1996 Supreme(Raj) 1441
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
M.G.Mukherji, J.C.Verma, JJ.
Chhotya and another - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 447/1996.
Decided On : 18-12-1996
In the absence of a charge under Section 34 IPC, the guilt of an accused for murder cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt based solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302, 323 INDIAN PENAL CODE - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - FACTUAL MATRIX - SOLE EYE-WITNESS TESTIMONY - ABSENCE OF CHARGE UNDER SECTION 34 INDIAN PENAL CODE - ALTERATION OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of Jamna Lal. The prosecution's case was that the appellants attacked Jamna Lal with lathis, causing fatal injuries to his head. The only eyewitness to the incident was Jamna Lal's wife, Smt. Andokhi Bai. The appellants denied the charges and claimed they were falsely implicated due to a previous grudge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the testimony of Smt. Andokhi Bai was credible and corroborated by other witnesses regarding the complicity of appellant Chhotya. However, the court held that in the absence of a charge under Section 34 IPC, the guilt of appellant Mohan Lal could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the court acquitted Mohan Lal of the murder charge.
Issues: 1. Whether the testimony of a sole eyewitness is sufficient to convict an accused of murder in the absence of a charge under Section 34 IPC? 2. Whether the court can alter the conviction and sentence of an appellant based on the evidence presented?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that in the absence of a charge under Section 34 IPC, the guilt of Mohan Lal could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The court relied on the principle that in order to convict an accused of murder, there must be evidence to establish that the accused either caused the death of the victim or participated in a common intention to cause the death of the victim. 2. The court held that it has the power to alter the conviction and sentence of an appellant based on the evidence presented. The court relied on the principle that the court can exercise its discretion to alter the conviction and sentence of an appellant if it finds that the conviction is not supported by the evidence or that the sentence is excessive.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal. Appellant Mohan Lal was acquitted of the murder charge, and appellant Chhotya's conviction was altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC, with a reduced sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment.
JUDGMENT
1. 1. The present appellants Chhotya and Mohan Lal @ Hari Mohan have preferred the appeal against an order of conviction under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default, simple imprisonment for a further period of three months, as passed on 26th July, 1996, by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No. 3/96.
2. The prosecution case inter alia was to the effect that on 26.9.95 at about 8 p.m. when Smt. Andhokh Bai (PW 9) and her husband Jamna Lal along with their children were returning to their own house from the house of her husband's younger brother Chhotu (PW 8), the present appellants Chhotya and Mohan Lal @ Hari Mohan,' the latter being the brother-in-law of the former, attacked Jamna Lal on the small path-way in front of their house, armed with lathis and surrounded Jamna Lal. According to the testimony of Smt. Andokhi Bai (PW 9) (wife of the deceased Jamna Lal) each of the accused persons inflicted lathi blow on the head of the deceased Jamna Lal, as a result whereof Jamna Lal fell down on the ground and Smt. Andokhi Bai (PW 9) in order to guard her husband, placed herself in such a manner so as to shield further attack on her husband Jamna Lal. Attracted by her cries, her husband's younger brother Chhotu (PW 8), Ram Kalyan (PW 7). another younger brother of Jamna Lal, Jamna Lai's mother Kanya (PW 4) and Jamna Lai's sister Rama Bai (PW 3) came to the scene of the occurrence but none of them saw the actual infliction of the lathi blows on the head of Jamna Lal. Jamna Lal was carried to Indragarh having been placed on a cot and from Indragarh he was taken by a Jeep to Sawai Madhopur hospital where he was admitted on 27.9.1995 at about 5 p.m. The prosecution case further was to the effect that Jamna Lal was not in a position to give any dying declaration or make any statement before the doctors and he was in an unconscious state and he died on the night intervening 27th and 28th September, 1995 and according to the doctor, he died on 28.9.95 at about 2 a.m. Police was obviously informed at about 2.20 a.m. on 28th September, 1995 after Jamna Lai's death and the police investigation started at about 7 a.m. on 28.9.95. Between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. on 28.9.95 there was an inquest made by the police where admittedly the widow Smt. Andokhi Bai (PW 9), two brothers and a sister of the deceased and some other relations were present but we do not find anywhere the mention of the names of anyone of the accused persons in the inquest report.
3. According to the post mortem doctor, there were as many as five injuries on the person of the deceased, out of which two injuries were on the head, being injury No. 1 and 2, as mentioned in the post mortem report. Injury No. 1 was a fracture wound on the right frontal bone on the head which caused injury to the brain as well as was otherwise fatal which was sufficient in course of nature to cause death. This injury was over a lacerated wound which was caused by a lathi and the doctor was not very much sure as to whether this injury could only be inflicted by a lathi embedeed with an iron cover. The second injury which was found on the head of Jamna Lal was another lacerated wound which was of obliquely vertical nature on the right frontal part of the scalp 10 c.m. above eye brow caused by blunt weapon. Police treated the statement made by Smt. Andokhi Bai (PW 9) recorded on 28.9.95 at 2.30 a.m. as an FIR and after completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against two accused appellants. Ultimately, charges Under section 302 as well as under Section 323 Indian Penal Code against the accused persons were framed.
4. The accused appellants pleaded not guilty to the respective charges framed against them. Their defence inter alia was that they have been falsely implicated in the case out of previous grudge and enmity. It was further case of the accused appellant Mohan Lal @ Hari Mohan that he
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
