Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1340 (RAJ)

Lalchand S/o Chhoturam v. State

2025-06-16

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SUNIL BENIWAL

body2025
JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. The instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the accused-appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.07.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 62/2016 ( State of Rajasthan Vs. Lalchand and Ors. ), whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: Accused-appellant: Palaram Conviction u/s. Sentence & Fine In Default of payment of fine further undergo 302 of I.P.C. Life Imprisonment alongwith Fine of Rs.20,000/- One Year’s additional simple imprisonment 323 of I.P.C. Six Month’s S.I., alongwith Fine of Rs.1000/- Fifteen days additional simple imprisonment 3(1)(R)(S) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act One Year’s S.I., alongwith Fine of Rs.5000/- One month’s additional simple imprisonment Accused-appellants: Lalchand, Gulveer, Vinod Conviction u/s. Sentence & Fine In Default of payment of fine further undergo 302/34 of I.P.C. Life Imprisonment alongwith Fine of Rs.20,000/- One Year’s additional simple imprisonment 323 of I.P.C. Six Month’s S.I., alongwith Fine of Rs.1000/- Fifteen days additional simple imprisonment 3(1)(R)(S) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act One Year’s S.I., alongwith Fine of Rs.5000/- One month’s additional simple imprisonment 2. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court are that one Jagveer Kaur (Complainant and P.W.1), on 20.08.2016 while being admitted in trauma ward of Government Hospital, Hanumangarh, gave a Parcha Bayan in the presence of a Police Officer, wherein she stated that 20-25 days ago she had a dispute with her neighbors accused-appellant Lalchand and others with respect to water drainage channel. It was also stated that because of the said dispute cases were also registered, and because of the said reason the accused-appellant Lalchand and his family members held enmity against the complainant, her husband and her family. 2.1. It was further stated in the said Parcha Bayan that on the day of incident, when the husband of complainant (Balvinder Singh @Babbu) was returning from work, at around 8:30 p.m., the accused appellants Lalchand, Palaram, Gulveer and Vinod, on sight of Balvinder Singh on common street of Ward Number 44, stopped and attacked him with the intention of murdering him, using Lathis and Kaapa. It was alleged that accused-appellant Palaram had the Kaapa in his hand by which he caused the injuries on the head and face of Balvinder Singh, and when the complainant intervened to save her husband (Balvinder Singh), all the accused appellants gave beatings to both, complainant and her husband, due to which even complainant sustained injuries. It was further alleged that the accused-appellants also hurled abuses with respect to their caste, and said that they will burn their houses and throw them outside the colony. It was further stated that one Paramjeet Singh intervened and saved them and one Parmanand took them to hospital in his car. 2.2. On the basis of the aforesaid information, an FIR bearing No.401/2016 was registered at Police Station, Hanumangarh, for the offence under Sections 307 , 323, 341 read with Section 34 IPC, the police started investigation in the matter. However, before conclusion of the investigation, Balvinder Singh succumbed to the injuries during the treatment, and thus, after completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet under section 302, 307, 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC, and section 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, was submitted against accused-appellants before the learned Trial Court, for the necessary trial. 2.3. During the course of trial, the statements of 18 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 18) were recorded, and documents (Ex.P.1 to 46) were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution; in defence, document (Ex.D.1 to 4) were exhibited, for examination; whereafter, the accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they pleaded innocence and false implication in the criminal case in question. 2.4. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, as above, vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.07.2019; against which, the present appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellants. 3. Mr. J.S. Chouhdary, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary and Ms. Sampati Choudhary, appearing for the accused-appellants submitted that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in the right perspective, and there are material contradictions, omissions and improvements in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It was submitted that Jagveer Kaur (complainant and P.W.1) in the Parcha Bayan stated that the accused-appellant Palaram had a Kaapa which he used to inflict the injuries to her and the deceased. It was submitted that Jagveer Kaur (complainant and P.W.1) in the Parcha Bayan stated that the accused-appellant Palaram had a Kaapa which he used to inflict the injuries to her and the deceased. However, it was contended that, in the testimony before the Court P.W.1 stated that the same accused-appellant yielded an Kulhadi as a weapon. 3.1. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the statement of Jagveer Kaur (P.W.1) cannot be believed to be true as they are not supported by any other witnesses. Furthermore, it was submitted that the said witness is an interested witness because she is the wife of the deceased. It was submitted that the relative, interested or inimical witnesses should not be believed as truthful witnesses, and the veracity of the said categories of witnesses should be examined very cautiously and carefully. 3.2. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the genesis of the prosecution’s story is doubtful, as prosecution witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4, and P.W. 6 have alleged that number of individuals gathered at the spot at the time of incident, and despite the presence of these independent witnesses at the time of incident, none of them were presented as witnesses during the course of trial. It was contended that such non-examination of independent witnesses reflected upon the fact that the whole prosecution story is dubious and concocted. Moreover, it was submitted that one Iktar Singh and one Gurudev Singh were eyewitnesses to the alleged incident, as per the prosecution, however, they were also not examined as prosecution witnesses. 3.3. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the recovery of weapons from the accused-appellants had not proved anything as they were not supported by FSL report (Ex.P.46) in order to establish their connection with the alleged incident. It was submitted that as per the FSL report, out of the recovered weapons, the origin of the blood, i.e., if the blood detected is of human origin or not, found on the Lathee recovered from accused- appellant Vinod could not be traced, and even though the blood found on Kulhadi recovered from accused-appellant Palaram and Danda recovered from accused-appellant Gulveer was of human orgin it could not be concluded that the blood was of the deceased because the blood group of the blood found on the said weapons could not determined. It was further submitted that the danda recovered from accused-appellant Lalchand (Ex.P.22) had the traces of blood of the blood group “A”, however, the blood group of accused-appellant Lalchand was not examined to find out if the blood was his or not. Thus, it was submitted that the said infirmity showed recovery of weapon was false. 3.4. Moreover, it was submitted that the said weapons were recovered from a jointly possessed house, thus, the said recovery cannot be relied on to establish the guilt of the accused- appellants. On the aspect of recovered weapons, it was also submitted that it was not sufficiently established that the said weapons were actually the ones used to cause the injuries as alleged by the prosecution. It was contended that the injury report of the deceased (Ex.P.39) and Jagveer Kaur (Ex.P.41), and the postmortem report (EX.P.45) did not establish the use of the said weapons. 3.5. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the place of incident in question of the alleged offence is disputed as P.W.1 in her testimony said that when she reached in front of the house of one Sukhveer Puniya, she saw that in front of the door of the said house the accused-appellant Palaram had a Kulhadi in his hand, and accused-appellants Lalchand, Gulveer and Vinod had Lathis however, no such description of place was given in the Parcha Bayan by the P.W.1. Moreover, even the testimonies of P.W.4 and P.W. 6 did not mention any place of incident. 3.6. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the prosecution had also failed to prove that accused-appellants had any intention to murder the deceased. It was submitted that prosecution had failed to prove any enmity between the accused appellants, and the complainant & her family. It was submitted that as per the testimony of P.W.1. a compromise was entered into between the accused-appellants and the family of the complainant. Moreover, Dr. Sankar Lal Soni (P.W.14) stated in his testimony that the injuries found on the body of Jagveer Kaur (P.W.1) were simple in nature, thus, it was contended that there was no intention to murder. 3.7. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the sole cause of death of Balvinder Singh(deceased) was not the injuries, rather the cause of death was lack of proper treatment on time. 3.7. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the sole cause of death of Balvinder Singh(deceased) was not the injuries, rather the cause of death was lack of proper treatment on time. It was submitted that the time of death of Balvinder Singh is 10 days after the alleged incident, shows that the death cannot be attributed to the injuries suffered by the deceased, and the death was due to the medical complications. 3.8. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the entirety of the evidence produced by the prosecution did not reflect that there was a common intention between the accused-appellants to murder the deceased, and that the accused appellants acted in furtherance of that common intention. Thus, it was contended that section 34 IPC cannot be invoked in the case at hand. 3.9. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that as per the case of prosecution, the injury which caused the death of deceased was inflicted by accused-appellant Palaram, and that too without intention to cause such injury. Thus, it was contended that no offence under section 302 IPC had been made out, rather at most offence under section 304 Part II IPC was made out only against the accused-appellant Palaram and none others. 3.10. Learned Senior Counsel in support of such submission relied on the following Judgments: (i) Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808 (ii) Pankaj vs. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 16 SCC 192 (iii) Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. State of Maharastra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (iv) Harilal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2216-2217 of 2011 decided on 05.09.2023 by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India) (v) State of Rajasthan vs. Shri Teja Singh, (2001) 3 SCC 147 (vi) Bodh Raj @ Bodha and Ors. vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2002) 7 SCC 334 (vii) Balu @ Bal Subramaniam and Anr. vs. State (U.T. of Pondicherry), (2016) 15 SCC 471 (viii) Ganga Dass @ Godha vs State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal No. 696 of 1993 decided on 02.11.1993 by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India) (ix) Harbeer Singh vs Sheeshpal & Ors. vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2002) 7 SCC 334 (vii) Balu @ Bal Subramaniam and Anr. vs. State (U.T. of Pondicherry), (2016) 15 SCC 471 (viii) Ganga Dass @ Godha vs State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal No. 696 of 1993 decided on 02.11.1993 by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India) (ix) Harbeer Singh vs Sheeshpal & Ors. (2016) 16 SCC 418 (x) Munna Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 18 SCC 661 (xi) Sanjay vs State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2016 decided on 06.01.2016 by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India) (xii) Maniben vs. State of Gujarat, (2009) 8 SCC 796 (xiii) B.N. Kavatakar vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 536 of 1979 decided on 12.05.1993 by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India) (xiv) Sharvan Ram Nayak vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Appelal No. 1150.2015 decided on 15.02.2019 by this Hon’ble Court) (xv) Lal Chand Nagar vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 385/2015 decided on 03.08.2018 by Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench) 4. Per Contra, Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Rakesh Matoria, learned counsel for the complainant, opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the accused-appellants and submitted that as per the testimony Jagveer Kaur (P.W.1.) there was animosity between her family and the family of accused appellants, and consequently cases were also registered. It was submitted that on the day of incident at around 8:30 p.m. when the accused-appellants saw the deceased they attacked him. Moreover, it was submitted that it was admitted position on record that there was a dispute of water drainage channel between the accused and the complainant party. Thus, it was contended that the accused had clear motive to commit the crime. 4.1. It was further submitted that P.W.1. was an eyewitness to the entire incident, and she had clearly stated that accused-appellant Palaram was yielding a Kulhadi and the accused-appellants had lathis with which they committed the crime, and when she intervened to save the deceased, she was also attacked whereupon caste based abuses were hurled against her. It was submitted that the said witness had testified that her husband (deceased) received multiple injuries including one on the right side of the head, and thus he became unconscious, and because of the said injuries the deceased had to be admitted in hospital for the treatment during which the deceased passed away. It was submitted that the said witness had testified that her husband (deceased) received multiple injuries including one on the right side of the head, and thus he became unconscious, and because of the said injuries the deceased had to be admitted in hospital for the treatment during which the deceased passed away. It was further submitted that P.W.1 also suffered injuries in the incident and thus was admitted to hospital where she gave a Parcha Bayan, wherein she narrated the entire incident to the police officer. It was brought to the notice of this court that P.W.1 had actually told the police officer that the accused appellant Palaram attacked with a Kulhadi, however the said officer by mistake wrote Kaapa as the weapon used in the attack, and the said fact was believed by the learned Trial Court. It was submitted that the P.W.1 had been consistent in the FIR, the Parcha Bayan and Court statements. 4.2. It was further submitted that Paramjeet (P.W.4) had clearly stated in his testimony that he reached the spot after the incident, and he heard commotion there. It was submitted that the said witnesses has stated that he saw Balvinder Singh (deceased) in critical condition and his wife (P.W.1) was screaming and wailing that the accused appellants caused the injuries with Kulhadi, and that P.W.1 specifically named the accused-appellants for the beatings. It was submitted that P.W.4 stated that, thereafter they went to the hospital. It was further submitted that Major Singh (P.W.5) the father of the deceased also deposed that he received phone call from his daughter in law (P.W.1) that accused appellants have committed the crime, and asked him to come to the hospital. 4.3. It was further submitted that Paramanand (P.W.6) was an eyewitness to the incident, and he has explicitly stated that at around 8:30 p.m. on the date of incident when he was returning from his work, he saw accused-appellants Palaram, Lalchand, Gulveer, Vinod were attacking the deceased. It was submitted that the witness stated that the accused-appellant Palaram had a Kulhadi in his hand, and the rest of the accused had dandas with which they attacked. It was submitted that the said witness had stated that he took the deceased to hospital in the car. It was submitted that the witness stated that the accused-appellant Palaram had a Kulhadi in his hand, and the rest of the accused had dandas with which they attacked. It was submitted that the said witness had stated that he took the deceased to hospital in the car. It was brought to the notice of this court that the said witness confirmed that the accused-appellants had a previous dispute with respect to water drainage channel. It was further submitted that Kuldeep (P.W. 11) brother of P.W.6 also stated that he saw the deceased in critical condition when he reached spot, and thus he went to the hospital in the car. 4.4. It was further submitted that the accused-appellants, before the learned Trial Court took the defense that the deceased got the injuries due to accident of the motorcycle he was driving, and the learned Trial Court after considering the testimonies of P.W.1, P.W.4, P.W. 5 and P.W.6 and the Naksha Mauka (Ex.P.3) came to the conclusion that it could not be said that the injuries caused to the deceased were due to an accident. 4.5. It was further submitted that during investigation the Naksha Mauka (Ex.P.3) was prepared, seizure of soil present at the place of incident (Ex.P.4) and the clothes of the deceased (Ex.P.6), was done. Furthermore, it was submitted that a Kulhadi was recovered at the instance of accused appellant Palaram (Ex.P.10) which had blood stains on it, a danda was recovered at the instance of accused-appellant Lalchand which also had blood stains on it, a danda was also recovered at the instance of accused-appellant Gulveer which had bloodstains on it, and a lathi was recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant Vinod with blood stains on it, which were sent for FSL report. As per the FSL report (Ex.P.46), it was submitted that the clothes of the deceased and the danda recovered from accused-appellant Lalchand had group “A” blood on it, which was also the blood group of the deceased. 4.6. It was further submitted that P.W.1 had explicitly stated that the deceased got injury on the head which was caused by the accused-appellants, and P.W. 13, the doctor who examined the deceased and prepared injury report (Ex.P.39) found 5 injuries on the body of the deceased, including injury no. 5 which was on the head of the deceased. 4.6. It was further submitted that P.W.1 had explicitly stated that the deceased got injury on the head which was caused by the accused-appellants, and P.W. 13, the doctor who examined the deceased and prepared injury report (Ex.P.39) found 5 injuries on the body of the deceased, including injury no. 5 which was on the head of the deceased. Furthermore, it was submitted that P.W. 17, the doctor who conducted the postmortem on 02.09.2016, and prepared the postmortem report (Ex.P.45) came to the conclusion that the cause of the death were the injuries on the head, neck and body of the deceased, and gave the opinion that the such injuries are sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. 4.7. It was further submitted that P.W.1 also stated in her testimony that while saving the deceased she was also injured by the accused-appellants, and P.W.14, the doctor who examined her found injuries on her body which were simple in nature. Furthermore, it was contended that P.W.1 in her testimony and Parcha Bayan had stated that the accused-appellants also hurled abuses to the complainant on the basis of her caste. 4.8. It was also submitted that to establish the case under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC the prosecution produced P.W.1 and P.W.6 who stated in their testimony that all the accused- appellants attacked the deceased at once. It was further submitted that in order to bring the case under section 34 IPC at home it is not necessary that there must be prior conspiracy or premeditation, the common intention can be formed in the course of occurrence. The Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Dasrath Singh and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , (1977) 1 SCC 197 , wherein it was held that accused who was armed with kulhadi and inflicted injuries to the deceased and the other accused merely yielding lathis whereby they gave blows on the head of the deceased were equally liable under section 302 read with section 34 IPC. 4.9. Further reliance was placed on the following Judgments: (i) Vasant and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 2022 decided on 11.02.2025 by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India) 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the case as well as the precedents cited at the bar. 6. 4.9. Further reliance was placed on the following Judgments: (i) Vasant and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 2022 decided on 11.02.2025 by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India) 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the case as well as the precedents cited at the bar. 6. This Court observes that the testimony of Jagveer Kaur (P.W.1), who was both the complainant and an injured eyewitness, formed the foundation of the prosecution's case. Her version of events remained consistent throughout, from her Parcha Bayan, to the First Information Report, and during her deposition before the Court. The consistent attribution of specific roles and overt acts to each of the accused-appellants, supported by the injuries sustained by her and the deceased, lent inherent credibility to her evidence. Her presence at the scene was natural, and her injuries as reflected in injury report prepared by he doctor (P.W.14) further reinforced the authenticity of her account. 7. This Court observes that the minor discrepancy regarding the weapon used by accused-appellant Palaram, described at one point as a Kaapa and later as a Kulhadi, stood adequately explained. It is well-established that minor inconsistencies in peripheral details do not erode the core of the prosecution’s case, particularly when such discrepancies were immaterial and do not go to the root of the matter. The essential elements of P.W.1’s narrative remained consistent and were corroborated by P.W.6, medical and forensic evidence. 8. This Court observes that the testimonies of Paramjeet Singh (P.W.4), Major Singh (P.W.5), and Paramand (P.W.6) provided significant corroboration to P.W.1’s version of the incident. In particular, P.W.6, an independent eyewitness, stated that he had seen the incident and identified all four accused-appellants as active participants in the incident, and were wielding specific weapons, as stated in his testimony. The account so given was consistent with the weapons later recovered. These depositions withstood cross-examination and were devoid of embellishments. No credible reason was suggested to explain why these witnesses would falsely implicate the appellants. 9. This Court observes that the defense plea that the deceased suffered injuries in a motorcycle accident appeared wholly unsustainable in the face of compelling ocular and documentary evidence. These depositions withstood cross-examination and were devoid of embellishments. No credible reason was suggested to explain why these witnesses would falsely implicate the appellants. 9. This Court observes that the defense plea that the deceased suffered injuries in a motorcycle accident appeared wholly unsustainable in the face of compelling ocular and documentary evidence. The topography recorded in Ex.P.3 (Naksha Mauka) and the seizure of blood-stained soil from the site and recovery of weapons clearly established that the entire incident occurred at the location as mentioned by the prosecution. 10. This Court observes that the Forensic Science Laboratory Report (Ex.P.46) lent material corroboration to the prosecution’s case, confirming the presence of blood of group “A” matching that of the deceased, on the danda recovered from accused-appellant Lalchand and on the deceased’s clothing. Although blood grouping could not be ascertained on all items, the confirmed presence of human blood on weapons tied to the assailants was supportive of the prosecution case. The absence of grouping did not diminish the evidentiary value of the FSL report in light of the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.6. 11. This Court observes that the medical evidence, especially the injury report (Ex.P.39) and postmortem report (Ex.P.45), confirmed that the deceased sustained injuries by use of weapons which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Furthermore, the findings of P.W.13 and P.W.17, who treated the deceased and conducted the postmortem respectively, were clear and aligned with the ocular testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.6. Their opinions effectively ruled out any accidental cause of death. 12. This Court observes that the argument advanced on behalf od accused-appellant regarding the prosecution’s failure to examine certain named witnesses was devoid of merit. The law does not mandate examination of every possible witness, and this Court is of the considered view that in circumstances such as the present, judicial scrutiny must be guided by the quality rather than the quantity of the testimonies adduced. What matters is whether the witnesses examined were reliable and sufficient to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, a threshold the prosecution comfortably met in this instance. 13. This Court observes that the allegation of being interested witness against P.W.1, owing to her relationship with the deceased and enmity with the accused-appellants, was insufficient to discredit her testimony. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Dalbir Kaur & Ors. 13. This Court observes that the allegation of being interested witness against P.W.1, owing to her relationship with the deceased and enmity with the accused-appellants, was insufficient to discredit her testimony. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Dalbir Kaur & Ors. vs. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 158 , held that the term “interested” viz-a-viz a witness, envisages that the witness must have a direct interest in having the accused convicted for some hostility, enmity, or animus. Furthermore, it was observed that a close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. This Court observes that in the present case, the P.W.1. cannot be said to be interested, as the incident occurred in the close vicinity where the she lived. Thus, the possibility of her being natural witnesses cannot be ruled out. 14. This Court observes that the delay of ten days between the incident and the victim’s death did not break the causal link between the assault and the fatal outcome. The injuries suffered by the deceased were grievous and required intensive medical care. The subsequent death was clearly a consequence of the injuries inflicted, as evidenced by PMR (Ex.P.45) wherein it was opined that the injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death, and the conviction under Section 302 IPC is fully justified. 15. This Court observes that the depositions of P.W.1 and P.W.6 clearly established that accused-appellants Lalchand, Palaram, Gulveer and Vinod acted in furtherance of a common intention. The actions of the accused-appellants were clearly concerted and directed towards causing fatal injuries to the deceased. The combined assault, the nature and location of injuries, and the coordinated manner in which the attack was carried out, collectively establish the existence of a common intention to cause the death of the victim. Therefore, in view of the principles laid down in Dasrath Singh (supra) , the accused-appellants Lalchand, Gulveer and Vinod are rightly held liable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 16. This Court observes that the charge under section 323 IPC is duly justified in light of the injuries sustained by complainant Jagveer Kaur, which have been medically examined and corroborated by the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. 16. This Court observes that the charge under section 323 IPC is duly justified in light of the injuries sustained by complainant Jagveer Kaur, which have been medically examined and corroborated by the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The injury report (EX.P.41) and testimony of P.W. 14 the doctor who examined the complainant, on record clearly indicates that Jagveer Kaur suffered simple injuries caused by blunt objects, which directly aligns with the ocular version of the incident as narrated by the injured herself. 17. This Court observes that the prosecution established the commission of caste-based abuses by the accused-appellants, as deposed by P.W.1, thereby invoking the provisions of Section 3(1) (R) and (S) of the SC/ST Act. There was no material to suggest that the complainant harbored any false motive on this count, and her evidence remained uncontroverted and supported by circumstances. 18. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portions of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu alias Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21 as hereunder: “22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness” should be of very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have corelation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a “sterling witness” whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 18.1. This Court is satisfied that testimonies of the eyewitness are of sterling quality, which further strengthens the case of the prosecution, so as to justify the conviction and award of sentence to the accused-appellants by the learned Trial Court vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 19. This Court also observes that in addition to the aforementioned direct evidence, there are also circumstantial evidences available which also corroborate the story of the prosecution. One such circumstance is the presence of motive, i.e. the dispute with respect to water drainage channel and subsequent cases thereto, on the part of the accused-appellants to commit the crime in question. 19. This Court also observes that in addition to the aforementioned direct evidence, there are also circumstantial evidences available which also corroborate the story of the prosecution. One such circumstance is the presence of motive, i.e. the dispute with respect to water drainage channel and subsequent cases thereto, on the part of the accused-appellants to commit the crime in question. The said factor, when conjointly seen with other material on record and in the overall perspective, clearly substantiates the prosecution story. 20. Thus, this Court observes that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. 21. This Court further observes that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is justified in law, because as per the settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments, to the effect that the judgment of the Trial Court can be reversed by the Appellate Court only when it demonstrates an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in arriving at such decision; but in the present case, the learned Trial Court, before passing the impugned judgment had examined each and every witness at a considerable length and duly analyzed the documents produced before it, coupled with examination of the oral as well as documentary evidence, and thus, the impugned judgment suffers from no perversity or error of law or fact, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in the instant appeal. 22. Thus, in light of the factual matrix of the case and the evidences adduced, this Court observes that in the instant case, the actus reus, mens rea and the causation element for the offence of murder have been made out, thereby bringing the case against the accused-appellant Palaram within the purview of Section 302, and accused-appellant Lalchand, Gulveer and Vinod within the purview of section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Furthermore, the injuries caused by the accused appellant to Jagveer Kaur (complainant) make them liable under Section 323 IPC, and caste-based abuses hurled by the accused-appellants justify the conviction under section 3(1)(R) and (S) of the SC/ST Act. 23. Furthermore, the injuries caused by the accused appellant to Jagveer Kaur (complainant) make them liable under Section 323 IPC, and caste-based abuses hurled by the accused-appellants justify the conviction under section 3(1)(R) and (S) of the SC/ST Act. 23. In the present case, there were 2 eye-witnesses, i.e., P.W. 1 and P.W.6, whose testimonies were corroborated by other evidence available on record and the other incriminating circumstances in the case, thereby enabling the prosecution to prove its case against the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and denying the accused-appellants any benefit of doubt. 24. The judgments relied upon on behalf of the accused-appellants do not render any assistance to their case. 25. Thus, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to call for any interference in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. 26. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed , while upholding the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.07.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 62/2016 ( State of Rajasthan Vs. Lalchand and Ors. ). 27. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.