State of Rajasthan vs Govind Singh and Others

Vijay Bishnoi, J.—This appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 16.04.1986 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur (for short ''the trial court'' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 51/1982, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused-respondents from the offence punishable under section 302/34 IPC.

As per the prosecution story, deceased Surja Ram son of Jora Ram submitted a written report on 18.06.1982 to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Surpaliya, inter alia, alleging therein that in the morning when he was proceeding towards Nagaur from village Talniyao, then in between Talniyao and Surpaliya, in the field of Mangi Lal son of Purkha Ram, Kishan Singh S/o. Bhera Singh, Govind Singh S/o. Kishan Singh, Girdhari Singh S/o. Kishan Singh, Gopal Singh S/o. Bher Singh and Tej Singh S/o. Bher Singh residents of Talniyao came there and stopped him and thereafter Kishan Singh inflicted a blow of Farsi, Gopal Singh inflicted a blow with knife and Govind Singh, Girdhari Singh and Tej Singh assaulted him with lathis and also took out Rs. 2000/- from his pocket. At that time, Bhagwana and Mukna Ram came there and rescued him, otherwise the assailants would have killed him. It is also alleged that after some time, he became unconscious. On receiving this information, Station House Officer, Police Station, Surpaliya had registered the FIR No. 17/1982 (Ex. P/13) for the offences punishable under sections 395, 147, 148, 149, 323 IPC. After some time, another report was filed by Mansukh Ram S/o. Jora Ram, wherein it is mentioned that after lodging the report by Surja Ram, when he along his brother was proceeding for medical examination of the injuries and waiting for bus at bus stand Surpalia, then his brother succumbed to injuries. On receiving this report, the police had added the offence punishable under section 302 IPC in the FIR No. 17/1982 and started investigation. After investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against the accused-respondents for the offences punishable under section 302/34 IpC and the trial court also framed charges for the aforesaid offence.

During the pendency of trial, the prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses and the statements of the accused-persons were recorded under section 313 CrPC and 9 defence witnesses have also been examined on behalf of the defence. Several documents have been exhibited on behalf of the prosecution as well as the defence.

Learned trial court after hearing the counsel for the parties has acquitted the accused-respondents from the offence punishable under section 302/34 IPC while concluding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused-respondents beyond reasonable doubt.

Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by counsel for the complainant has assailed the judgment dated 16.04.1986 while arguing that the trial court has grossly erred in not relying upon the statements of eyewitnesses viz. PW.1 Bhagwana Ram and PW.2 Mukna Ram. It is contended that from the evidence of both the above mentioned eyewitnesses, it is proved that the accused-respondents had brutally assaulted the deceased Surja Ram on 18.06.1982 and thereafter fled away from the scene of crime. It is contended that the trial court has disbelieved the testimonies of the above witnesses on the ground of minor contradictions in their statements recorded by the police under section 161 CrPC and before the trial court. It is argued that the minor contradictions in the statements are immaterial because from the whole evidence of the eye-witnesses, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is also argued that the trial court has also erred in disbelieving the statement of PW.4 Mansukh Ram, PW.5 Amra Ram and PW.6 Hanumanbux, who have corroborated the statements of the eyewitnesses PW.1 Bhagwana Ram and PW.2 Mukna Ram.

We have heard learned Public Prosecutor assisted by counsel for the complainant and carefully scrutinized the record of the case.

The learned trial court has disbelieved the statements of the eyewitnesses viz. PW.1 Bhagwana Ram and PW.2 Mukna Ram while observing that their presence at the scene of crime is highly doubtful. The learned trial court has also observed that the report Ex. P/3 alleged to have been submitted by the deceased Surja Ram did not bear his signature and from the statement of the witnesses, it is revealed that soon after the incident, the deceased Surja Ram became unconscious and was brought to the police station by his brother in that condition, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that Ex. P/3 was submitted by Surja Ram himself. The trial court has also observed that second report Ex. P/4 regarding the death of Surja Ram was written by PW.6 Hanumanbux the then Sarpanch, however, his presence at the Police Station, Surpalia is also highly doubtful. The learned trial court has also taken into consideration the contradictions in the statements of PW.1 Bhagwana Ram, PW.2 Mukna Ram and the statements of other witnesses.

After careful scrutiny of the record, we are also of the opinion that the presence of PW.1 Bhagwana Ram and PW.2 Mukna Ram at the scene of crime is highly doubtful. In their statements, both the witnesses have alleged that they saw the accused-persons assaulted the deceased Surja Ram on 18.06.1982 and when the accused-persons left the scene of crime, they came near to the deceased, who asked them to inform his brother and immediately they went to the house of his brother Mansukh Ram (PW.4) and told him about the incident and thereafter went to their house. From their statements, it is clear that the conduct of both the witnesses is not natural. After witnessing the brutal assault on Surja Ram, they simply informed his brother Mansukh Ram and went to their house is not believable. Any layman, after witnessing brutal crime, would not have left any injured unattended and simply after informing his relatives has not helped him in taking him to the hospital or police station. One thing is also revealed from the record that the statement of PW.1 Bhagwana Ram was recorded for the first time by the police under section 161 CrPC on 21.06.1982 i.e. three days after the incident and thereafter supplementary statements were also recorded on 07.08.1982 and 06.10.1982 and every time, he has made several improvements in his statement. Similarly, the statements of PW.1 Bhagwana Ram were recorded under section 161 on 18.06.1982 and thereafter his supplementary statements were recorded on 07.08.1982 and 06.10.1982 wherein he also made a lot of improvements. During their cross-examination before the Court, they made contradictory statements and both the witnesses made a lot of improvements in the version stated by them before police station.

Another important aspect is this that both the witnesses PW.1 Bhagwana Ram and PW.2 Mukna Ram have specifically stated that at the time of assault on Surja Ram, PW.3 Malu Singh S/o. Jodh Singh was with him, however, he was declared hostile and has not supported the prosecution story. The trial court has also taken into consideration the fact that the police has failed to exhibit the recovery memo of knife alleged to have been recovered from the scene of crime.

It is noticed that though the knife was recovered by the police from the scene of crime but the same has not been exhibited during the course of trial. The other witnesses viz. PW.12 Mooli w/o Kan Singh, PW.13 Mangej Kanwar w/o Mal Singh have also turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution story.

From the overall analysis of the record, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence punishable under section 302/34 IPC against the accused-respondents beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused-respondents vide judgment dated 16.04.1985 from the aforesaid charges. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.