Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1908 (RAJ)

Ratan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-07-26

B.PRASAD, GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2005
Judgment B. Prasad, J.-This appeal has been filed by the accused Ratan Singh who was tried alongwith one Surjeet Singh for offence under Sections 302, 323, 324 read with Section 34 and 341 IPC Surjeet Singh was convicted for offence under Section 341. The proceedings were initiated on the basis of FIR lodged on the basis of oral report given by Amreek Singh on 24.01.2000. According to the FIR accused Ratan Singh was armed with a Kapa which is a sharp edged weapon and Surjeet Singh was armed with the stick. Thakar Singh was given a kapa blow by Ratan Singh, Thakar Singh is alleged to have been given other injuries by Surjeet Singh also. Surjeet Singh was given a role in the FIR for cutting the upper lips of the victim. 2. At the trial, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses. The accused examined two witnesses. After considering the case of the prosecution, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that no case is made out against the accused Surjeet Singh and consequently he was acquitted. However, the trial Court was of the opinion that accused Ratan Singh was responsible for causing injury on the person of the deceased Thakar Singh and, therefore, he was convicted of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced for life. Both the accused persons were acquitted of the charges under Sections 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 34. 3. Arguing the case of the accused, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the eye witness Amreek Singh is the best witness, the prosecution could produce. According to the statement of this witness, given in examination in chief , he has said that injuries have been inflicted on deceased. In his cross-examination, he admitted that when he arrived, Thakar Singh had already sustained injury on head. He was seen by him fallen on the ground. According to the learned Counsel, there was no scope for this witness to have seen the occurrence. In his statement this witness has admitted that before his arrival the deceased had received the injury. According to prosecution, he has seen the occurrence which appears to be a remote possibility. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant/accused further submits that there are two more designated eye witnesses PW. 4 Puran Singh and PW. 5 Aako Bai. In his statement this witness has admitted that before his arrival the deceased had received the injury. According to prosecution, he has seen the occurrence which appears to be a remote possibility. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant/accused further submits that there are two more designated eye witnesses PW. 4 Puran Singh and PW. 5 Aako Bai. Both these witnesses stated in their examination that after hearing the cires, first of all Amreek Singh arrived and then they arrived. Thus, the purport of statement of these two witnesses is to the effect that they arrived after arrival of Amreek Singh. The inference which the learned Counsel for the appellant wants to draw from this statement is that PW. 4 Puran Singh and PW. 5 Aako Bai have arrived after Amreek Singh PW. 1 arrived. If Amreek Singh had not seen the incident as admitted by him in cross-examination because he arrived after Thakur Singh had fallen on the ground, then the other two eye-witnesses could not have seen the occurrence. Therefore, the prosecution is guilty of designing such eye witnesses who in fact were not the eye witnesses. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant further asserted that Amreek Singh has only assigned injury to accused Ratan Singh on the head of the deceased Thakur Singh by Kapa a sharp edged weapon. The injury sustained by the deceased Thakar Singh on head, as has been described by the medical opinion, is a blunt weapon injury, therefore, it cannot be said that the weapon which has been allegedly used by accused Ratan Singh was used at all. 6. According to learned Counsel for the appellant this commensurates with the theory of defence that PW. 1 Amreek Singh was not a eye witness and, therefore, if he was not a eye witness, then there is no other evidence available on record to show that author of the injury on head is accused. In any case if the circumstance of recovery of weapon kapa is taken into consideration, then also, the injury should have been caused by sharp edged weapon, which is not the case here. The accused who is alleged to be armed with blunt weapon cannot be said to be the author of the aforesaid injury as there is no such allegation against him. Further he has been acquitted also. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the record. The accused who is alleged to be armed with blunt weapon cannot be said to be the author of the aforesaid injury as there is no such allegation against him. Further he has been acquitted also. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the record. The death of deceased Thakar Singh occurred due to injury on head. The head injury is a blunt weapon injury. The medical evidence is specific on this ground. That being the position, the prosecution case has to be examined from the light as who can be the author of the said injury? 8. It is submitted that there were two accused, one has been acquitted and the other one is appellant who had been alleged to have caused injury on the head of Thakar Singh which is a blunt weapon injury. That being the position, we are left in dark as to how can a lacerated wound could occur on the head of the deceased Thakar Singh when assailant is alleged to have caused injury by sharp edged weapon. 9. The prosecution has come with a definite story that the accused Ratan Singh gave a kapa blow on the head of the deceased. Kapa is a sharp edged weapon. This is not narrated in the statement of the witness that the weapon was used from the reverse side. When the prosecution has not come with a case of using reverse side and on the contrary prosecution assertion is that sharp side was used, that falsifies the stand of the prosecution, coupled with the fact that eye-witness Amreek Singh has admitted that he had arrived after Thakar Singh had fallen on the ground. These contingencies make the prosecution case doubtful. The statement of Amreek Singh is not corroborated by the medical evidence. If the statement of Amreek Singh is held to be not truthful, then other two witnesses, PW . 4 Puran Singh and PW . 5 Aako Bai cannot be considered to be witness of any consequence because they were witnesses who have alleged to have arrived after Amreek Singh had arrived. Admittedly Amreek Singh had arrived after Thakur Singh had already fallen on the ground. All these facts lead us to disbelieve the evidence of the witnesses produced by the prosecution 10. 5 Aako Bai cannot be considered to be witness of any consequence because they were witnesses who have alleged to have arrived after Amreek Singh had arrived. Admittedly Amreek Singh had arrived after Thakur Singh had already fallen on the ground. All these facts lead us to disbelieve the evidence of the witnesses produced by the prosecution 10. In absence of any trustworthy eye witnesses, we are left to guess as to who can be the assailant and in a criminal case to convict an accused, guess can not of any consequence because the criminal jurisprudence makes it obligatory on the Courts that they must not only come to the conclusion that it is the accused who may be guilty but Courts have to consider that the accused was guilty infact. The conclusions drawn by the trial Court are unsupportable. 11. In the result, the appeal is liable to be allowed. The accused Ratan Singh deserves to be acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC. His sentence is also deserves to be set aside. 12. The appeal is allowed. The accused Ratan Singh S/o Jagga Singh is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC. Consequently, sentence is also set aside. He is behind the bars. He should be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.