Back
2016 Supreme(Raj) 387
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Gopal Krishan Vyas, P.K. Lohra, JJ.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Kailash Singh and others - Respondents
Cr. Leave to Appeal No. 280 of 2015 with Cr. Appeal No. 642 of 2015
Decided On : 28-01-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Vishnu Kachhawa, Harish Purohit
For the Complainants : Vishal Sharma
The importance of corroborating medical evidence with witness statements and the requirement to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt in criminal proceedings.
Headnote:
Atrocities - Criminal Law - IPC 452, 302/34, 323/34 - The court discussed the charges under Section 452, 302/34, and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and emphasized the importance of corroborating medical evidence with witness statements. The court found that the delay in filing the FIR and the lack of corroboration between the injuries mentioned in the post mortem report and the witness statements led to the prosecution's failure to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an incident where the respondents allegedly attacked the deceased and caused serious injuries, resulting in the death of the deceased. The trial court acquitted the respondents from the charges, leading to the appeal by the State of Rajasthan and the complainants-appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the FIR and the lack of corroboration between the injuries mentioned in the post mortem report and the witness statements led to the prosecution's failure to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, the court dismissed the appeals filed by the State of Rajasthan and the complainants-appellants.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of witness statements, the delay in filing the FIR, and the corroboration of medical evidence with the prosecution's allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of corroboration between the injuries mentioned in the post mortem report and the witness statements, as well as the delay in filing the FIR, leading to the prosecution's failure to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals filed by the State of Rajasthan and the complainants-appellants, upholding the trial court's decision to acquit the respondents from the charges.
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.
The above D.B. Cr. Leave to Appeal No. 280/2015 has been filed by the State of Rajasthan and the D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 642/2015 has been filed by the complainants-appellants Gajendra Singh and Samundra Singh against the judgment dated 27.5.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta in Sessions Case NO.74/2006 (2/2006) by which the learned trial court acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled under Section 452, 302/34 and 323/34 IPC.
2. Both the aforesaid matters are being decided by this common judgment.
3. As per brief facts of the case on 5.10.2006 at about 6.00 pm PW - 1 Samandar Singh appeared before the SHO Police Station, Padukallan and submitted written report (Ex.P/1) in which it was alleged that on 26.9.2006 at about 7-7.30 pm his uncle Mohan Singh along with other family members were sitting in their residential house, at that time, respondents Kailash Singh, Arjun Singh, Bhagwan Singh @ Bhagwan Kailash and 3 other persons having Lathi and sharp edged weapon Gandasa in their hand entered in the house with a common intention to kill his uncle Madan Singh. In the house they gave beatings to Mohan Singh and inflicted Lathi blow up on the hand and other part of the body. Gajendra Singh and Babu Singh tried to intervene but they caused serious injuries to Madan Singh. As per the allegation in the FIR accused Kailash Singh inflicted injury by Gandasi on the neck of Gajendar Singh but for protection lifted his hand, injury was received upon his hand.
4. According to the complainant when he came back on 27.9.2006 the whole story was narrated to him but due to the injury caused, his uncle became unconscious, therefore, after managing finance on 28.9.2006 his uncle was taken to Mittal Hospital and Search Center, Ajmer where doctors said that operation is to be done, therefore, you should deposit money expeditiously. According to the complainant no operation took place at Ajmer Hospital but his uncle was referred for treatment to SMS Hospital, Jaipur on 2.10.2000 where operation took place, therefore, due to the above reasons FIR was not submitted in time.
5. As per prosecution case upon aforesaid complaint (Ex.P/1) FIR No. 159 (Ex.P/2) was registered on 5.10.2006 under Section 143, 452, 307 and 323/34 IPC at Police Station Padukallan where after registration of the FIR, investigation was commenced. During investigation, Mohan Singh died, therefore post mortem was conducted in SMS Hospital, Jaipur by the medical jurist and report (Ex.P/6) was given on 6.10.2006.
6. After completion of investigation challan was filed in the court of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Div.)-cum Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Merta from where the case was committed to the court of District & Sessions Judge, Merta but later on transferred to the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta.
7. The learned trial court after framing charge under Section 452, 302/34 and 323/34 IPC commenced the trial. In the trial, statements of 15 prosecution witnesses were recorded and 18 documents were exhibited from the prosecution side.
8. After recording evidence of prosecution, the learned trial court proceeded to record statements of respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The respondents denied all the allegations levelled against them and in defence exhibited 7 documents. After recording evidence of both the sides, the learned trial court finally heard arguments and decided the case vide judgment dated 27.5.2015 by which acquitted the respondents from the charge levelled against them.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the complainant-appellant vehemently argued that the learned trial court has committed a serious error of law as well as of the facts while acquitting the respondents from the charges levelled against them because the learned trial court did not appreciate the testimony of the prosecution witnesses in right perspective. While
