IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that credible eyewitness testimony, even with minor inconsistencies, can substantiate a conviction for murder when corroborated by other evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. 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:

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.11.2012 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge Bhadra District Bikaner qua the present appellant may kindly be quashed and set aside and the appellant may kindly be acquitted from the charges levelled against him.”

2. The accused-appellants laid a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (‘Trial Court’), in Sessions Case No.07/2012 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Ram Pratap @ Pratap & Anr.), whereby the present accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as below:

3. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, on 25.02.2012, one Brijlal (complainant) submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) before the Police Station, Godamedi, stating therein that his son, namely Narendra Kumar alongwith his wife (Suman) was living separately from the complainant, and accused-appellant Suman (wife of complainant’s son) was having an illicit relationship with one Rampratap @ Pratap (accused-appellant). It was further stated that the said relationship was objected several times by the complainant’s son, the complainant himself and one Dholuram (another son of the complainant), and despite Panchayat being held, the said relationship between accused appellants/Rampratap @ Pratap & Suman continued.

3.1. It was also stated that on 25.02.2012 at around 01:00 pm, on hearing the cries of the complainant’s son Naresh, the complainant and his son Dholuram reached the house of Nareshand found that a wire rope (taar ki rassi) was around the neck of Naresh at the instance of accused-appellants/Rampratap @ Pratap and Suman (wife of Naresh), and they were strangulating the neck of Naresh by the said wire rope. On hearing the shouts of the complainant and his son Dholuram, the accused-appellants/Rampratap @ Pratap and Suman fled away from the said house, whereafter they went near Naresh and found him dead.

3.2. On the basis of the aforementioned report, a case bearing No.36/2012 was registered for the offence under Section 302 IPC and the investigation commenced accordingly. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet under Section 302/34 IPC against the accused-appellants.

3.3. On 05.06.2012, the learned Trial Court framed the charges against the accused-appellants under Section 302/34 IPC; the same upon being read over to the accused-appellants, were denied by them and they claimed trial, and the trial accordingly commenced.

3.4. During the trial, the prosecution produced 13 witnesses and exhibited 1-34A documents; in defence, 02 documents were exhibited for examination. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein while pleading not guilty, the accused-appellants stated that they had been falsely implicated in this case.

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 present accused-appellants, as above, vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2012, against which the present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the accused-appellants.

4. Mr. Jubin Mehta, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused-appellants submitted that the testimonies of the three eye witnesses clearly shows the contradictions wherein, inasmuch as PW.1-Ajay was, at the relevant time, aged 8 years and his statement clearly reveals that he was a tutored witness, as his