IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment reinforces the principle that eyewitness identification, when corroborated by other evidence, can be sufficient for conviction in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned Judgment Dt. 13.8.2019 passed by the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.-1, Udaipur may kindly be quashed and set aside and appellant be acquitted.”

2. The accused-appellants laid a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Udaipur, in Sessions Case 06/2017 (CIS No. 30/2017) (State of Rajasthan Vs. Suresh kumar & Anr.), whereby the present accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as below:

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently as per Section 428 Cr.PC.

3. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, on 14.10.2016, complainant-Shobhagmal Mehta (PW-2) submitted a written report Ex.P/1) before the Police Station, Fateh Nagar, District Udaipur, stating therein that on the said date, while he and his son, namely, Sanjay Kumar were in a shop situated at Akola, at that time, his son received a call from one Ravi Agarwal, to the effect that the complainant’s parents were beaten up by certain persons, who after committing such act, had made a loot in the house of the complainant’s parents, and fled away thereafter.

3.1. Upon receiving such information, the complainant and his son reached the place of the incident and found the complainant’s father lying dead on bed in the room; there was a cloth noose (kapde ka phanda) around the neck of the complainant’s father and all the belonging in the house were scattered and the accused persons had taken away the cash and jewellery from the house, while fleeing from the place of incident after committing the crime in question.

3.2. On the basis of the aforementioned report, a case bearing No.187/2016 was registered at Police Station, Fateh Nagar for the offences under Sections 302, 480 & 397/34 IPC and the investigation commenced accordingly. After completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet under Sections 460/34, 397/34 & 302/34 IPC and the charges were framed and read over to the accused-appellants, which were denied by them, and the trial commenced thereafter.

3.3. During the course of trial, the prosecution produced 18 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents for examination; in defence, 04 documents were exhibited for examination by the learned Trial Court. At the time of trial, the statement of the accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the evidence and pleaded not guilty.

3.4. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court vide the impugned judgment dated 13.08.2019 convicted the accused-appellants for the aforementioned offence and sentenced them as above.

4. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submitted that the FIR (Ex.P/15) was registered against unknown persons, but the sole eye witness PW.1- Jassu Bai (wife of deceased) stated in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she knew the accused persons, and therefore, it is clear that there were clear contradictions in the statement of the said eyewitness.

4.1. It was further submitted that the statement (Ex.D/1) of PW-1 were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C by the concerned police authority after 14 days of the incident in question, and no explanation was put forth by the said authority for such delay in record of the sai