HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 469/2015

Satish@ Katariya S/o Umrav resident of village, Puhaniya, Police

Station Singhana Dist. Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)

(Presently at District Jail-Jhunjhunu)

----Appellant

Versus

State Of Rajasthan Through PP

----Respondent

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. Sudhir Jain

Mr. Parth Sharma

Mr. Monu Kumar

Mr. Anil Yadav

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Javed Choudhary, AGA

Mr. Gajanand Yadav

Mr. Subhash Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :

13/12/2022

DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :

21/12/2022

(PER HON. BIRENDRA KUMAR, J.)

1.

The sole appellant Satish @ Katariya has challenged the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.4.2015

passed in Sessions Case No. 38/2013 by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Khetri whereby the appellant was found guilty for

offences under Section 302 and 504 IPC. For offence under

Section 302 IPC, imprisonment for life was awarded along with

fine of Rs. 20,000/-. On default of payment of fine, further one

years’ Simple Imprisonment was ordered. For offence under

Section 504 IPC, two years Simple Imprisonment was awarded. It

(2 of 9)

[CRLA-469/2015]

is worth to mention here that co-accused Ravindra @ Bindu was

also convicted by the impugned judgment, however his separate

appeal abated due to death of Ravindra @ Bindu.

2.

The prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR of Singhana

Police Station Case No.185/2013 registered on written complaint

of Rakesh Kumar, PW.3, is that in the night of 9.6.2013 at 09:30

PM, nephew of the informant Sunil Kumar (victim of murder) was

at his Dharmkanta (vehicle weighing Machine). One Heera Lal

(not examined), Satish son of Prabhati Lal, (PW.4), Prem Prakash

(PW.1) and Satya Prakash (PW.2) were also sitting at the

Dharamkanta. The appellant along with Ravindra Kumar @ Bindu

came on a pick up carrier and left the place after two rounds of

recce. For the third time, they came to Dharmkanta and started

hurling abuses on Sunil Kumar. Then Sunil Kumar came out and

the appellant crushed him under the wheels of the vehicle. The

appellant backed the vehicle and again crushed Sunil and fled

away along with the vehicle. Sunil was taken to the hospital

where the Doctor declared him dead. The appellant is co-villager

of the deceased and it is alleged that on 13.5.2013, the appellant

had threatened to kill Sunil and murder was committed under a

pre-planned conspiracy.

3.

Mr. Sudhir Jain, learned counsel for the appellant contends

that three of the prosecution witnesses claim to be eye-witnesses

of the incident. They are PW.1 Prem Prakash, PW.2 Satya Prakash

and PW.4 Satish. Their testimony is inconsistent with the medical

evidence of PW.10 Doctor Subhash and PW.13 Doctor Rajkumar

Bamboria, who were members of the medical board which

(3 of 9)

[CRLA-469/2015]

performed the postmortem examination. The inconsistency

improbabilises the presence of these witnesses at the time of the

incident. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kapildeo Mandal & Ors vs. State

of Bihar reported in 2010(4) SCC(Cri) 203. Learned counsel

next contends that the so called eye-witnesses are planted

witnesses and their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C was

recorded after unexplained delay though they were cited as

witnesses in the FIR itself. Learned counsel has relied on

Balakrushna Swain Vs. State of Orissa reported in 1971 AIR

(SC) 804. Learned counsel contends that the enmity cuts both

ways and the prosecution has not disclosed the nature of enmity

between the parties which propelled the appellant to commit an

act of such a nature. Moreover, the eye-witnesses are interested

witnesses. There are other serious lapses in the prosecution

evidence which have