Back
2021 Supreme(Raj) 1936
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sandeep Mehta, Rameshwar Vyas, JJ.
Ramsingh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 134/2018
Decided On : 17-12-2021
Mr. R.K. Charan. Mr. Dhirendra Singh Ms. Priyanka Borana., for the Appellant; Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, Agc. Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate Assisted By Mr. Pradeep Choudhary And Ms. Sampati Choudhary., for the Respondent.
The judgment underscores the principle that a conviction cannot stand if the prosecution's evidence is inconsistent and fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Criminal - Conviction and Sentencing - IPC Sections 302, 148 - The court analyzed the evidence and found significant contradictions in witness testimonies and lack of physical evidence, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Rakesh, who was shot outside a liquor shop. The prosecution claimed that multiple assailants fired indiscriminately, resulting in Rakesh's death. The defense argued that the prosecution's case was fabricated and lacked credible evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies, including the absence of physical evidence such as bullet casings and the implausibility of witness accounts. The testimonies of key witnesses contradicted medical evidence, undermining the prosecution's credibility.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the contradictions in witness testimonies and the lack of physical evidence linking the accused to the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the presence of significant contradictions and lack of corroborative evidence led to the conclusion that the accused were wrongfully convicted.
Result: The appeals are allowed, and the appellants are acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT
Mehta, J. - The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 07.06.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu in Sessions Case No.24/2011:
| Offences Under Section | Sentences | Fine | Fine Default sentences |
| 302/149 IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs.10,000/ | 6 Months' Additional Imprisonment |
| 148 IPC | 3 Years' R.I. |
|
|
| All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. | |||
2. Being aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, the appellants have preferred these two appeals under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. Since both these appeals arise out of a common Judgment, they have been heard and are being decided together.
3. Facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeals are noted hereinbelow:
The complainant Ramnarayan son of Rameshwar (PW-3) presented a written report (Ex.P/17) to the SHO, Police Station Sujangarh on 29.06.2011 at the Government Hospital, Sujangarh alleging inter alia that he was working as a salesman at a country liquor shop in the village Ganoda. On the same day i.e. 29.06.2011, at about 01.50 pm., he was sitting at the shop with his brother Rakesh, Ramniwas Kothyari and Mobaram at which point of time, two Scorpio vehicles, one having the number plate No.RJ-27-UA-8553 and the other one being unnumbered, came and stopped in front of the shop.
Ram Singh, Chhotu Singh, Mahavir Singh, Anand Pal Singh, Manjit Singh, Vicky Singh, Bhawani Singh, Jeetu Singh, Bhagwan Singh, K.D. Charan, Pratap Singh, Mahendra Singh, Datar Singh and Narpat Singh Rajput, got down from the Scorpio vehicles and immediately on getting down, they started indiscriminate firing in which, one shot hit his brother Rakesh who died on the spot.
On the basis of this report, an FIR No.142/2011 (Ex.P/62) came to be registered at the Police Station Sujangarh for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 IPC and Sections 3/25 and 3/27 of the Arms Act. The accused persons came to be arrested in the following sequence:
| Name of the Accused | Arrest Memo | Date of Arrest |
| Ram Singh | Ex. P/ 9 | 17/08/2011 at 05:30 PM |
| Kailash @ K.D. Charan | Ex. P/12 | 06/01/2012 at 01:30 AM |
| Vicky Singh @ Rupendra Pal Singh | Ex.P/23 | 05/06/2012 at 10:20 AM |
| Monti Singh @ Mahipal Singh | Ex.P/28 | 06/06/2012 at 08:40 AM |
| Balbir Banuda @ Birbal Singh | Ex.P/37 | 18/06/2012 at 08.30 AM |
| Manjit Singh | Ex.P/27 | 31/07/2012 at 05:30 PM |
| Anand Pal Singh | Ex.P/20 | 11/07/2013 at 12:15 PM |
| Mahavir Singh | Ex.P/31 | 07/06/2015 at 12:30 PM |
| Pratap Singh | Ex.P/46 | 07/07/2015 at 01:10 PM |
| Chhotu Singh | Ex.P/49 | 23/06/2016 at 03:05 PM |
4. Thorough investigation was undertaken. Bhawani Singh, Jeetu Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Mahendra Singh, Datar Singh and Narpat Singh, though named in the FIR, were not found involved in the commission of the crime. Upon completing investigation, charge-sheets came to be filed against the accused persons (whose names are set out in the above chart) in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh. Three of the charge-sheeted accused namely Balbir Banuda, Anand Pal Singh and Pratap Singh passed away during pendency of the trial/appeal.
As the offence under Section 302 IPC was exclusively Sessions triable, the case was committed to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu for trial where charges were framed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC. The accused Vicky Singh escaped from custody and thus, his trial was separated vide order dated 14.11.2017. The remaining accused denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 36 witnesses and exhibited 63 documents to prove its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the allegations set out in the prosecution case, the accused refuted the same and c
