Back
2016 Supreme(Raj) 499
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Gopal Krishan Vyas and P.K. Lohra, JJ.
Sardara & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 970 of 2006
Decided on : 26-02-2016
For the Appellants : Deelip sharma, Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondent: J.P.S. Choudhary, Public Prosecutor.
The testimony of an eye-witness must be reliable and credible in order to be accepted by the court. A delay in reporting an incident and a failure to inform family members about the incident may affect the credibility of the eye-witness.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC - FACTUAL ANALYSIS - CREDIBILITY OF EYE-WITNESS - DELAY IN REPORTING INCIDENT - HOSTILE WITNESSES - DOUBTFUL RECOVERY - LACK OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE - BENEFIT OF DOUBT TO ACCUSED APPELLANTS - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused appellants murdered the deceased, Vardi, by hitting her with an axe. The main evidence against the accused appellants was the testimony of an eye-witness, PW-11 Ramesh, who claimed to have seen the incident. However, the accused appellants denied the allegations and claimed that they were falsely implicated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the testimony of the eye-witness, PW-11 Ramesh, was unreliable and doubtful. The court noted that the eye-witness had delayed in reporting the incident to the police and had not informed his family members about the incident for more than 25 days. The court also found that the eye-witness's father, PW-9 Bheema, had turned hostile and denied that the eye-witness had informed him about the incident. The court further found that the recovery of the weapon, an axe, was also doubtful as there was no evidence of blood on the axe.
Issues: 1. Whether the testimony of the eye-witness, PW-11 Ramesh, was reliable and credible. 2. Whether the delay in reporting the incident and the failure to inform family members about the incident affected the credibility of the eye-witness. 3. Whether the recovery of the weapon, an axe, was properly proved by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the testimony of the eye-witness, PW-11 Ramesh, was unreliable and doubtful due to the delay in reporting the incident, the failure to inform family members about the incident, and the hostile testimony of the eye-witness's father. The court also held that the recovery of the weapon, an axe, was doubtful as there was no evidence of blood on the axe. The court further held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and sentence of the accused appellants, and ordered their release.
G.K. Vyas, J.
This instant criminal jail appeal has been filed by the appellants-convict Sardara and Pyara from the Central Jail, Unaipur in which both the appellants are challenging the judgment dated 6.10.2006 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Udaipur passed in Sessions Case No. 43/2006 whereby both the accused appellants were convicted by the learned Trial Court for offence under Sections 302/34 and 201 I.P.C. and passed the following sentence:
| Under Section 302/34 I.P.C. Life | Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months RI |
| Under Section 201 I.P.C. | Five years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months RI |
2. As per brief facts of the case, the PW-1 Dita Ram submitted a written report (Ex.P-1) at Police Station Ogana, District Udaipur in which it is stated that today I went village Kaligardh to the house of Mota from where when I was going along with Mota to the village Oda, on the way in the empty house of one Nana they saw one green sadi (Odhna), therefore to inquire who is sleeping inside the house, they found that dead body of one lady was lying there. The complainant PW-1 Dita Ram left Mota at the place of occurrence and went to the village Oda, from where gave a telephonic call to the Dy. Superintendent of Police from STD and reported the incident verbally upon that informed police came on spot. When Dita Ram came back on spot Mota Ram informed him that it is the body of Vardi Bai W/o Rama Gameti, resident of village Vilawas. The above incident was reported by the witness PW-1 Dita Ram in writing vide Ex.P-1 to the SFIO, Police Station Ogana upon which F.I.R. No. 5/2006 dated 10.1.2006 was registered under Sections 302, 201 and "34-I.P.C. against unknown person. The police took the dead body of Vardi Bai in possession vide Ex.P-2 and prepared the site plan Ex.P-4. The blood lying upon spot was also taken in a bag along with soil from the place of occurrence vide Ex.P-5 and sealed on spot. The aforesaid F.I.R. was registered against unknown person but during investigation, the accused appellants were arrested on the basis of statement of witness Ramesh, Bheema and other evidence collected by the Investigating Officer. After usual investigation, challan was filed against the appellants in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhadol from where the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Udaipur but later on, transferred to the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Udaipur for trial.
3. The learned Trial Court after hearing, arguments of both the parties framed charge against appellant under Sections 302/34 and 201 I.P.C. and granted an opportunity to the prosecution to lead evidence. In support of prosecution case, statements of 17 witnesses were recorded including eyewitness PW-11 Ramesh. After recording evidence of prosecution, the statements of accused appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which they completely denied the allegations levelled by the prosecution witnesses and said that they have been falsely implecated in this case. No recovery has been made from them. In defence, in spite of granting an opportunity to lead evidence, no defence was produced by the appellants.
4. The learned Trial Court after providing an opportunity of hearing to both the parties, finally decided the case vide impugned judgment dated 6.10.2006 whereby convicted the accused appellants for offence under Sections 302/34 and 201 I.P.C. and passed the sentence aforesaid. In this Jail appeal the appellants are challenging the validity of the judgment impugned.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that both the accused appellants have been falsely implicated in this
