2015 Supreme(Raj) 1799
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Gopal Krishan Vyas, Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.
State of Rajasthan - Appellant
Versus
Badri Ram and others - Respondent
D.B.Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 1988.
Decided On : 11-09-2015
Advocates:
For the Petitioner: J.P.S Choudhary, Public Prosecutor.
For the Respondents:M.K. Garg, Advocate.
The testimonies of eye-witnesses must be reliable and trustworthy to be relied upon by the court.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302, 149, 148 IPC - ACQUITTAL - EYE-WITNESS TESTIMONIES - RELIABILITY - POST MORTEM REPORT - INJURIES - WEAPONS - RECOVERY OF LATHIS - BLOOD STAINS - ENMITY - BENEFIT OF DOUBT:
Fact of the Case:
The deceased Nathu Ram was assaulted by six persons, including the accused-respondents, on 06.05.1985. The deceased succumbed to the injuries. The police registered an FIR and filed a charge-sheet against the accused-respondents for offences punishable under sections 302, 149, and 148 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court acquitted the accused-respondents for the offences punishable under sections 302 read with section 149 and section 148 IPC by impugned judgment dated 19.09.1987 by extending the benefit of doubt.
Issues: 1. Whether the testimonies of the two eye-witnesses, PW.2 Mamraj and PW.5 Ramkumar, are trustworthy? 2. Whether the accused-respondents Hanumana Ram, Banwari Lal, and Sopa Ram were involved in the commission of the crime?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The testimonies of the two eye-witnesses, PW.2 Mamraj and PW.5 Ramkumar, are not trustworthy because: - PW.2 Mamraj's statements are unnatural, and he refused to disclose his relationship with the deceased. - PW.2 Mamraj's statements under section 161 CrPC were recorded after three days of the incident, even though he remained present at the scene of crime and accompanied the dead body to the hospital and the deceased's house. - PW.5 Ramkumar's conduct of running away from the place of crime is unnatural. 2. The accused-respondents Hanumana Ram, Banwari Lal, and Sopa Ram are not connected with the commission of the crime because: - The Lathis recovered from them were not blood-stained. - There is no other evidence to prove their involvement in the crime.
Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
1. - This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 19.09.1987 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 16/1986, whereby the learned trial court has acquitted the accused-respondents for the offences punishable under sections 302/149 and 148 IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents has informed this Court that accused-respondents Badri Ram, Sohan Lal and Ram Chander have died during the pendency of this appeal. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a communication dated 10.09.2015 written by Station House Officer, Police Station, Nokha, wherein it is mentioned that accused-respondents Badri Ram, Sohan Lal and Ram Chander have died.
3. Hence, the appeal filed against Badri Ram, Sohan Lal and Ram Chander is abated. Letter dated 10.09.2015 be placed on record.
4. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that on a written report received from PW.5 Ram Kumar son of Nathu Ram, the police has registered FIR No. 98/1985 (Ex.P/9) at Police Station, Nokha on 06.05.1985 at about 11:30 A.M. for the offences punishable under sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 IPC against six persons. In the FIR, PW.5 Ram Kumar has alleged that on 06.05.1985 at about 7:30 A.M. when he along his father Nathu Ram was going to meet Patwari of village Himmatsar, then suddenly the accused-persons armed with Barchhi and Lathis came there. Accused Ram Chander and Sohan Lal armed with Barchhi and Banwari Lal, Hanumana Ram and Sopa Ram armed with Lathis and Badri Ram son of Harbhaj Ram having a 12 bore gun, all residents of Mukam came there and started beating his father with Barchhi and Lathis. Badri Ram shouted that kill the enemy and threatened that if anybody would come near, he would see him and PW.5 Ram Kumar became afraid and ran away from there. It is further stated that on account of the injuries, his father fell down. Upon hearing the shrieking of complainant-Ram Kumar, Mamraj s/o Ramrakh, resident of Himmatsar came there and Badri Ram threatened to shoot him. It is further stated in the FIR that after assaulting his father, all the accused-persons went to the house of Sohan Lal and thereafter they found that his father received several injuries and the blood was oozing from those injuries and his father has died on account of the said injuries. The complainant has further stated that he went to his house, informed about the incident to his mother and went to Nokha Mandi to his brother and submitted the report to the police.
5. The police conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet against the accused-respondents and the trial court has framed charges against them for the offences punishable under sections 302, 149, 148 IPC.
6. During the trial, the prosecution got examined as many as 10 witnesses and also exhibited certain documents and articles in support of its case. Statements of accused-respondents were recorded under section 313 CrPC. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial court has acquitted the accused respondents for the offences punishable under section 302 read with section 149 and section 148 IPC by impugned judgment dated 19.09.1987 by extending the benefit of doubt.
7. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the trial court has grossly erred in discarding the testimonies of two eye-witnesses viz. PW.2 Mamraj s/o Ramrakh and PW.5 Ramkumar s/o Nathu Ram. It is argued that from the statements of both the eye-witnesses, it is clear that the accused-respondent viz. Hanuman Ram, Sopa Ram and Banwari Lal along with other co-accused persons had assaulted the deceased Nathu Ram and due to which he succumbed to the injuries. It is further argued that the learned trial court has disbelieved the testimonies of those two witnesses solely on the ground that they are near relatives of the deceased. It is also argued that sufficient evidence is available on record to prove that the accus
Click Here to Read the rest of this document