Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan  Insc 208 (26 March 2004)
Balakrishnan & B.N. Srikrishna. K.G. Balakrishnan
appellant, Pradeep Singh was tried along with another co-accused, Vikram Singh,
for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Both of them were found
guilty by the Sessions Court. They filed separate appeals before the High Court
of Rajasthan. The Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the conviction and
sentence of the present appellant, Pradeep Singh. The judgment of the Division
Bench is challenged before us.
prosecution case is that on 22.6.1992 at about 8 A.M., PW-8 Maniram, a head constable attached to the Hanumangarh
police station, saw the dead body of a young person near Shiv Mandir cinema. He
went to the Hanumangarh police station and gave information to PW-10 Govindram,
the Sub Inspector of Police. On the basis of the information given by PW-8, a
case was registered under Section 302 IPC and PW-10 immediately visited the
place where the dead body had been found. He prepared the site plan and took
photographs of the dead body and they were sent for post mortem examination.
PW-2, Dr. Narendra Godara, conducted the post mortem examination and found as
many as 24 incised injuries on the dead body. He also found that the internal
organs of the deceased were punctured by incised injuries.
23.6.1992, at about 8.30
P.M., the appellant
was arrested and the co-accused was arrested on the next day. The appellant on
interrogation gave statement to the effect that he had concealed a knife. PW-10
recovered the knife from a pit and prepared a recovery report. The pants and
shirts worn by the appellant were also recovered by the police and Exh. P-40
the F.S.L. Report showed the presence of blood stains on the knife as well as
on the pants and shirts of the appellant allegedly worn by him at the time of
was no direct evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant. The court relied on
the circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence on which the court placed
reliance was that the appellant was last seen with the deceased and that the
appellant had given extra-judicial confession to PW-5, Gian Chand. The recovery
of blood stained knife, pants and shirts was also taken as a serious
incriminating evidence against the appellant.
Kumar saw the deceased and the appellant at the Sadul Sahar bus stand on
21.6.1992. PW-7 was known to deceased, Subhash.
told him that he the appellant would be going to Hanumangarh as their friend, Vikram
had invited them. PW-3 Surinder Kumar is another witness who saw the appellant,
the deceased and the co-accused Vikram going on a scooter towards Shiv Mandir
cinema at about 7 to 7.30 P.M 21.6.1992.
PW-7 and PW3 were extensively cross-examined and the Sessions Court as well as
the High Court placed reliance on their testimony. We do not think there is any
perverse appreciation of their evidence by the courts.
regards the extra-judicial confession, PW-5 Gian Chand stated that he had gone
to Ganganagar on 22.6.1992 and he saw the appellant, Pradeep Singh. The
appellant looked sad and on seeing PW-5, the appellant told him that he had
killed Subhash with a knife. PW-5 later returned to Sadul Sahar and told this
fact to his brother, Satish Kumar. The counsel for the appellant seriously
challenged the evidence of PW-5 and contended that PW-5 was not holding any
high position as to render any help to the appellant to save him from the
predicament and to such a person, the appellant would not have made any confession.
We do not think that such a plea can be accepted. Moreover, the evidence of Gian
Chand is further corroborated by PW-1, who stated that Gian Chand had met him
and told about the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to him. PW-1
also stated that on receiving this information from PW-5, he went to the house
of the appellant and he was not found there and on the next morning he again
went to the appellant's house and questioned the appellant. At that time, the
appellant confessed the guilt to him also. The appellant had no apparent
explanation for the presence of blood stains on his pants and shirts. The
appellant only alleged false implication.
view, the appellant has been rightly convicted by the Sessions Court and the
High Court was justified in confirming his conviction and sentence.
not see any ground to interfere with the judgments of the courts below.
appeal is, therefore, dismissed.