IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment underscores the principle that a conviction must be based on clear and convincing evidence, particularly in cases involving serious charges like murder.

JUDGMENT :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following relief:

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the accused appellant may be acquitted of all the charges levelled against him and he be set at liberty.”

2. The accused-appellant laid a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.01.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra, (‘Trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.27/95 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Girdhari Singh), whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as below:

3. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the accused-appellant, are that on 02.09.1995 at around 9:40 p.m., one Sultan Singh (complainant, since deceased) had submitted a report (Ex.P-3) before the Police Station, Kalyanpur stating that on the said date, at around 4:00 p.m., in front of his house, he was sitting with one Badar Ji in Badar Ji Pole, and at that time, Girdhari Singh (accused-appellant) arrived there and asked as to why the complainant criticizes the accused-appellant, and while asking so, the accused-appellant started beating the complainant.

3.1. As a result of such beatings, the complainant sustained injuries on ribs. It was further stated in the report that when the complainant tried to stand and leave the place, the accused-appellant intercepted his way and again started beating the complainant, as a consequence whereof, he sustained an injury on forehead; one Ghewar Ji and others, who were nearby, rescued the complainant, whereafter the complainant’s sons namely, Bhagirath Singh and Ratan Singh took the complainant to his house.

3.2. On the basis of the aforementioned report, the police registered a case for the offences under Sections 341 & 323 IPC. The accused-appellant was arrested on 13.09.1995. However, during the course of investigation, complainant Sultan Singh died while undergoing treatment in Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur on 28.09.1995, and thus, after investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC.

3.3. The learned Trial Court framed the charges against accused-appellant under Sections 302, 307 & 447 read with Section 34 IPC; the said charges were read over to the accused-appellant, which they denied and claimed to stand due trial and the trial accordingly commenced thereafter.

3.4. During the course of trial, the evidence of 16 prosecution witnesses were recorded and 48 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution; in defence, 02 documents were exhibited, whereafter, the accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he pleaded innocence and his false implication in the criminal case in question.

3.5. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as considering the material and evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, as above, vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.01.1997, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that incident in question had happened on 02.09.1995 and the deceased died on 28.09.1995, i.e. after 26 days of the incident, which shows that the injuries were not sufficient to cause the death in question, as the deceased was already suffering with serious ailment, which resulted into his death.

4.1. It was further submitted that the two eyewitnesses namely, PW.1-Badar Singh and PW.5-Ghewar Ram, did not support the prosecution story and had turned hostile during the trial. It was also submitted that the recovery witnesses namely, PW-6 Lekh Singh & PW-7 Bhoparam had also turned hos