Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1283 (RAJ)

Vishan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-05-02

S.P.PATHAK

body2005
Judgment B. Prasad, J.-The appellant in the present appeal was being convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 67/2001 [30/98] by its Judgment dated 17.07.2001. The learned trial Court convicted the accused under Section 302, IPC. Accused was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-and in default in payment of fine one year imprisonment was imposed. 2. The prosecution was initiated after lodging of the First Information Report at Police Station Surprliya by PW. 12 Ram Chander on 13.04.1998 the first informant in his report has stated that he was at Nagaur at 12.15 p.m. At that time, Ladu Ram met him and he informed that while he was going from his house to the Dhani of Danaram, Manoj was ahead of him. He was going at the distance of 50 Pawandas. Manoj was proceeding towards his school with his school bag. While he arrived at Heera Rams field, at that time accused Vishan Singh came from behind a bush. He was armed with an axe. He inflicted injury on the head of Manoj, Manoj cried, Ladu Ram rushed towards Manoj and saw that the accused inflicted three-four more injuries and ran away from scene of occurrence. At that time, Dana Ram and Shravan Ram who were with their hurds arrived. They have also seen the occurrence. Manoj succumbed to his injuries and expired at the scene of occurrence. Such information of Ladu Ram was incorporated by Ram Chander in his FIR and consequently FIR No. 18/1998 was registered. 3. Usual investigation was conducted thereafter challan was filed against the accused. The case was committed and thereafter made over for trial. The trial Court framed charges under Section 302, IPC against the accused appellant. Accused denied the charges and claimed trial. At the trial prosecution examined as many as 26 witnesses and tendered 55 documents in evidence. Accused was examined under Section 313, CrPC and tender three documents in evidence. It examined one defence witness i.e. Govind Singh, who deposed about the alibi of the accused. The accused in his statement under Section 313, CrPC stated that he was not in his village but was at Nagaur from 11.04.1998 from where he was arrested on the date of occurrence in the evening. 4. It examined one defence witness i.e. Govind Singh, who deposed about the alibi of the accused. The accused in his statement under Section 313, CrPC stated that he was not in his village but was at Nagaur from 11.04.1998 from where he was arrested on the date of occurrence in the evening. 4. Learned trial Court after considering the case of the prosecution and defence came to the conclusion that the eye-witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution PW. 9 Ladu Ram, PW. 10 Shravan Ram, PW. 13 Dana Ram and PW. 14 Heera Ram are trustworthy eye-witnesses. According to the trial Court nothing substantial has come in their lengthy cross examination and their testimony has remained intact. The learned trial Court has negatived the stand of the prosecution by stating that it is not always possible for accused to intervene in such occurrences and apprehend the accused. Minor contradictions which had been pointed out by the defence are not substantial enough to discard the testimony of eye-witnesses. All the eye-witnesses are unanimous about the manner of occurrence and whatever little contradictions have been pointed out by the defence are only perfunctory and they do not effect the substratum of the prosecution. 5. The accused has taken the plea of alibi. A very easy defence which is very difficult to prove. The defence has tried to establish only by word of month. The witness DW. 1 Govind Singh who is a Government servant has deposed that he had been off his duty frequently to see the accused. The timings given by him to see the accused are his duty hours. According to the trial Court it was not possible for a Government servant to made himself available to only water particular person. It is a made up story. 6. The trial Court has also believed the circumstantial piece of evidence found against the accused wherein the weapon of offence and clothes of the accused has been found to be blood stained. The blood group of the deceased and the blood on the articles recovered have been found to be same. Therefore, there are enough corroboration available from the circumstances available on record. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the conviction has stressed that the prosecution story is not trustworthy. The blood group of the deceased and the blood on the articles recovered have been found to be same. Therefore, there are enough corroboration available from the circumstances available on record. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the conviction has stressed that the prosecution story is not trustworthy. The learned trial Court has not looked into the most important aspect that all the witnesses were relative witnesses and there was long standing animosity between the parties. The witnesses were not the witnesses who were present on the scene of occurrence. They were the persons who were arranged as eye-witnesses. They being chance witness no implicit reliance can be placed on them. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that it was not possible for the witness to have seen the occurrence because they were busy in grazing their hurds. Ladu Ram had no reason to be on the scene of occurrence. He is only a chance witness. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant PW. 13 Dana Ram is alleged to have seen the incident while he was on a Khajari tree. He furtehr submits that there was a sand dune between the place from where this witness have seen the occurrence and actual spot. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant further assailed the prosecution case by arguing that the first informant speak that from his place of abode he had first gone to attend the Court proceeding at a trial Court situated at Jayal and then he had gone to Nagaur. There was no reason as to how Ladu Ram would go after him to Nagaur just to inform him about the incident. Ladu Ram himself should have gone to inform the police. PW. 12 Ladu Ram having gone to Nagaur to inform Ram Chander about the incident shows that there was a definite design to implicate the accused falsely. Introduction of Ram Chander shows that the complainant took his time to first frame-up a case against the accused and then report it to the police. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant further assailed that though the FIR was lodged on 13.04.1998 but the same was received by the Court of Magistrate on 17.04.1998. This delay can be safely said to be a delay utilised in framing up the case against the accused. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant further assailed that though the FIR was lodged on 13.04.1998 but the same was received by the Court of Magistrate on 17.04.1998. This delay can be safely said to be a delay utilised in framing up the case against the accused. Learned Counsel for the appellant further asserted that blood group of the accused has not been determined and in absence of determination of the blood group of the accused it cannot be said that the blood found on the clothes of the accused is not that of the accused and, therefore, no conclusion should have been drawn against the accused on the basis of the recovery of the blood stained clothes. 11. Learned Counsel has also stressed that the axe which is said to have been recovered at the instance of the accused cannot be read against the accused because at the time of his arrest a key was alleged to have been recovered from his person. That key was not kept sealed and when the recovery was made the accused is alleged to have opened the room with the help of this key, therefore, it cannot be said that the axe was in exclusive possession of the accused. Thus, challenging the conviction accused has prayed that the Judgment and conviction against the accused be set aside. 12. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused has brutally assaulted a school going young chap mercilessly. The eye-witnesses have seen the accused committing the crime. Their testimony has been held to be trustworthy by the trial Court. From their cross-examination nothing can be read in favour of the accused because of basic core of the prosecution story has remained intact. The fiber of the prosecution has not been shaken in the cross-examination. The testimony of the eye-witnesses has been corroborated by the medical evidence and also by a blood stained weapon of offence and clothes of the accused. In this background, the testimony of the eye-witnesses have been supported by the circumstantial evidence as corroborating piece of evidence. The case has been rightly believed by the trial Court and there is no such infirmity which can be said to affect the prosecution case. As regards, the delayed FIR, learned Public Prosecutor submits that there was no cross-examination of the Investigating Officer on this count. The case has been rightly believed by the trial Court and there is no such infirmity which can be said to affect the prosecution case. As regards, the delayed FIR, learned Public Prosecutor submits that there was no cross-examination of the Investigating Officer on this count. Had defence selected to cross-examine the Investigating Officer, he would have explained the circumstance that as to why the FIR was sent late to the Court. The defence has taken a plea of alibi which has not been found to be established. The witness produced to establish alibi has not produced any cogent evidence in support of his version. A false case of alibi has been set up by the accused. Adverse influence is liable to be taken against the accused. 13. We have considered the rival contentions and have given our thoughtful consideration. The testimony of PW . 9 Ladu Ram, a witness who was following the deceased while the deceased was on his way to school appears to be naturals. Describing the incident in detail this witness has stuck to his version. Suddenness of incident explains that as to why he had gone to Ram Chander to lodge FIR. He has named the other eye-witnesses who were around the scene of occurrence with their herds. In their cross-examination nothing substantial has been elicited by the defence. If the testimony of eye-witnesses remain intact despite their cross-examination and there are no contradictions from their police version then ordinarily the statement should not be discarded. In the instant case, no contradictions from his earlier version has been brought on record. Their earlier version to the police has not been found to have been reflected to have been exaggerated by this witness. No contradictions have been brought on record. They were residents of nearby Dhanis and merely because they were relatives it cannot be said that they are such witnesses who are not liable to be given credence. Further testimony of these witnesses is corroborated in material particulars by the testimony of all the other eye-witnesses. PW . 10 Shravan Ram, PW . 13 Dana Ram and PW . 14 Heera Ram. 14. PW . 9 Ladu Ram immediately after occurrence met PW . 12 Ram Chander to whom he narrated the incident in detail. These facts were incorporated in the FIR as Exhibit 29 which was formally recorded as FIR as Exhibit P-30. PW . 10 Shravan Ram, PW . 13 Dana Ram and PW . 14 Heera Ram. 14. PW . 9 Ladu Ram immediately after occurrence met PW . 12 Ram Chander to whom he narrated the incident in detail. These facts were incorporated in the FIR as Exhibit 29 which was formally recorded as FIR as Exhibit P-30. Thus, when he immediately after occurrence a witness narrates the story to other witnesses and those witnesses support the version, such evidence can be used for corroboration as res geste. In this background, the testimony of the eye-witnesses coupled with the recoveries, which have been found to be blood stained and blood group being the same as that of the deceased the prosecution case stands fully proved. Therefore, trial Court was correct in convicting and sentencing the accused. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant Vishan Singh devoid of any merit. The same is hereby dismissed.