Kishnia & Ors Vs. State of
Rajasthan  Insc 529 (10
K.G. Balakrishnan & B.N.
Srikrishna K. G. Balakrishnan, J.
The three appellants herein were found guilty of the offence punishable
under Section 302 read with Section 34 and also for the offence under Section
201 I.P.C. The Sessions Court convicted these appellants and sentenced them to
undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 read with
Section 34. No offence was made out against the appellants under Section 201
I.P.C. The appellants preferred an appeal before the High Court and their
appeal was dismissed.
The first Appellant Kishnia and Second Appellant Mania are the children of
Shama. These appellants used to graze their cattle in the field of Rawata and
there used to be quarrels between deceased Rawata and these appellants. On one
occasion, when there was a quarrel , deceased Rawata is alleged to have slapped
the second Appellant Mania. On 17.4.1976, deceased Rawata and his son Rameshwar
had gone to the nearby village for fetching water on a camel. At about 8.00 p.m., Rameshwar came running to his house and told his mother and brother that
appellants Kishnia and Mania and the third appellant Karnail Singh had caused
injuries to his father Rawata. Rameshwar told them that the appellants Kishnia
and Mania were armed with lathis and appellant Karnail Singh was armed with
'Sela'. After some time, they saw the appellants standing little away from the
boundary for their field. The appellants told them that Rawata had been killed
and warned them not to report the matter to anybody, otherwise they would also
be killed. Their camel was found standing there. After the appellants left the
place, they saw Rawata lying dead near the boundary of their field.
Mamraj, the other son of the deceased Rawata went to the Police Station
Rawatsar on 18.4.1976 at about 11.00 a.m. and lodged the First Information
Report. PW 6, the Station House Officer visited the scene of occurrence and
prepared a map. He held inquest over the dead body. Sample of blood-stained
soil was collected from the place of occurrence and he noted some footprints at
the scene of occurrence. The pair of shoes allegedly worn by deceased Rawata
was also taken into custody and was sealed. The dead body was sent for post-
morterm examination and as many as 25 injuries were found on the dead body.
During the course of the investigation, a bamboo lathi was recovered. The
'Sela' allegedly used by the third Appellant Karnail Singh was also recovered.
The Sessions Court as well as the High Court relied on the evidence of PW 4
Rameshwar and also the evidence of PW 2 Mamraj, the son of the deceased and the
evidence of PW 5 Tulsi, the wife of the deceased.
The learned Counsel for the appellants strongly urged before us that the
Sessions Court as well as the High Court seriously erred in finding that the
appellants were guilty. It was pointed out that there were a series of
contradictions in the evidence of PW 4 Rameshwar and that of the evidence of PW
2 and PW 5. PW 4 Rameshwar deposed that just before the sunset he and his
father went to the nearby village Sheikhchoolia for taking water. On their way,
he heard some sound from behind that they would not be able to go ahead.
When he turned back, he saw the appellants Kishnia and Mania who were armed
with lathis and the appellant Karnail Singh who was armed with 'Sela'. All the
appellants started hitting the deceased Rawata and he fell on the ground, even
thereafter they continued hitting him. PW 4 Rameshwar got scared and he ran
back to his house and narrated the entire incident to his brother Mamraj and to
PW 4 was extensively cross examined. But there is nothing in evidence to
show that he had not seen the incident. As regards the evidence of PW 2 and PW
5, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that they had no opportunity
to see the appellants as they were standing near the boundary of their field
and it was much after the darkness had set in. These witnesses also had no case
that they had seen the appellants but they identified them by their voice. PW 2
and PW 5 had previous acquaintance with these appellants as their properties
were situate close to the field of the deceased Rawata. There is no inherent
improbability in the evidence of PW 2 and PW 5 that they identified these
appellants by voice as they were standing at a distance.
The learned Counsel for the appellants further submitted that the incident
happened far away from the house of the deceased, however, the dead body was
found near the boundary of his property and the prosecution has not explained
as to how the dead body was found near the boundary. According to the
prosecution, deceased Rawata had gone to fetch water on a camel. The camel had
also returned to the house of the deceased and the body of the deceased Rawata
must have been carried by the appellants to the boundary of his property. The
appellants threatened PW 2 and PW 5 by saying that they shall not report the
matter to anybody otherwise they would also be killed. Of course, there is no
direct evidence as to how the dead body of deceased Rawata was brought near his
field but that does not give cast doubt on the prosecution case. The evidence
of PW 2, PW 4 and PW 5 clearly establish that the appellants were responsible
for the death of Rawata. The Sessions Court as well as the High Court rightly
convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with Section
We find no merit in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed accordingly.