Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 258
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Gopal Krishan Vyas and Kailash Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Satpal and Ors. – Appellant
Vs.
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal Nos. 741, 735, 773 and 869 of 2011
Decided On : 09-02-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M.K. Garg, Deepak Agarwal, Dhirendra Singh and Rajeev Bishnoi
For the Respondents: Vishnu Kachhawaha, PP, Mridul Jain and Bhagat Dadhich
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - SECTION 302 IPC - EYEWITNESSES - HOSTILE - PLANTED WITNESSES - EVIDENCE - ASSESSMENT - CONVICTION QUASHED: In a criminal appeal challenging the conviction of the accused appellants for the murder of the deceased, the court held that the finding of guilt recorded by the trial court was erroneous and quashed the impugned judgment. The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court had wrongly relied upon the statements of two planted witnesses who were not even present at the time of the occurrence. The court also noted that the author of the FIR and other eyewitnesses had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Surjeet, was killed in an accident when his motorcycle was hit by a vehicle Canter driven by the accused appellant, Atma Ram. The prosecution alleged that the appellants had intentionally hit the motorcycle to kill Surjeet due to previous enmity. The author of the FIR, Kaka Singh, who was also injured in the accident, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Other eyewitnesses, including the maternal uncles of the deceased, also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the author of the FIR and other eyewitnesses had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The court also found that the testimony of the two maternal uncles of the deceased, who were the only witnesses who supported the prosecution case, was unreliable as they were not even present at the time of the occurrence.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the trial court had erred in relying upon the statements of two planted witnesses who were not even present at the time of the occurrence?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the author of the FIR and other eyewitnesses had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The court also found that the testimony of the two maternal uncles of the deceased, who were the only witnesses who supported the prosecution case, was unreliable as they were not even present at the time of the occurrence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals and quashed the impugned judgment. The court directed the accused appellants to furnish personal and surety bonds and to appear before the Supreme Court in the event of the filing of a Special Leave Petition.
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.
1. In all above criminal appeals filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. by accused appellants, Satpal, Rohitash, Atma Ram, Yusuf, Mohd. Yunus and Champalal. the judgment dated 30th of July, 2011 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anoopgarh, HQ- Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar in Session Case No. 41/2009, is under challenge, whereby the accused appellants were convicted for the offences under Sections 302/149, 147, 120B and 307/149 of IPC and following sentence was passed against them, which reads as under: -
"Appellants: Satpal, Rohitash, Mohammed Yusuf and Yusuf.
147 of IPC
Two Years' Simple Imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 3000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment.
302/149 of IPC
Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment.
307/149 of IPC
Ten Years' Simple Imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 3000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment.
120B of IPC
Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment.
Appellant: Atma Ram:
147 of IPC
Two Years' Simple Imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 3000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment.
302 of IPC
Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment.
307 of IPC
Ten Years' Simple Imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 3000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment.
120B of IPC
Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment.
[Appellant, Somdutt, died in jail, therefore, appeal was abated qua him.]"
2. As per facts of the case, P.W. 1 Kaka Singh, gave statements (Ex. P/1) on 15.05.2009 at 10.40 AM to the A.S.I. of Police Station- Suratgarh, at Govt. Hospital, Suratgarh, in which following allegations were levelled against the appellants, Atma Ram and 4-5 other unknown persons:
^^ipkZ c;ku Jh dkdk flag
fnukad 15-5-09
oDr 10-40 , ,e
Jh dkdk flag S/o eku flag tkfr ckthxj mez 30 lky fu-9 SSW P.S. guqekux<+ Vkmu ftyk gquekux<+ gky HkrhZ tSj bykt jk-fp- lwjrx<+ us ipkZ c;ku fd;k fd lqjthr flag fu- Hkxokulj esjk nksLr gSA blds ikl esa 2&3 fnu igys esa lqjthr flag ds ikl Hkxokulj vk;k gqvk Fkk vkt fnuakd 15-5-09- dks lqcg 8 cts ds yxHkx eS o esjk nksLRk lqjthr flag nksuks Hkxokulj ls lqjthr dh rkjh[k Hkqxrus eksVj lkbZdy ls lqjrx<+ vk jgs Fks eksVj lkbZdy lqjthr flag pyk jgk Fkk tc ge oDr 8-30 cts ds yxHkx tc ge lqjrx<+ 'kgj esa vkus okyh jksM+ ij eksM+ ls FkksM+k vkxs igqaps rks gekjs ihNs ls ,d dSUVj cM+k Vªd tks gekjs fiNys vk jgk Fkk fd dSVj esa 4&5 vkneh lokj FksA tks dSchu esa cSBs FksA dSVj vkRek jke fCk'uksbZ pyk jgk FkkA dSV pkyd us dSVj dk tkucw> dj gekjs mij p<+kus ds fy, VDdj ekjh ftlls lqjthr flag o eS eksVj lkbZdy ls jksM+ ij fxj x;s fxjrs gh lqjthr ds flj esa pksV yxh mldh e`R;q gks xbZ o esjs xEHkhj pksVs yxhA lqjthr ds ikl ,d fiLRkkSy Fkk o dkjrwl Fks oks ekSdk ij mlds ikl gh fxj x;sA eSa vui<+ gksus ds dkj.k dSaVj ds uEcj ugha i<+ ik;k dSaVj dks oks yksx gekjs VDdj ekjdj Hkxk dj ys x;s vkus tkus okys jkgfxjks us Qksu fd;k rks ,saEcqysal ekSdk ls esjs dks gksLihVy ys vkbZ o lqjthr ogha ekSdk ij iM+k gSA o eksVj lkbZdy lqjthr dk Fkk tks ekSdk ij iM+k gSA c;ku nsrk dk;Zokgh dh tkosA
Sd/-
(Thumb impression)”
3. On the basis of above statement recorded in the Govt. Hospital, Surathgarh, formal F.I.R. No. 172/2009 was registered on 15.05.2009 by the S.H.O., Police Station-Suratgarh, District Sr
