Ram Swaroop and Kanhiya vs State of Rajasthan

Guman Mal Lodha, J.—The appellants, namely, Ram Swaroop and Kanhiya have been convicted u/s 307 IPC and sentenced to 3 years'' R.I. with fine of Rs. 200/- in default 2 months'' R.I. According to the prosecution version, the two accused Kanhiya and Ram Swaroop, were the dacoits and they were responsible for stopping the Truck near village ''Rijhoni'' Rameshwar was leader of that dacoits. The police party reached there and the accused party started firing the guns.The police party replied the encounter.

Roshan Lal (PW 5), Har Vilas (PW 6) were caught by these accused and were being kept as captives at that time. The dacoits party left them and ran awy.

Both the appellants have been acquitted of the offence u/s 307 IPC.

Having heard the learned Counsel and the Public Prosecutor, I have perused the relevant record.

It is true that merely because the evidence is of the Police Officer it cannot be discarded. The settled legal position is that conviction can be based on the testimony of even a single Police Officer, if his statement inspires confidence.

In the present case the, situation is slightly different. The accused were not caught hold at the spot. The police was not acting promptly. No identification parade was held.

The most important infirmity in the prosecution case is that both these persons namely, Roshan Lal and Har Vilas have not identified the accused as the persons who were the dacoits in this encounter. Har Vilas has categorically stated that these accused were not there in this incident.

Har Vilas was not cross-examined from his police statement given earlier and, therefore, the only conclusion or inference which can be drawn is thai Har Vilas is truthful witness.

I am inclined to accept the contention that under those circumstances that merely because the allegation is of dacoity or because the incident took place in Dholpur area which is known as dacoit''s infested area a judicial court cannot convict the accused.

Har Vilas provides a complete protective defence and umbrella to the appellants.

Consequently, appeal succeeds and both the appellants are acquitted of all the charges. They are on bail and need not surrender. The impugned judgment is, set aside.