brother Ramesh had gone home and he was on the shop, one Mukesh Goyal alongwith one Kalu came to his hotel and asked as to where Ramesh has gone. On his information that he has gone to home both these accused told him to send Ramesh behind the State Bank of India, where they are waiting for him as they have arranged to repay the loan, hence he should reach there by 4.00 p.m. His brother Ramesh, however, came to the shop at 4.30 p. m. At that time accused Kalu had come again and stayed there for 15 to 20 minutes and repeated the cause of his coming that is that Mukesh is calling Ramesh for paying off the loan as he has arranged for the money and that he was waiting for him behind the State Bank of India. Accused Kalu, thereafter asked for a cup of tea which was offered to him. Ramesh thereafter, left on cycle to the appointed place but returned after about half an hour and stated that Kalu and Mukesh were not available there. Kalu again came with an auto-rikshaw between 5 30 to 6.45 p.m. and again insisted Ramesh to go behind the State Bank of India, where Mukesh was waiting for him. Ramesh intended to go on cycle but Kalu told him that today, he will take him in auto-rikshaw, Mukesh will repay the loan and will also pay for the auto-rikshaw's fare. Hearing this Kalu and Ramesh left in the auto-rikshaw. At about 7.00 p.m. when he left for home he was informed that the dead body of Ramesh is lying behind the State Bank of India, hence he had arrived and identified the dead body of Ramesh. He further stated that his brother Ramesh had been killed by accused Mukesh and Kalu. He further stated that his brother had advanced about Rs. 1,000/- to accused Mukesh which despite the repeated reminders had not been repaid. On recording this statement, a case for offence under S. 302 read with S. 34 IPC was registered and investigation commenced.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to taking down this first information report, the S H.O. Police Station, Civil Lines, Ajmer, Shri Abhay Singh PW 22, had already received the telephonic information from some un-known person that a dead body is lying on the road behind the State Bank of India, with injuries and profusely bleeding and he had left for the place of occurrence. Soon there after, where he is alleged to have taken down the aforesaid statement of Lakshman, when he arrived there. The dead-body of the deceased was taken possession of and was sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted on 9th January, 1990, at 11.00 a.m. and Dr. V.D. Kavia, PW 16, found following injuries on the person of the deceased :

1. Stab wound 11/2 x 1/2 x 11/2 cm. on the front of left thigh middle third;

2. Incised wound 5 x 1 x 42 cm. on the leateral aspect of it thigh middle third. Obliquely placed;

3. Stab wound 2x1x11/2 cm on the on left side of back. 6 cm below scapula;

4. Stab wound 3 x 1 cm. depth in on the lumber region;

5. Stab wound 2 x 1 x 3 cm on the back of left thigh upper third;

6. Stab wound 3 x 1/2 cm on the manubrium sterium;

7. Stab wound 31/2 cm x 1/2cm. depth in on the right lateral side of waist just below the 11th rib; and

8. Stab wound 5 cm x 3 cm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1992 Supreme(Raj) 546

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCHV.S.Dave, Y.R.Meena, JJ.Mukesh & Anr. - AppellantsVersusThe State of Rajasthan - RespondentD.B. Cri. Appeal No. 320 of 1991.Decided On : 14-02-1992

Judicial Analysis

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
V.S.Dave, Y.R.Meena, JJ.
Mukesh & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Cri. Appeal No. 320 of 1991.
Decided On : 14-02-1992