Back
2024 Supreme(Raj) 865
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Shree Chandrashekhar, Kuldeep Mathur, JJ.
Mohammad Rafiq S/o Karim Bux. and ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 54/1992
Decided On : 29-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Pranjul Mehta, Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondent: Mr. N.K. Gurjar, AAG with Mr. C.S. Ojha, AGA.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the evidentiary burden for proving intent and knowledge in attempted murder cases must be met, and minor discrepancies in eyewitness accounts do not invalidate their testimony.
Headnote:
Criminal - Murder and Attempted Murder - IPC Sections 302, 307, 323 - The court analyzed the evidentiary value of eyewitnesses and medical evidence, concluding that the prosecution failed to establish the charge under Section 307 against one accused, while upholding a lesser charge under Section 323.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for murder and attempted murder. The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, but inconsistencies raised doubts about the charges against one appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the prosecution established the presence of the accused, the evidence did not support the charge of attempted murder due to the nature of injuries.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the charges under Sections 302 and 307 IPC against the appellants, particularly the intent and knowledge required for Section 307.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the intention and knowledge required for a conviction under Section 307 IPC must be clearly established, which was not the case here due to the nature of the injuries.
Result: The appeal was allowed in part; the conviction under Section 307 IPC was overturned, and a lesser charge under Section 323 IPC was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
This Criminal Appeal seeks to challenge the judgment dated 31st January 1992 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.10/1986. Mohammad Rafiq who was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Abdul Sattar who was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 5 years under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code are the appellants who, according to the prosecution, committed murder of Barma and attempted to commit murder of Udailal.
2. The learned Sessions Judge relied on the testimony of Prabhulal (PW-4), Kailash (PW-6) and Udailal (PW-7) and held that Mohammad Rafiq had caused death of Barma and was liable to be convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, this is not the prosecution case that Mohammad Rafiq and Abdul Sattar shared common intention at any point in time and that seems to be the reason why separate charges have been framed against them.
3. During pendency of this criminal appeal, Mohammad Rafiq passed away and this criminal appeal qua him has abated.
4. Mr. Pranjul Mehta, the learned Amicus referred to the evidence tendered by Prabhulal (PW-4) and Dr. Gulab Chand Bansal (PW-12) to challenge conviction of Abdul Sattar under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Amicus would contend that there is serious variation between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence inasmuch as the prosecution version that Abdul Sattar hit Udailal with a stone on his back is not supported by the evidence of PW-12 who stated in the Court that he found two bruises on the front portion of his chest. The learned Amicus would further submit that the foundation of the prosecution case must fall for the reason that the manner of occurrence as disclosed by the prosecution witnesses in the Court was not found probable by PW-12 who made a categorical statement in the cross-examination that the injury found on Barma could not have been caused if he was grappled by Abdul Sattar from behind.
5. In support of his contentions, the learned Amicus relied on the following judgments:
(i) “State of Himachal v. Mast Ram” reported in AIR 2004 SC 5056
(ii) “Jumman & Ors v. The State of Punjab” reported in AIR 1975 SC 469
(iii) “Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh” reported in AIR 1989 SC 1094; and
(iv) “Munni Lal Kumhar & Ors. v. State of Bihar” reported in 1999 (4) Crimes 481.
6. On the basis of Fard Bayan of Nandkumar recorded by the Officer Incharge of Bigod PS on 4th August 1985, a crime was registered vide FIR No.99/1985. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was laid in the Court against Mohammad Rafiq and Abdul Sattar and they were sent up for trial; Mohammad Rafiq under section 302 IPC and Abdul Sattar under section 307 IPC. Dr. Gulab Chand Bansal, who tendered evidence as PW-12, stated that he examined Udailal son of Mangilal on 4th August 1985 and observed two bruises over his chest and one scratch mark around his neck. PW-12 found the following injuries on the person of Udailal:
| 1. | Bruise | 2”X1” | On Rt. Side of the chest 2” below the nipple | Simple | Blunt |
| 2. | Bruise | 3”X1” | On Rt. Side of the chest 3” below the nipple | Simple | Blunt |
| 3. | Abrasion | 1/4” X 1/8” | On left lateral side of the neck 2” left to midline and 1½” above the medial end of the left clavicle bone | Simple | Blunt |
7. According to PW-12, the aforementioned injuries were caused by blunt weapon and were simple in nature. The injury report of Udailal was tendered in evidence and marked as Ex.P/15 which was duly proved by PW-12.
8. In course of the trial, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses out of whom Prabhulal, Kailash and Udailal have been projected as eyewitnesses; Udailal is an injured witness. The testimony of an injured witness is not put on a higher pedestal compared to any other eyewitness but the Courts shall give due consideration to the testimony of an injured witness because he lends ass
