Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 1671
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mr. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia and Mr. Goverdhan Bardhar, JJ.
Maid Singh And Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 564 of 2015
Decided On : 09-05-2019
Mr. Hanuman Choudhary, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Alka Bhatnagar, PP, for the Respondent
In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence is not reliable or there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the court may acquit the accused.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - EVIDENCE - EYE-WITNESSES - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - DELAY IN LODGING FIR - BENEFIT OF DOUBT - ACQUITTAL OF TWO ACCUSED AND CONFIRMATION OF CONVICTION OF ONE ACCUSED.
Fact of the Case:
Maid Singh, his son Sudhir Yadav, and wife Urmila Devi were convicted by the trial court for the murder of Shrichand. The prosecution alleged that the accused, along with two other accused who were acquitted by the trial court, attacked Shrichand with deadly weapons, causing injuries that led to his death. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the evidence of the eye-witnesses was not reliable and that there was a delay in lodging the FIR. The court also noted that the medical evidence suggested that all the injuries on the deceased's head could have been caused by one weapon, and that no specific injury was attributed to Sudhir Yadav and Urmila Devi.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of the eye-witnesses was reliable. 2. Whether there was a delay in lodging the FIR. 3. Whether the medical evidence supported the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the evidence of the eye-witnesses was not reliable because they were related to the deceased and had introduced the acquitted accused as accused. The court also found that the delay in lodging the FIR was suspicious. The court further held that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's case because it suggested that all the injuries on the deceased's head could have been caused by one weapon, and that no specific injury was attributed to Sudhir Yadav and Urmila Devi.
Final Decision: The High Court acquitted Sudhir Yadav and Urmila Devi of the murder charge, giving them the benefit of the doubt. However, the court upheld the conviction and sentence of Maid Singh.
JUDGMENT
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) - Maid Singh, his son Sudhir Yadav, wife Urmila Devi were tried alongwith Kanwar Singh s/o Bhoorla and Kanta Devi w/o Kanwar Singh, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Tijara (Alwar). The said court by extending benefit of doubt, recorded acquittal of Kanwar Singh and his wife Kanta Devi for offence under Section 302 IPC. The trial Judge held Maid Singh, his son Sudhir Yadav and wife Urmila Devi guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC and acquitted them of offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302/149 IPC. Having convicted the above said accused for offence under Section 302 IPC, the trial Judge vide a separate order of even date sentenced the appellants to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default thereof, to undergo two months additional imprisonment. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, accused-appellants Maid Singh, Sudhir Yadav and Urmila Devi have preferred the present appeal.
2. Prosecution case has been summed up in the charges formulated against the appellants. The first charge stated that on 18.8.2011 at 6.00 AM in Village Binoliya the accused-appellants alongwith acquitted accused armed with deadly weapons, constituted an unlawful assembly with common object and thus, committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 read with 149 IPC. The second charge stated that the accused armed with Kulhadi (Axe), Sariya (iron rod), rod and Lathi caused injuries to Shrichand, father of the complainant Suresh Kumar (PW.1) and thus, committed offence punishable under Section 302/149 IPC. The accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Before we refer to the prosecution evidence, it will be appropriate to take note of the written report (Ex.P.1) submitted by Suresh Kumar (PW.l) before Babulal (PW.16) who on 18.8.2011 was posted as Incharge, Police Station Tijara, District Alwar.
4. Suresh Kumar (PW.1) in the written report (Ex.P.1) stated that on 18.8.2011 in the morning at about 6.00 AM his father was returning after fetching water from the tap. On the way, Maid Singh s/o Bhoorla, Sudhir s/o Maid Singh, Urmila w/o Maid Singh opened an attack and caused him injuries with incised weapons. It was further stated that the above said three accused have committed the offences in conspiracy with Kanwar Singh, brother of Maid Singh, and Kanta Devi w/o Kanwar Singh. In the written report (Ex.P.1) it was stated that the occurrence was witnessed by Leela Ram and Satish Kumar sons of Hari Singh, residents of Binoliya and Leela Ram informed the complainant Suresh Kumar and his brother Satya Narayan (PW.6) and other family members in Rewari (Haryana) on telephone. On the relevant date and time the occurrence took place in Village Binoliya falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Tijara, District Alwar. Complainant Suresh Kumar (PW.1) alongwith his brother Satya Narayan (PW.6) was residing in Rewari City in the State of Haryana.
5. In the present case, medical evidence is important.
6. Dr. Veer Singh (PW.17) alongwith Dr. Arun Sharma (PW.20) constituted a medical board and conducted autopsy on the dead body of Shrichand.
7. Dr. Veer Singh (PW.17) proved on record post-mortem report (Ex.P.22). In the postmortem report (Ex.P.22), Doctor noted the following injuries on the person of deceased Shrichand:-
"Wound - There is lacerated wound present on left upper elbow of 6x1x1cm size. Injury present on scalp
1. There is incised wound present on lower occipital of scalp of 6 x 2 upto bone deep.
2. There is also incised wound present on upper occipital of 5 x 2 x upto bone deep.
3. There is also incised wound present on mid parietal of scalp of 4 x I upto bone deep.
8. After dissection of brain, Doctor found fracture of occipital and both parietal bones. He also noticed that meninges were also torn and brain matter was also coming out from the fractured bones.
9. In the opinion of the medical board, the head injury caused blood loss and s
