of Rajasthan Vs. Rajendra Singh  INSC 347
(22 July 1998)
Nanavati, S.P. Kurdukar Nanavati, J.
State has filed these appeals as the respondent was not convicted by the High
Court under Section 302 IPC and has been acquitted after setting aside his
conviction under Section 304 part I and Section 323 Ipc by the Sessions Court, Bharatpur.
stated, the allegation against the respondent was that on 5.7. 79 at about 6 A.M. he had caused the death of Harveer, his nephew, by firing
two shots at him and also by giving stick blows. According to the prosecution
this incident was witnessed by P.W. 1 Govind Singh, P.W. 2 Vimla, P.W. 3 Kastoori,
P.W. 4 Bhan Kaur, P.W. 5 Teji, P.W. 8 Ramjilal and P.W. 9 Jeevan Singh. The defence
of the accused was that he was attacked and injured by Harveer and others, that
he had no gun with him and that whatever injuries were found on the persons of
the other side were inflicted by his wife in order to save him. The trial court
believed the prosecution evidence and convicted the respondent under Section
304 Part I. The trial court, however, did not believe the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses against the co-accused Ghamandi and acquitted him.
by his conviction, the respondent filed an appeal before the High Court. The
State had also filed an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent under
Section 302 IPC.
High Court after reappreciating the evidence and considering the reasons given
by the trial court held that the trial court was wrong in holding that the
prosecution had established its case against the respondent beyond reasonable
doubt. The High Court mainly gave two reasons for taking this view. it held
that the medical evidence was inconsistant with the evidence of the eye
witnesses. The eye witnesses had stated that the two shots fired by the
respondent had caused injuries to harveer. But not a single injury on Harveer
was found to have been caused by a gun shot. After appreciating the evidence of
the doctor who had first examined harveer, and also of the doctor who had
performed the post mortem and the Radiologist, the High Court held that the
injuries found on Harveer were not caused by a gun shot. The High Court
disbelieved the eye witnesses as it was their positive case that both the shots
fired by the respondent had injured Harveer and because of those injuries he
had fallen down.
second reason given by the High Court for disbelieving the eye witnesses is
that all failed to explain the injuries on the respondent. They had denied that
any injury was caused to the respondent. The respondent soon after the incident
ad left the village and gone to Bharatpur. There he had got himself examined by
a Doctor at about 6.00
P.M. The Doctor
noticed five injuries on his person; two of them were contused lacerated
wounds. One was on his head and the other was on his face. The Doctor also
opined that the injuries were 12 to 18 hours old. The respondent in his
statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. had stated that he had received those
injuries during the morning incident which had taken place between him and Harveer.
The High Court, therefore, held that the fact that the accused had received
injuries in this very incident was thus established.
the said two reasons the High Court held that the eye witnesses had not told
the truth and had supressed the true manner in which the incident had happened.
The High Court, therefore, did not think it fit to rely upon their evidence and
in absence of any other evidence acquitted the respondent.
submitted by the learned counsel for the State that as many as six witnesses
were found injured and that would establish their presence at the place of the
opinion this contention is of no help to the appellant because their evidence
has not been discarded on the ground that they were not present. Their evidence
was discarded because they were found not telling the truth before the court.
It was also submitted by the learned counsel that the evidence of PWs 1 to 4
stood corroborated by two independent witnesses, namely Ramjilal and Jeevan
Singh. P.W.8 Ramjilal had stated that he had gone to the spot on hearing sound
of a gun shot and tried to snatch away the gun from the respondent. But he was
contradicted by his police Statement wherein he had not stated anything
regarding snatching of the gun. this omission on such a vital point has to be
regarded as a contradiction and it creates a serious doubt about the
truthfulness of his version. P.W. 9 Jeevan Singh had stated that he had also
rushed to the spot on hearing the sound of a gun shot. He further stated that
he had made an attempt to save Harveer and in doing so he had received an
injury. He had not so stated before the police. This also shows that this
witness had made a material improvement before the Court in order to make his
the witnesses had categorically stated that they had not beaten the respondent
and seen any injury on the accused. But the evidence establishes that the
respondent had two contused lacerated wounds; on his face and one on his head.
The injuries were bleeding injuries and visible and yet the witnesses stated
that they had not seen any injury on the person of the respondent. That would
mean that neither the family members of Harveer nor the two independent
witnesses were willing to give a true version and had tried to suppress the
part played by some of them which had resulted in causing injuries to the
High Court was, therefore, justified in not placing reliance on their evidence.
these appeals are, therefore, dismissed. The bail bond of the respondent is
ordered to be cancelled.