The court affirmed the conviction under Section 302 IPC, emphasizing eyewitness testimony and the rejection of hostile witnesses.

O R D E R

There are three accused before this Court in a case punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code . After facing the trial, they have been convicted for the offence and sentenced to Life Imprisonment. The conviction and sentence of the appellants has been upheld by the High Court, by the impugned order.

The date and time of the incident is 28.09.2004, at about 03.15 p.m., when the two brothers, Jaipal and Om Prakash were riding on a motor cycle and were stopped by three persons, Ramswaroop, Vinod Kumar and Hansraj (the appellants herein), who were armed Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora with ‘Kapa’ (i.e. a sharp edged weapon) and one of them, Date: 2025.02.01 Reason:

Ramswaroop had a pistol with him. They initially attacked Om Prakash (deceased) with the weapon Kapa and thereafter, Ramswaroop fired on the head of the deceased and ran away. Prompt FIR was registered at the Police Station Rai Singh Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan merely 15 minutes to the incident. The time of lodging of the FIR is 03.30 PM on 28.09.2004. Jaipal was the complainant, who was the younger brother of the deceased. He has stated in the FIR that they were coming on a motor cycle when the abovementioned three accused persons attacked them with Kapa and subsequently fired at Om Prakash, which ultimately resulted into his death.

The postmortem was conducted on the same date i.e. on 28.09.2004 at 05.15 PM. It discloses 17 ante mortem injuries, out of which Injury Nos. 1 and 2 were injuries caused by the fire arm, which were fatal. Rest of the injuries also suggest that they were caused by a sharp-edged weapon, which has been assigned to the assailants, i.e. the appellants before us. The Postmortem Report is extracted as thus :-

“i) Bruise 1x1.5cm x 1 cm till the depth of brain on the backside of head having blacking around it.

ii) Bruise 20 cm x 10 cm till the depth of brain and the skin of face and head was having scrap. The tissue of head and bones had come out along with the brain (Mood of exit) on the left portion of head and on the ear and ear pit.

iii) Cut wound 6 x 3 cm deep upto bone on left leg, both bones of the legs are broken.

iv) Cut wound 10 x 2 cm deep upto muscle on left leg, towards outward.

v) Cut wound 5 x 1 cm deep upto bone on left knee towards the front.

vi) Cut wound 3 x 1 cm deep upto muscle on left knee towards inside.

vii) Cut wound 8 x 3 cm deep upto bone on left leg and one bone of the legs is broken.

viii) Cut wound 2.5 x 1 cm deep upto bone on left leg upper portion.

ix) Cut wound 3 x 1 cm deep upto bone on right leg upper portion.

x) Cut wound 5 x 2 cm deep upto bone on right knee, Patela is broken.

xi) Cut wound 1.5 x 0.5 cm deep upto muscle on right knee towards front and inside.

xii) Cut wound on left tow and one left tow had cut from its base.

xiii) Cut wound 3 x 1 cm deep upto muscle on right arms towards lower portion.

xiv) Abrasion mark 4 x 3 cm on right arm lower portion towards outward.

xv) Cut wound 4 x 2.5 cm deep upto bone on upper portion of head, upper portion bone was broken.

xvi) Injuries of Abrasion 5 x 2 cm on the upper portion of back towards left.

xvii) Cut wound 4 x 1 cm deep upto muscle on the left portion of back towards upper portion.”

The chargesheet was filed by the prosecution and the matter was committed to the trial. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses, out of which PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW6 (complainant) were the eye- witnesses. PW1 and PW2 had turned hostile before the Trial Court and the testimony of PW3 was disbelieved by the trial court. But as far as the testimony of PW6 is concerned, he remained consistent and firm and inspired the confidence of the court for the reasons : a) he was the natural witness as he was riding with his deceased brother on that fateful day and b) he was the one who promptly lodged the FIR at the Police Station and narrated the entire sequence of events. This material witness was also subjected to a lengthy cross- exami