The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and this includes proving the identity of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. In cases where the identification of the accused is based on eyewitness testimony, the court must carefully consider the reliability and credibility of the eyewitnesses, especially when the eyewitnesses are interested or enimical towards the accused.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - MURDER - EYE WITNESSES - IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED - RELIABILITY - TIME OF INCIDENT - DARKNESS - RECOGNITION OF ACCUSED - INDEPENDENT WITNESSES - DYING DECLARATION - CORROBORATION - FORENSIC EVIDENCE - BLOOD STAINS - SEROLOGIST REPORT - FAILURE TO PRODUCE - ACQUITTAL.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants, Kishan and Kailash, were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Mohan Lal. The prosecution alleged that the appellants had inflicted a fatal knife blow on Mohan Lal near the Chabutara of Mahadeoji on July 19, 1982, at around 8:00 PM. The prosecution relied on the testimony of four eyewitnesses, who claimed to have seen the appellants inflicting the knife blow and running away from the scene.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that the incident took place at around 8:00 PM, which was after sunset and when it was dark. The court also noted that there was no electricity or street lighting in the village, making it difficult for the eyewitnesses to have recognized the appellants. The court further noted that the eyewitnesses were interested and enimical towards the appellants, and that their evidence was full of contradictions. The court also found that the prosecution had failed to connect the knife, which was allegedly recovered at the instance of Kishan, to the crime scene or to the appellants. The court also noted that the prosecution had failed to produce independent witnesses or to corroborate the alleged dying declaration of the deceased.
Issues: 1. Whether the eyewitnesses could have recognized the appellants in the dark? 2. Whether the eyewitnesses were reliable and credible? 3. Whether the prosecution had proved that the knife was connected to the crime scene or to the appellants? 4. Whether the prosecution had produced independent witnesses or corroborated the alleged dying declaration of the deceased?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that it was not possible for the eyewitnesses to have recognized the appellants in the dark, given the time of the incident and the lack of lighting in the village. 2. The court held that the eyewitnesses were not reliable and credible, given their interest and enmity towards the appellants and the contradictions in their evidence. 3. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the knife was connected to the crime scene or to the appellants, as the knife had not been shown to have human blood or to have been sent to the Serologist for examination. 4. The court held that the prosecution had failed to produce independent witnesses or to corroborate the alleged dying declaration of the deceased, as the son and wife of the deceased had not supported the prosecution story and the alleged dying declaration had not been corroborated by any other eyewitness.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants, and acquitted them of the charges against them.

JUDGMENT

1. - This is an appeal against the conviction and sentence passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Alwar convicting the accused appellant Kishan under Section 302 I. P.C. and Kailash under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC. and sentencing them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, six months simple imprisonment to each.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly stated as follows :

3. One Ram Lal lodged a report at Police Station Rajgarh district-Alwar on 22.7.82 at 2.30 AM. stating that his brother a tea stall at Alwar and another younger brother Mohan Lal also works in that tea stall. On 19.7.82 at about 8.00 PM. when he and Khiladi Meena were returning to their house after taking bath in the Bawdi, he heard cries of brother Mohan Lal who was saying Bhag Jao-Bhag Jao. Thereupon, he and Ram Khiladi went to Mohan Lal and saw that his brother Mohan Lal had been cut by Kailash and one more person whose name he did not know. Kishan Lal inflicted a knife blow on Mohan Lal's abdomen. His brother fell down. At that time Chatru, Behari and other persons of the village had also come there. Mohan Lal told him that the money which he had in his pocket of Kurta had also been snatched away by Kishanya and Kailash. He brought his brother in a tractor of Ramjilal to Alwar, wherein Ram Kishore, Jamura, Ranglal, Prabhati, Girdhari, mother ol Mohan Lal and wife of Mohan Lal also accompanied. When they reached near Mala Kheda, it was though proper to show to the doctor there and they took him to the doctor at Malakheda who declared his brother dead. Thereupon they brought the dead body to their village where his brother Jawahar Lal met him and told that Mohan Lal had Rs. 4015/- in his pocket when he left Alwar and they have killed Mohan Lal because Kailash and Kishan were towards him due to litigation. A case was registered under Sections 302, and 302 read with Section 34 IPC. and after usual investigation a challan was filed. Learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge after trial convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as stated above. It is against this judgment that the present appeal has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the time of occurrence as given in the FIR. is 800-8.30 P.M. dated 19.7.82 and at that time there was complete darkness and there was no light arrangement near the spot and, therefore, it was not possible for the witnesses to have seen the accused persons and, therefore, the testimony of the eye witnesses should be discarded and not believed and no conviction can be maintained on the basis of such eye witnesses. He has further submitted that since the accused had run away after inflicting fatal blow it was not possible for the witnesses to have recognised them.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the knife alleged to have been recovered at the instance of Kishan has not been produced at the trial nor shown to the doctor at the time of his evidence and moreover, it has not been proved that the knife had human blood and, therefore, that evidence is of no avail. The prosecution has failed to produce any independent witnesses. P.W. 2 and PW. 10 Ram Lal and Rang Lal respectively are real brothers and other witnesses are also either interested or enimical. The statements of the witnesses have been recorded 3-4 days by the Police and, therefore, their evidence cannot be held to be reliable.

6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.

7. We have looked into the record of the case and have gone through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.

8. P.W. 1 Chataru has deposed that while he was sitting, at about 8.00 P.M. rathe Chabutara, where idol of Mahaveerji is installed, he heard some cries and accused Kailash and there was one more person with them, whose name he did not know. Kailash had caugh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document