Back
1953 Supreme(Raj) 140
Rajasthan High Court
Dave & Modi, JJ.
Kartar Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State - Respondents
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1953
Decided On : August 08, 1953
J.G. Sethi and Chandmal, for Appellant; L.N. Chhangani, for State
Headnote:(a)—Criminal Trial—Witness—Conviction on testimony of single witness—Discrepancies in statement.(b) Criminial Trial-Evidence—Dying declaration—Conviction not to be based unless corroborated—Where two dying declarations at variance with each other, conviction not safe.(c) Criminal P.C., sec. 288—Evidence before committing magistrate—Prosecution taking no steps for taking on file—Such evidence cannot be considered. (para 8).(d) Criminal Trial—Proof—Accused alleged borrowing cartridge from another person having gun and using in his gun—Such person or his gun not produced. (para 13).(e) Evidence Act, sec. 27—Mere recovery of gun at instance of accused does not prove that some was used by accused. (para 14.)(f) Criminal P.C., sec. 342—Incriminating fact—Accused alleged absconding—No question put to accused—Fact cannot be used against accused. (para 15).(g) Medical Jurisprudence—Gun shot wound—Shot gun wound—Distance of firing—Area covered by pellets—Area in inches equal to distance in yards. (Paras 19 & 20).
It is true that an accused can be convicted even on the basis of the evidence of a single eye witness, but such a witness must be of sterling worth. If it is found that the single witness to the occurrence is not sticking to the truth, then it is very unsafe to ignore the discrepancies appearing in his or her statement and convict the accused on that basis alone. (Para 10)
A dying declaration by itself is not such a strong piece of evidence that conviction of an accused may be safely founded on its basis alone. It is a valuable piece of evidence but it must be further corroborated by some other evidence. Where in a case there are more than one dying declarations and they are found inconsistent, there is all the more reason that much reliance should not be placed on either of them without further corroborative evidence to support them. (Para 12)
2. The facts leading to this case are that on the 15th of July 1952 at about 6, P.M. one Santa Singh resident of Santpura village in Tehsil Hanumangarh, lodged a report at that police station Sangaria to the effect that on that day at about 2 P.M. one Gurnam Singh, S/o Lal Singh, Jat Sikh of his village was lying on a cot in a room of his house. His mother and one or two other persons were sitting beside him. At that time Kartar Singh, S/o Vichitra Singh, resident of their village climb-ed the chaki(terrace) which was in front of Gurnam Singhs room and fired a 12 bore gun with intent to kill him (Gurnam Singh). Gurnam Singh was injured on his thigh, calf and private parts. On a hue and cry being raised, several persons of the village assembled there, but Kartar Singh went to his house soon after the firing and fled away with his gun to some place. This report was taken down by one Pusaram Sharma, Head-constable, but the investigation was conducted partly by P.W. 6 Rameshwar Prasad Head-constable and partly by P.W. 11, Lalchand Sub-Inspector, and the accused Kartar Singh was challaned in the court of the Sub. Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh, under sec. 302 I.P.C.
3. The prosecution case against the accused was that on the night preceding the day of occurrence at about 8 P.M., the accused met Karnel Singh—younger brother of deceased—at a place called Samadh Tomb. The accused made him an offer to drink with him but it was refused. The accused then asked Karnel Singh to stand him a drink but that requeued was also refused. Thereupon, the accused abused Karnel Singh and told him that he would see him. On the next day at about 11 A.M., two persons. Tarachand and Boga come to the house of the accused to purchase turi. Tarachand had with him a gun and a bandoleer with some cartridges therein. The accused requested Tarachand to give him a cartridge as he wanted to test his gun. Tarachand accordingly gave him a cartridge. The accused then went to Karnel Singhs house. Karnel Singh was not present there, having gone to another village Trimala. His elder brother Gurnam Singh was, however, there, lying on a cot. His mother Har-Kaur and two other persons, namely, Tehal Singh and Chhotu Nai were also present in the room. The accused shouted saying that last night he was abused end so he should be ready. Hearing this, Gurnam Singh got up and just as he stood at the door, the accused fired his gun at him and fled away. Santa Singh, who made the report, was not present at the scene, but came there soon after the incident. He enquired from the deceased about the occurrence and then went to the police station. Gurnam Singh was then taken to Sangaria dispensary. Dr. B.D. Jain advised his attendants to take him to Ganganagar hospital and so he was taken there. On the 16th of July, Gurnam Singh expired at about 3 A.M. According to the prosecution, the accused was missing from his village after this occurrence; he surrendered himself on 25th July, 1952 and then he was arrested. It is said that on 6th August, 1952 a 12 bore indigenous single barrel gun was recovered at the instance of the accused. It was buried deep under ground below a plum tree in the Jungle of Kumba Deengarh. After preliminary enquiry, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate committed the accused to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ganganagar. The case was, however, tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar. He has found the accused guilty of murder and sentenced him to capital punishment under sec. 302 I.P.C, The criminal reference No 6 relates to confirmation of the said sentence The accused has also filed an appeal from the said judgment, which is appeal No. 52.
4 We shall first take up the appal of the accused.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that there is no reliable evidence against the accused to justify his conviction and that the lower court has
