1992 Supreme(Raj) 722
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
M.B.Sharma, Farooq Hasan, JJ.
Ramveer - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Cri. Appl. No. 16 of 1992.
Decided On : 21-05-1992
Where there is a conflict between the medical evidence and the evidence of the eye witnesses, the prosecution case is rendered doubtful and it is not safe to convict the accused.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - SECTION 302 IPC - EVIDENCE - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - CONFLICT WITH OCULAR EVIDENCE - CONVICTION - LEGALITY - SECTION 307 IPC - ATTEMPT TO MURDER - CONVICTION - LEGALITY.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Dholpur under Sections 302 and 307 read with 34 Criminal Procedure Code for the murder of Totaram and the attempted murder of Bhup Singh. The prosecution's case was that the accused-appellant had taken the gun from his father Bheema and fired at Totaram, who received injury on his chest. The accused-appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder and four years rigorous imprisonment for the attempted murder.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the evidence of the eye witnesses was in conflict with the medical evidence. The medical evidence showed that the gun shot was fired from a close range, while the eye witnesses stated that the accused-appellant had fired from a distance of about 35-40 paces. The High Court also found that the prosecution had not explained the discrepancy between the medical evidence and the evidence of the eye witnesses.
Issues: 1. Whether the conviction of the accused-appellant for murder under Section 302 IPC was legal in light of the conflict between the medical evidence and the evidence of the eye witnesses? 2. Whether the conviction of the accused-appellant for attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC was legal in light of the conflict between the medical evidence and the evidence of the eye witnesses?
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the conflict between the medical evidence and the evidence of the eye witnesses rendered the prosecution case doubtful. The High Court relied on the following precedents: - Mohinder Singh v. The State, AIR 1953, S.C. 415 - Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR, 1956 S.C. 526 - Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab, 1975 S.C.C.(Cri.) 571 - Munshi v. State, Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 1976 P.163 The High Court held that in light of these precedents, it was not safe to convict the accused-appellant on the basis of the evidence of the eye witnesses.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant, and acquitted him of the charges under Sections 302 and 307 IPC.
JUDGMENT
1. - The accused appellant has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur under his judgment dated 21st December, 1991 under Sections 302 and 307 read with 34 Criminal Procedure Code and on the former count he was sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer three months rigorous imprisonment and on the latter count to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- or in default of payment of fine to further suffer one months rigorous imprisonment. The accused was tried along with Deewan Singh and Chota Singh who have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge. One more accused Bhcema was absconding and is still absconding.
2. On 14th May 1988, at about 5-6 p.m., Bhup Singh PW 2 was near the Chabutra of a brahman in village Tulsipura Tehsil Basedi, District Dholpur. Ram Swaroop PW 3 and Bhagwat PW 9 were also standing near him. Tota Ram deceased along with Gyani Ram PW 1 was also standing there. It is said that accused Bheema (absconding) came there armed with a gun. Chote Singh, Deewan and Kaptan also came there. There was some dispute with Ramveer accused appellant, but it is said that Bheema was armed with a Pachfera (riffle), Ramveer was armed with lathi, Chote was armed with 12 bore gun and Kaptan was armed with lathi when they came there. It is said that at the behest of Deevan, Bheema fired his Pachfera (rifle) which hit Bhup Singh on his chest and he became un-conscious. It is further the case of the prosecution that at that moment the accused appellant Ramveer took the gun from his father Bheema and fired at Totaram who received injury on his chest. The injured Totaram was taken by Bhup Singh and others to the hospital and a report of the incident was lodged by Gyani PW 1 in police station Basedi District Dholpur where a case was registered and investigation was set in motion.
3. The necessary memos and site inspections were prepared. The injuries of Bhup Singh were examined by Dr. K.K. Dixit PW 13 and the Doctor found that he had the following injuries: | 1. | Gun shot wound 1 cm. diameter. Wound of entry. | On the leftside of chest 3 cm. lat. to the left nipple and two cm. superficially placed. Bleed on touch. |
| 2. | Gun shot wound of exit. 1.5 cm. diameter. | On the interior angle of left scaupla. Bleeding on touch. |
In the opinion of the Doctor the distance of fire arm was more than 3-4 meter and he also advised reference for hospital for admission.
4. On conducting the autopsy of the dead-body of Totaram, Dr. R.S. Garg PW 5 found (1) a gun shot wound 0.5 X 0.4 cm. rounded present at lower part of the left side of sternum blackening present all around the wound margin; (2) gun shot wound 0.3 cm. X 0.2 cm. present near right nipple blackening present all around the wound margin.
5. On opening the body, the Doctor found that there was wound near nipple (right) passing upto right lung. He also found that there was a wound in right ventricle of the heart measuring 11/2 cm. X 1 cm. in size through and through, blackening present and dark blood was also present. The doctor further found that there was perforation of sternum of the lower part left side which was black in colour. The doctor made dessection to find out the gun shots but was not able to find out. He sent the dead-body to medical jurist, General Hospital Dholpur for X-Ray. Inspite of meticulous dessection even after X- Ray, gun shots could not be found out. The doctor, therefore, said that it is clear that they have dis-appeared either in tissue or in deeper bones because pieces are very small as visible on X-ray plates. He also said that in his opinion the cause of death was injury to vital organs i.e. heart and lung.
6. The accused was arrested and as said earlier Bheema, father of the accused was absconding and is absconding.
7. The accused was tried along with others and each of them pleaded not guilty and in his state
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
