Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 150 (RAJ)

Amolak Ram v. The State of Rajasthan

2000-02-08

V.G.PALSHIKAR

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - Being aggrieved by the order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotara camp Harmer dated 7.3.1984 in Sessions Case No. 41/82, the appellant has preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal and orally canvassed before me. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, I have scrutinised the record and reappreciated the evidence. 3. The prosecution story stated briefly is that on 3.7.1982 in the evening the appellant and the complainant victim were together in the house of the victim when the accused brought a knife and caused six incised wounds to the victim. When one Kishan Lal came to intervene, he also sustained wounds. On the basis of the information lodged by Kishan Lal, the police registered an offence under section 307 r/w Section 323 IPC and after investigation, prosecuted the accused under sections 307, 324 & 309 IPC. The prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses to prove its case and on appreciation of the said evidence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid, which order of conviction is assailed before me. 4. On reappreciation of the evidence on record, it is disclosed that the prosecution has not come with the correct story and several material contradictions exist wherefrom reasonable doubt can arise in the mind of an ordinary prudent man as to the exact version of the incident, creating a doubt regarding veracity of the prosecution story. 5. The prosecution has claimed as will be seen from the FIR as also the evidence of PW 14 Shivdan the injured person that Shivdan and Amolak the accused both are Patwaris and prepared food in the evening and started taking food. While they were taking food, Amolak the accused went into the Kitchen on the pretext of bringing union and came out with a knife and stabbed Shivdan on the neck and in the back. On that he tried to run away shouting for help and PW 1 Kishan Lal then came there and took away the knife from the accused, which process resulted in injuries on his head. However, as will be disclosed from the discussion hereafter, three witnesses who were sitting in the police station have an entire different version to give. On that he tried to run away shouting for help and PW 1 Kishan Lal then came there and took away the knife from the accused, which process resulted in injuries on his head. However, as will be disclosed from the discussion hereafter, three witnesses who were sitting in the police station have an entire different version to give. In fact, the evidence as it stands can be divided into two sets, one set of witnesses consisting of PW 1 Kishan Lal, who is also termed as eye-witness and PW 14 Shivdan who, of course, is an eye-witness and the victim to give the story, which is relied upon and put forward as disclosed by the prosecution. Whereas the other set of evidence is of other witnesses who claim to be eye-witnesses. From the reappreciation of these two versions come out by two sections, a serious and reasonable doubt arises as to the veracity of the entire story and a dark shadow of doubt is cast on the entire prosecution. 6. PW 1 Kishan Lal has deposed that he was taking food in the house of Moti Ram, Peon at 8.00-8.15 p.m. He heard shouts seeking help. At that time, he was near the back door of the house of Patwari Shivdan. When he entered the hose, he saw that the accused and Shivdan Patwari were fighting amongst them. It is worthwhile to note what the witness has said in vernacular as under : " vkSj eSa tc iVokj [kkus ds ihNs ds njokts ds ikl igqWapk rks eqyfte veksyd rFkk f'konku iVokjh vkil esa yM+ jgs FksA " The witness then deposed that he then ran to the police station after taking out the knife from the hands of the accused and made an oral complaint, on the basis of which entry in the crime register was made which he proved as Ex. P/1 From the evidence of this witness, it will, therefore, be seen that the occurrence had taken place at the house of victim Shivdan. 7. PW 2 Shanker Lal has deposed that in the evening of 3.7.1982, the date of the incident, he was sitting in the Police station with the Station House Officer Ikbal Beg and others. P/1 From the evidence of this witness, it will, therefore, be seen that the occurrence had taken place at the house of victim Shivdan. 7. PW 2 Shanker Lal has deposed that in the evening of 3.7.1982, the date of the incident, he was sitting in the Police station with the Station House Officer Ikbal Beg and others. He then states that when they were so sitting former Sarpanch Deravar Singh came to the Police Station and said that Shivdan Patwari is lying unconscious near the police station on the road and he is being assaulted by Amolak, the accused. The witness then says that he alongwith Khuman Singh and Gumana Ram were directed by the Station House Officer to save the victim. It is worthwhile to note what this is stating about the incident in vernacular, which is as under:- " bl ij ge rhuksa Fkkuk ls ckgj fudysA Fkkus ls fudyrs gh geus ns[kk fd Fkkus ds cka;h rjQ 20 dne nwj f'konku iVokjh lM+d ij vksUns eqag fxjk gqvk Fkk vkSj veksyd eqyfte ekStwnk vnkyr f'konku dks Nqjs ls ekj jgk FkkA [kqeku flag us vkSj eSaus 'kksj fd;k fd D;ksa ekj jgs gks] D;ksa ekj jgs gksA bl ij eqyfte veksyd us gekjh rjQ ns[kk vkSj veksyd us viuh Lo;a dh xnZu ij vius gkFk ls gh Nqjk pyk fn;kA " From the testimony of this witness PW 2, it appears that the incident of accused assaulting the complainant-Shivdan took place 20' away from the police station and not in the house of Shivdan as alleged by him. To the similar effect is the version of Gumana Ram PW 3, who accompanied PW 3. PW 4 Deravar Singh was declared hostile. PW 5 Chhagan Singh was declared hostile. PW 6 is Dr. Shyam Lal Jangid, who examined the accused victim and PW 1 Kishan Lal and deposed about the injuries caused to each of them. He has described the injuries caused to the accused. The accused had also injuries on his person as described by the doctor PW 6. PW 7 Nathu Lal is a Panch witness so also PW 8 Chutar Singh. The evidence of both these is irrelevant for the purpose of adjudging the veracity of the prosecution story. PW 9 Moti Lal is again declared hostile. The accused had also injuries on his person as described by the doctor PW 6. PW 7 Nathu Lal is a Panch witness so also PW 8 Chutar Singh. The evidence of both these is irrelevant for the purpose of adjudging the veracity of the prosecution story. PW 9 Moti Lal is again declared hostile. PW 10 Hukam Singh took six sealed packets and gave them to the malkhana-in-charge Perna Ram, who is examined as PW 11. PW 12 Goma Ram took thereafter to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. PW 13 is Jodha Ram. 8. PW 14 is the victim Shivdan, whose evidence gives the version of the prosecution as put by the prosecution. He has deposed about the presence of the accused in his house, their working together for few hours, preparing the food together, taking the dinner at 8.00 p.m. and then the accused leaving for kitchen and coming out with a knife and stabbing the victim. This witness nowhere states that the accused injured himself or that anybody else injured the accused. He states of the assault having taken place in his house and when he was run away from the house to save himself, he fell unconscious on the road. 9. It is directly contrary to the version given by PW 2 Shanker Lal and PW 3 Gumna Ram who say that the incident took place near the police station and they saw the entire incident. If PW 1 Kishan Lal and PW 14 Shivdan are to be believed regarding the occurrence, the statements of PW 2 Shanker Lal and PW 3 Gumna Ram become palpably false. Conversely, PW 2 Shanker Lal and PW 3 Gumna Ram, and, PW 1 Kishan Lal and PW 14 Shivdan are stating the false. It will thus be seen on scrutiny of the evidence of these four witnesses that they have made definite attempt of improving upon the prosecution case to a great extent by stating certain facts which were false. No positive attempt to explain away the injuries appearing on the person of the accused has been made and hence, the statements given by PW 2 Shanker Lal and PW 3 Gumna Ram that they saw the accused inflicting injuries on his own person. 10. No positive attempt to explain away the injuries appearing on the person of the accused has been made and hence, the statements given by PW 2 Shanker Lal and PW 3 Gumna Ram that they saw the accused inflicting injuries on his own person. 10. On reappreciation of the evidence as aforesaid certain doubts arise as to whether the incident took place as alleged by Shivdan PW 14 or it took place as alleged by PW 2 Shanker Lal and PW3 Gumna Ram, whether it took place in the house of Shivdan or it took place on the road near the police station, when the injuries were caused to the accused, why the accused inflicted blows on himself. On reappreciation of the evidence on record, therefore, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who inflicted injuries on Shivdan because PW 1 Kishan Lal has not seen the accused assaulting Shivdan. Shivdan himself states that the accused came from behind and stabbed him on the back whereas PW 2 Shanker Lal and PW 3 Gumna Ram claim that the accused stabbed Shivdan on the road in their presence and then inflicted injuries on himself, which is improbable on reconsidering the two versions and, therefore, acceptance of either of the two claims becomes improper and inaccurate. In these circumstances the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. 11. In the result, therefore, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of conviction is set aside. Bail bonds are cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******