1952 Supreme(Raj) 107

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Wanchoo & Sharma, JJ.
Qasim - Appellant
Versus
The State - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 1951
Decided On : April 30, 1952

Headnote:Criminal Trial—Evidence— Witnesses—Credibility— Witnesses in communal riot cases— Witnesses of one community accused of other—Evidence not to be discarded but court to examine critically and carefully.Criminal P.C., sec. 162—Earlier statements alleged destroyed—Subsequent statements not to be discarded.Penal Code, secs. 325, 326 and 149 —Charge— Where accused charged generally it is not necessary to charge individually.

       The principles governing the valuation of evidence in communal roit cases are the same as in other cases. The mere fact that the witness in a communal riot case is of one community and the accused of another is no reason for looking at the evidence of the witness with suspicion. But at the same time a further factor supervenes in such cases, namely, religious fanaticism, and it is the duty of the court to examine the evidence of witnesses critically and with care and satisfy itself that the evidence is true. If the court is satisfied after a critical and careful examination of the evidence, that it is true, the fact that the witness is of one community and the accused of another should make no difference to the conviction of the accused on such evidence.

       Where earlier statements of witnesses are destroyed, this fact alone would not be sufficient for discarding the subsequent statements by the same witnesses, to the police officer.

       It is not necessary to charge particular accused with particular offences under secs. 323, 324, 325 and 326 of Penal Code when there is a general charge against all of them under secs. 325 and 326 read with sec. 149.

       Case Note

       Evidence — Communal rioting — Murder-Grievous hurt — Witnesses of one community no ground for disbelief—Eyewitnesses disbelieved (a) not saying a word to police who arrived atonce (b) statements improbable in light of medical evidence-Unnecessary to charge particular accused with particular offences when generally charged read with sec. 149.

       Members of M community numbering over 40 attacked persons of H community, killing two in one Mohalla and then inflicting injuries on others in another Mohalla — 4 eye-witnesses (2 chance and 2 of locality) produced as having witnessed attack on accused and several other witnesses, all of H community—Fact that witnesses were of H community and accused of M community not itself sufficient to disbelieve them though evidence to be examined critically and carefully —Allegations by defence that statements under sec. 162 (Cr.P.C. of witnesses which were originally recorded by Sub-Inspector S not produced but those recorded by Circle Inspector M s produced so all evidence to be discarded—Held (1) that no statements were recorded by S though he was present when statements were recorded by M s (S was just then transferred and M s was appointed in his place but M s had not actually taken charge so both were present); (2) former statements, if any, even if these were destroyed and fresh statements taken would not make subsequent statements valuless for it would enable unscrupulous police officers to connive at acquittal of accused—Eyewitnesses disbelieved, for, besides their relationship and improbabilities in evidence (a) they did not say a word to police officers who admittedly arrived at spot atonce (b) medical evidence suggesting lacerated wound by blunt weapon but witnesses stating blow given by Pharsi which must cause incised wound (c) medical evidence suggesting blow from front but evidence of witnesses suggesting blow from behind—Iniury on head leaving minor scar not permanent disfiguration. Conviction altered from secs. 326 to 324.