Back
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
LOKESHWAR SINGH,SURJIT SINGH
RAJNEESH KUMAR ALIAS TOM - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF H.R - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2003
Decided On : 06/09/2005
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under Section 302 - [MURDER] - [Section 302 of Indian Penal Code] - The court discussed the burden of proof on the prosecution, the credibility of the witness testimony, and the lack of corroborative evidence. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly shooting the deceased. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of the deceased's wife, which was contradicted by her earlier statement to the police.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the key witness was contradicted by her earlier statement, and there was no corroborative evidence to support the prosecution's case.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of the witness testimony, the burden of proof on the prosecution, and the lack of corroborative evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the burden of proof is always on the prosecution and that an accused cannot be convicted solely based on a lack of a reasonable explanation. The court also highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence in criminal cases.
Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code due to the prosecution's failure to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Surjit Singh, J.—Appellant Rajneesh Kumar is aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.12.2002 of the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur whereby he has been convicted of an offence, under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
2. Prosecution version, as per record of the trial court, may be summed up thus. Parkash Chand father of the appellant, who was impleaded as co-accused with the appellant for allegedly having committed an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, had two brothers, named Jagdish Kumar (PW 11) and Kuldip Kumar (deceased). All the three formed a joint family and had their permanent residence in village Gugga Mohra, falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Shahtalai in Bilaspur District. However, they had their separate businesses at Chandigarh and so they lived there probably in separate rented accommodations. On 19.12.2000 Jagdish Kumar (PW 11) and Kuldip Kumar (deceased) along their wives visited their relatives in some village in Bilaspur District. On 20.12.2000 they went to their native place Gugga Mohra. They in the company of appellant No. 1, who is their nephew, being the son of their elder brother Parkash Chand, and their brother-in-law Raj Kumar (PW 10) consumed liquor in the upper storey of the house. While consuming liquor the appellant and the deceased happened to have a wordy duel. They were pacified by Jagdish Kumar (PW 11) and Raj Kumar (PW 10). Thereafter all the four and Shanti Devi (PW 12) wife of deceased Kuldip Kumar and Prem Lata wife of Jagdish Kumar took their meals. After finishing their meals, they all went to the ground floor to sleep in separate rooms. When deceased Kuldip and his wife were preparing to go to sleep, the appellant allegedly went to their room. He looked furious. Kuldip Kumar (deceased) asked him to go his room and sleep there. PW 11 Jagdish Kumar also reached there and he allegedly slapped the appellant for having gone to the deceaseds bed-room in rage. The appellant is alleged to have then proceeded towards the upper storey of the building. He was followed by the deceased, his wife Shanti Devi (PW 12) and Jagdish Kumar (PW 11). The appellant is alleged to have reappeared from room on the upper storey of the building with a double barrel gun when the deceased, his wife Shanti Devi and Jagdish Kumar were still on way to the upper storey of the house and had reached the moterable road in front of the said storey. It may be stated here that the upper story of the house abuts on the moterable road and for going to the ground floor there is a separate passage which branches off from the said road. The appellant is alleged to have fired a shot, which hit the deceased on his chest, on the right side and after passing through the chest obliquely went out from the left side, through abdomen at a point just below the ribs. The deceased cried "Hai-Hai" for a short while and fell quiet.
3. Jagdish Kumar (PW 11) who too went to the upper side along with the deceased and the deceaseds wife Shanti Devi (PW 12) overpowered the appellant, after he fired the gun shot. He snatched the gun from the appellant and gave him beating with gun, as a result of which the butt of the gun got broken into several pieces and its barrel (double) got separated from the butt. The deceased was taken to Rural Hospital, Ghumarwin, where he was declared brought dead. It appears that the doctors at Rural Hospital, Ghumarwin gave a ring to the local police, i.e. Police Station, Ghumarwin. The official concerned at Police Station, Ghumarwin, in turn informed, telephonically, the authorities of Police Station, Shahtalai, as the place of occurrence falls within the jurisdiction of that Police Station. Around 4.00 AM, Sub Inspector Anjani Kumar, SHO, Police Station, Shahtalai reached Rural Hospital, Ghumarwin. He recorded the statement
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
