The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; discrepancies and hostile witnesses can lead to the acquittal of accused.

Judgment

Reserved on :: 02/01/2024

Pronounced on :: 09/01/2024

(Per Justice Pankaj Bhandari)

1. Accused-appellants have preferred these appeals aggrieved by Judgment and Sentence dated 06.02.2017 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge, No.4, Ajmer, whereby appellant- Ravindra has been convicted for offence under Sections 302 & 324 IPC ; for offence under Section 302 IPC , he has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/- and on non-payment of fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment and for offence under Section 324 IPC , he has been sentenced to one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and on non-payment of fine, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. Appellant- Surendra has been convicted for offence under Sections 302 /34 & 324/34 IPC and similar sentence has been awarded to him. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on 23.09.2013, Jagdish submitted a written report (Ex. P-8) at Police Station Civil Lines, Ajmer, which is reproduced here as under:-

3. On the basis of said report, police lodged FIR No.409/2013 (Ex.P-9) and after due investigation filed charge- sheet against appellants for offence under Sections 302 , 323, 34 IPC . Accused-Ravindra was charged for offence under Sections 302 & 324 IPC and accused-Surendra was charged for offence under Sections 302 , 324 & 34 IPC . Both the accused-appellants denied the charges and sought trial, upon which, as many as 15 witnesses were examined and 28 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. In defence, two documents were exhibited. Accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after hearing the arguments, accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced as herein above stated, against which, these appeals have been filed.

4. It is contended by counsel for the appellants that the complainant- Jagdish (PW-3) who is brother-in-law of the deceased has turned hostile. The story now rests on the statements of PW-4 (Arpit Saini), PW-6 (Rishi Sharma) & PW-9 (Himmat Singh). It is contended that all these witnesses are residing at a distance of five kms. from the alleged place of occurrence. They are chance witnesses. It is also contended that no enmity has been pointed out. There is no motive whatsoever for committing the said offence. It is also contended that as per the FIR, at 09:30 pm, Arpit Saini (PW-4), Himmat Singh (PW-9) and Rishi Sharma (PW-6) dropped Sunil Choudhary @ Sonu at police line in front of Tank School. As per these witnesses, the incident took place at the same place, however, in the site plan (Ex.P-13), the place of occurrence is not shown in front of Tank School. It is also contended that as per the prosecution case, the deceased was carried in a car owned by Himmat Singh (PW-9), but neither the vehicle has been seized nor any blood has been recovered from the seats of the car belonging to Himmat Singh. It is also contended that as per the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the incident took place in front of house of the deceased. No justification has been given as to why family members of the deceased were not informed. It is also contended that as per the FIR, second unknown person gave beating with fists & legs to the deceased, however, deceased has not sustained any contusions, bruises or abrasions on his person. It is argued that since lodger of the FIR who is related to the deceased has turned hostile, the prosecution case does not stand and the learned Trial Court has erred in convicting the accused appellants.

5. It is also contended that the recovered articles were sent to FSL after one month from the date when they were deposited in the Malkhana and when the recovered articles were handed over by the Malkhana Incharge to the carrier, it remained with the carrier for a day and then he gave the same for FSL. The chances of tampering with the articles thus cannot be ruled out. It is also contended that on