The court emphasized the importance of proper investigation, reliable eyewitness testimony, and adherence to legal procedures in criminal cases. The suppression of the original FIR and the inconsistencies in witness statements raised doubts about the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 AND 307 IPC - FACTUAL MATRIX, WITNESS TESTIMONY, INVESTIGATION LACUNAS, AND MEDICAL EVIDENCE - COURT'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - BENEFIT OF DOUBT TO ACCUSED.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Dalveer, was convicted by the District and Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, under Sections 302 and 307 IPC for causing the death of Rajveer and injuring Ishwari Prasad, Mahadevi, and Bipati. The incident arose from a dispute over digging sand near Dalveer's house. Dalveer allegedly fired at the victims from the roof of his house, resulting in Rajveer's death and injuries to the others.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the first information report (FIR) was inadmissible as it was recorded after the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were taken, violating Section 162 Cr.P.C. The court also noted inconsistencies in the testimony of the main witnesses, Ishwari and Bipati, and questioned the credibility of their statements. Additionally, the court found that the investigation was bungled, with crucial details such as the exact place of occurrence and recovery of pellets and wads not properly documented.
Issues: 1. Admissibility of the FIR and the impact of its suppression on the prosecution's case. 2. Credibility and reliability of the eyewitness testimony. 3. Adequacy and thoroughness of the police investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the FIR was inadmissible as it was recorded after the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., violating the principle against ante-dating of evidence. This rendered the FIR unreliable and weakened the prosecution's case. 2. The court found that the eyewitness testimony was inconsistent and lacked credibility. The witnesses changed their versions to align with the medical evidence, and their statements were not corroborated by other evidence or circumstances. 3. The court criticized the investigation for its bungled nature, noting the lack of proper documentation regarding the place of occurrence and the recovery of pellets and wads. This raised doubts about the accuracy and reliability of the investigation.
Final Decision: Considering the inadmissible FIR, unreliable eyewitness testimony, and bungled investigation, the court gave the accused the benefit of doubt and acquitted him. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were set aside.

JUDGMENT

1. The District and Sessions Judge, Bharatpur has convicted the appellant Section 302 and 307 IPC and sentenced him as under:-

U/s. 302 IPC

Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-.

U/s. 307 IPC

Seven Years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months R.I.

Against this conviction made on 24th January, 1990, the appellant Dalvcer has preferred this appeal. Along-with Dalveer, his father Ramjilal was also tried for the same offence but he has been given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.

2. The first information report in this case was lodged by PW/7 Devi Singh and the report is Ex P/18. According to this first information report, the incident out of which the case arises occurred on 29th June, 1988 in the morning time Ramjilal and Dalveer were digging sand near the house of Dalveer, who was the uncle of Devi Singh. At that time Rajveer and Vipti told them not to do so but they persisted and when there was some further exchange of hot words. Dalveer ran towards his house, took a gun and went to his roof, then fired at Vipti. The second fire was made at Rajveer. They started running then Dalveer fired again and one girl Mahadevi was also injured. For Ramjilal it was alleged that he gave blows by lathi. A number of persons namely Budha and Darab Singh also came there, soon after the incident. The injured persons were sent to the hospital for treatment. This report was made at Police Station Kumher and upon this, a case under Sections 323,307 and 34 IPC was registered. Rajveer expired on the same day and the case was also registered under Section 302 IPC.

3. PW/1 Dr. Bhopal Singh, conducted post mortem on the body of Rajveer and he found the following injuries:-

"1. Multiple round fire arm wounds (entry) about 15 present on right back lower ⅔ and on right mid axillary line producing separate openings in an area of 10" diameter without causing blackening scortching or tatooing.

2. Three found fire arm entry wounds present on right abdomen lower ⅔1 on iliac crest without causing blackening scortching. The wounds were each of size 0.3 cm x 0.3cm. Direction of injury No. 1 was from back side and injury No. 2 was from front side.

3. Round entry fire arm wound two on right arm lower 1 /3rd outer side and one on front side. No blackening or scortching found."

4. The same Doctor examined the injuries of Ishwari Prasad, Mahadevi and Bipati. The injuries received by these persons may also be re-produced to get a clear picture of the injuries caused by firing. These injuries are as under:-

Ishwari Prasad: One round punctured red lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm on left neck back side. Surrounded skin was abrased. There was no blackening, scortching and tatooing on surrounding skin.

Mahadevi: One transverse red lacerated wound 21/2cm x 1/2cm x skin deep right middle parietal on the top of the head. The injury was simple.

Bipati: 1-Oblique red lacerated wound 5cm x 1/2cm x bone deep on right on fronto parietal and 11cm above right eye brow and right ear.

2. Multiple oval fire arm wound of entry on right thigh, right leg outer side, producing separate openings in an area of vertically 18" and transversely 7" on right thigh from right hip joint to right thigh lower 1 /3rd and vertically 11" and transversely 4" on right leg middle to right leg lower 1 /3rd on the outer side. The distance between both sides was 9" i. e. no injury seen on right knee joint. The side of each wounds were Jem x0.3cm without blackening, scortching and tatooing.

3. One fire arm wound was present on left leg middle having the size of 0.3cm x 0.3cm The direction of firearm wounds were from front side and lower to upper side. Injury No. 2 was caused by firearm and injury No. 1 was caused by blunt object.
Bipati was operated and Dr. R. D. Goyal, who is court witness No. 1 extracted three pellets and they were sent for examination.

5. Harbhan Singh, A.S.I. Police Station Kumher, PW/10 w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1991 Supreme(Raj) 550

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCHV.S.Dave, Mohini Kapoor, JJ.Dalbeer - AppellantVersusState of Rajasthan - RespondentD.B. Cr. Appeal No. 53 of 1990 (Against the judgment dated 24.1.1990 passed by Ss. Judge, Bharatpur in Ss Case No. 90 of 1988).Decided On : 14-02-1991

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
V.S.Dave, Mohini Kapoor, JJ.
Dalbeer - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 53 of 1990 (Against the judgment dated 24.1.1990 passed by Ss. Judge, Bharatpur in Ss Case No. 90 of 1988).
Decided On : 14-02-1991