Back
2024 Supreme(Raj) 534
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI, JJ.
Jog Singh, S/o. Pabudan Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 1989
Decided On : 29-05-2024
For the Appellant : Mr. Bhanwar Singh Rathore.
For the Respondent: Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, PP.
IMPORTANT POINT
The principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when relying on eyewitness testimony that is inconsistent or lacks corroboration.
Headnote:
MURDER - Homicide and Related Offences - IPC Sections 302, 436, 447; Arms Act Section 3/27 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 302 (punishment for murder), 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance), and 447 (criminal trespass) of the IPC, along with Section 3/27 of the Arms Act. The court emphasized the necessity of proving the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting the importance of credible eyewitness testimony and the implications of motive in establishing the accused's involvement. The court found that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the conviction, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Jog Singh, was charged with the murder of Ratan Singh and related offences after allegedly shooting him and setting fire to a Dhani on 20.10.1986. The prosecution relied on eyewitness accounts from the complainant and his sons, who claimed to have witnessed the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. It scrutinized the credibility of the eyewitnesses, noting inconsistencies and lack of corroborating evidence regarding their presence at the scene. The court concluded that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish the appellant's guilt.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, particularly through the testimony of eyewitnesses and the presence of motive.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence of interested witnesses must be carefully scrutinized, and mere production of evidence does not suffice for conviction without reliability and trustworthiness. The absence of corroborating evidence led to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence against the appellant were set aside, and he was acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT :
(R.P. Soni, J.) :
1. The appellant was charged and tried for offences under Sections 302, 436, 447 of the IPC and Section 3/27 of Arms Act for having committed murder of Ratan Singh on 20.10.1986 at Village Barathal Kallan, P.S. Khinvasar, Distt. Nagaur. He was convicted for aforesaid offences by judgment and order dated 26.09.1989 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nagaur and was sentenced as under:-
| Sentence under Section | Sentence awarded | Fine imposed | Fine Default Sentence |
| 447 IPC | 1 month R.I. | - | - |
| 436 IPC | 3 years’ R.I. | Rs.100/- | 1 month R.I. |
| 302 IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs. 100/- | 1 month R.I. |
| 3/27 Arms Act | 3 years’ R.I. | Rs.100/- | 1 month R.I. |
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution story as set out in the F.I.R. (Ex.P-1) is that on 20.10.1986, complainant Khag Singh (PW-1) lodged a report to the police station khivsar to the effect that his younger brother deceased Ratan Singh was living in a Dhani (hamlet) situated on their field named Indokawala. Ratan Singh was not married and lived alone. On 20.10.1986, complainant and his two sons Dul Singh @ Dule Singh (PW-2) and Labu Singh @ Labhu Singh (PW-3) alongwith Ratan Singh were working in the said field of joint-tenancy. On that day, at about 3:15 in the afternoon, appellant-accused Jog Singh came to the complainant's field from the road leading from his village to Tankla village. This road passes near the boundary wall of the complainant's field. Jog Singh had a 12 bore gun and a bundle of cartridges. As soon as he arrived, he challenged Ratan Singh and told him to get ready to die. He then, fired gun at Ratan Singh, causing Ratan Singh to fall to the ground. The complainant and his two sons, out of fear, ran towards the neighboring Dhani to save their lives. Jog Singh fired 2-3 more shots at Ratan Singh. Thereafter, Ratan singh went to the Dhani of complainant and set it on fire and then ran away. After Jog Singh left, the complainant and his two sons went to Ratan Singh and saw that he was lying dead in the field with gunshot wounds on his body. His body was soaked in blood. Seeing the flames, many people from the neighboring hamlets gathered there. The complainant and the villagers tried to extinguish the fire, which caused a delay in lodging of the F.I.R.
3. After receiving of above report, a formal F.I.R. was registered, investigation was commenced and after completion of investigation, challan was filed against the appellant. After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, appellant was put on trial. He stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 436, 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/27 of the Arms Act. The appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
4. To establish guilt of the appellant, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and also got exhibited different documents and articles during the trial. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Code Procedure, appellant denied all the allegations levelled against him appearing in evidence of prosecution. He pleaded innocence and false implication. Oral evidence of Manohar Singh (DW-1) and Chotu Khan (DW-2) were produced by the appellant in his defence and some documents were also exhibited.
5. This story has been held to have been proved by the trial Court relying upon the successful establishment of facts by the prosecution. The trial Court, while relying upon the testimony of eye-witnesses Khag Singh (PW-1) and his two sons namely Dul Singh @ Dule Singh (PW-2) and Labu Singh @ Labhu Singh (PW3), the medical evidence, the recovery as well as the motive of the appellant, convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above. Hence this appeal.
6. Mr. Bhanwar Singh Rathore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant strongly contended that impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is against law and facts which is not sustainable in
