Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT, JJ.
Karni Singh And Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 1991 Connected With D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 1991
Decided On : 28-05-2024
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER AND ASSAULT - IPC SECTIONS 148, 302, 149, 323 - The court discussed the provisions of IPC Sections 148 (rioting), 302 (murder), 149 (unlawful assembly), and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt). It interpreted these sections in the context of the evidence presented, particularly focusing on the presence of prior enmity, the nature of the injuries inflicted, and the identification of the accused during the Test Identification Parade (TIP). The court emphasized the sufficiency of evidence from eyewitnesses and the corroboration of medical reports, which collectively supported the conviction of the accused under the relevant sections.
Fact of the Case:
The case revolves around an incident that occurred on 03.10.1988, where the complainant's brother, Mange Ram, was attacked and killed by the accused-appellants, who were armed and acted out of long-standing enmity. The incident was reported the following day, leading to the arrest of the accused and subsequent trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented, including eyewitness testimonies and medical reports, was sufficient to uphold the conviction of the accused-appellants for murder and related charges. The court noted the absence of contradictions in the testimonies and the proper conduct of the TIP.
Issues: The main issues included the reliability of eyewitness accounts, the adequacy of light during the incident, the identification of the accused, and the presence of motive for the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the consistent testimonies of eyewitnesses, corroborated by medical evidence, established the guilt of the accused. The court also ruled that the TIP was conducted lawfully, and the prior enmity justified the actions of the accused.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were upheld. The surviving accused-appellants were ordered to be taken into custody to serve their sentences.
JUDGMENT :
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
1. These criminal appeals under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. have been preferred claiming, in sum and substance, the following reliefs :
2. The matters pertain to an incident which occurred in the year 1988 and the present appeals have been pending since the year 1991.
3. The accused-appellants laid a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.02.1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, in Sessions Case No.13/89 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Munshiram & Ors.), whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as below:
| Offence under Section | Sentence | Fine |
| 148 IPC | Two Months’ R.I. | Rs.1000/-, in default of which, to further undergo One Months’ R.I. |
| 302 read with Section 149 IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs.2000/-, in default of which, to further undergo One Month’s R.I. |
| 323 read with Section 149 IPC | Three Months’ R.I. | Rs.1000/-, in default of which, to further undergo One Month’s R.I. |
| Offence under Section | Sentence | Fine |
| 148 IPC | Two Months’ R.I. | Rs.1000/-, in default of which, to further undergo One Months’ R.I. |
| 302 read with Section 149 IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs.2000/-, in default of which, to further undergo One Month’s R.I. |
| 323 read with Section 149 IPC | Three Months’ R.I. | Rs.1000/-, in default of which, to further undergo One Month’s R.I. |
3.1. Accused-appellant Mahendra s/o Ram Chander (Criminal Appeal No.114/1991) had expired, as reflected in the order dated 20.09.2022, and thus, the appeal qua him, already stood abated. In the said order itself, it has also been recorded that accused-appellants Munshi Ram, Bhagu Ram (in Criminal Appeal No.82/1991) had also expired, and therefore, the appeal qua them as well stood abated. As regards, accused-appellant Sher Singh (in Criminal Appeal No.82/1991), as reflected in the order dated 29.09.2021, he had also expired on 01.07.2021, and thus, the appeal No.82/1991 qua the said accused-appellant also stood abated on 29.09.2021. In that view of the matter, it is not considered necessary to make a mention about conviction and sentence qua them (deceased accused-appellants), as awarded by the learned Trial Court vide the impugned judgment, in the present adjudication.
4. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by Mr. D.L. Mothsara, learned counsel for the appellants (Criminal Appeal No.82/1991) and Ms. Avya Gupta, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants (Criminal Appeal No.114/1991), are that on 04.10.1988 at around 7:45 a.m., one Ran Singh (complainant) submitted an oral information before the Police Station, Bhadra, stating that on 03.10.1988, while the complainant and his brother Mange Ram reached Anopshahar Taal with the cattle that were grazing, his (complainant’s) younger brother Raisingh alongwith Munshiram (son of Mange Ram) arrived, and stayed with the complainant and Mange Ram.
4.1. On the same day, at around 9:00/9:30 in the night, while all of them, after having dinner, were having talks with each other, at that time, from the side of Village Anoopshahar, accused-Munshiram came armed with axe, alongwith other persons, namely, Arjun, Bhagu, Mahendra and Shersingh, and two other anonymous persons, armed with lathis also arrived there.
4.2. At the said place, when accused-Munshi Ram inflicted axe blow upon Mange Ram, which attack was tried to be resisted by Mange Ram, on which Sher Singh inflicted lathi blows on the back and ribs of Mange Ram; the said act was intervened by Raisingh and Munshiram, whereupon Mahendra caught ho
The judgment establishes that for a conviction under Section 302 IPC, there must be clear evidence of intent and direct involvement in the act leading to death, and that joint liability under Section....
The principle of parity in criminal law mandates that co-accused with similar evidence should receive consistent verdicts, preventing arbitrary distinctions in convictions.
The court affirmed that credible eyewitness testimony, even with minor inconsistencies, can substantiate a conviction for murder when corroborated by other evidence.
The court affirmed that consistent eyewitness testimony and established motive are critical in upholding a murder conviction under IPC Section 302.
The judgment reinforces the principle that eyewitness identification, when corroborated by other evidence, can be sufficient for conviction in criminal cases.
The judgment establishes that in criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and self-defense claims by public servants must be evaluated in the context ....
In criminal law, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the specific involvement and intent of the accused in the commission of the crime; mere presence or association is insuffic....
The conviction of the accused was overturned due to insufficient corroborative evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
