Shahjad Khan s/o Liakat Khan vs State of Rajasthan

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Raj) 604

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ARUN BHANSALI, RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI, JJ.
Shahjad Khan s/o Liakat Khan - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 2008
Decided On : 18-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nishant Bora
For Respondent(s): Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, PP

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code - Section 313 – Object – Statement can be taken into consideration in judging innocence or guilty of accused where there is an onus on the accused to discharge – if the statements made are found to be false, the Court is entitled to draw adverse inference – The statement of accused can be used to test the veracity of the exculpatory nature of admission if any, made by the accused – It can be taken into consideration in any trial but still it is not strictly an evidence in the case – The Courts may rely upon the portion of statement of accused and find him guilty in consideration of other evidence against him led by the prosecution however, such a statement made under this section should not be considered in isolation but in conjunction with evidence adduced by the prosecution.
Interested witnesses- Evidence of interested witnesses cannot be rejected on the sole ground that the witnesses are interested – Duly corroborated and supported by other documentary and Medical evidence- found trustworthy – It cannot be discarded on said score – Close friend of deceased are, in fact, best witnesses who would naturally like to ensure that real culprits do not escape.
Another doctor produced by accused in defence – Defence tried to prove a different type of medical opinion by producing another medical expert – No importance could be attached to the evidence of that doctor for the simple reason that no cross examination was conducted with the medical expert of prosecution doctor about the nature of opinion given doctor of Defence – In case of different opinions of two doctors, Court cannot make a comparative assessment of different medical opinions to decide which medical report is correct with regard to cause of death.
Investigation started prior to the lodgment of FIR – Entire case of the prosecution cannot be thrown for this reason – Since police is obliged to be diligent, truthful and fair in their approach and investigation.
Moulds of the marks of the tyre of jeep from the spot not collected – Was not required to collect as the identity of the Vehicle was not disputed.

JUDGMENT

Per Hon’ble R.P. Soni, J.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 15.05.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur in Sessions Case No.45/2006 (pertaining to F.I.R. No.59/2006 Police Station Kuchera), whereby the accused appellant (in short “the appellant”) was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “the Code”) and was sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- with a default clause.

2. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by a report (ExP-1) lodged by Bhanwar Singh (PW-1) on 09.06.2006 at about 4:00

p.m. at the place of occurrence before the S.H.O. of Police Station to the effect that his son Jitendra Singh (deceased) had gone to “Roll” village to attend the marriage of his friend, along with his friends namely Chandra Prakash (PW-2), Naresh Choudhary (PW-4), Ram Lal (PW-5), Harish Kumawat @ Pappu Ram (PW-6) and Sanjay Binda (PW-7). They hired a bolero jeep of appellant Shahjad Khan which was being driven by the appellant himself. At about 2:00 p.m. in the noon, complainant received a telephonic call at the shop of his neighbour and was informed by Chandra Prakash (PW-2), that while returning back, appellant Shahjad Khan was driving the jeep negligently. This led to a heated argument between Jitendra Singh and appellant. Thereafter, all of them left the jeep on the way and resumed their further journey on foot. After walking about a kilometer, they saw that appellant Shahjad Khan was coming from the opposite direction in his jeep, intending to hit them. They all saved themselves by moving to the side of road but Shahjad Khan intentionally hit Jitendra Singh resulting in serious injuries and that caused his death on the spot. On receiving such information, complainant along with Jethmal (PW-3), Om Prakash, Kushal Singh (PW-10), Mahendra Singh (PW-8) reached at the place of occurrence and found that his son Jitendra Singh had received serious injuries and as a result of which he had died. It was alleged that appellant has intentionally murdered Jitendra Singh hitting him with his vehicle.

3. On being received of the F.I.R., the matter was investigated into and upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the concerned Court of Magistrate thereafter, the case was committed to the Sessions Judge. Charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was then framed against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Consequently, trial began against the appellant.

4. During trial, prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 37 different documents. The appellant was then examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and questions were put to him what appeared against him in the evidence of the prosecution to which he, however, plainly denied of having any role in the alleged crime. He produced one witness in his defence.

5. The trial court while relying upon the testimony of eye witnesses namely Chandra Prakash (PW-2), Naresh Choudhary (PW-4), Ram Lal (PW-5), Harish Kumawat @ Pappu Ram (PW-6) and Sanjay Binda (PW-7), the medical evidence which has been found to be consistent with the ocular evidence as well as the motive of the appellant, convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above. Hence, this appeal.

6. Mr. Nishant Bora, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that impugned judgment passed by learned trial court is against law and facts, not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside as learned trial court has erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant. He urged that the conviction of the appellants as recorded by the trial court is based purely on conjectures and surmises and the impugned judgment suffers from lacunae and perversity, hence, the same should be quashed and set aside. He, implored the court to accept the appeal and