2009(6 ) SCR 142
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
v.
MOHAN LAL AND ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 822 of 2003)
APRIL 15, 2009
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-State and
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench directing acquittal of the respondents who faced
trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’). Originally five persons
faced trial and out of them two accused persons namely Moti Ram and Ramji Lal
were acquitted by judgment of learned Sessions Judge, jhunjhunu. By the judgment
which was impugned before the High Court, the present respondents were found
guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
3. The prosecution version in a nutshell that on 4.11.1995 Balusingh
(hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was assaulted by the present respondents
and the two acquitted accused persons and in the process Balu Singh lost his life.
Information was lodged by Madan Singh Yadav (PW9) who was the son of the
deceased. After investigation, charge sheet was filed and since the accused persons
pleaded innocence, trial was held. As noted above, the present respondents were
found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The
convicted person preferred an appeal before the High Court which as noted above
directed their acquittal. The High Court found the evidence of so-called eye-witness
PW1, 2,5 and 9 to be not credible and cogent and therefore directed the acquittal.
4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant stated that since
four eye-witnesses were there, there evidence should not have been discarded to
direct acquittal. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the
High Court submitting that the view taken by the High Court is a possible view and
has been arrived at after analysing the evidence of eye-witness.
5. It is to be noted that the conduct of the so-called eye-witness was absolutely
unnatural. They did not make any effort to either save the deceased when he was
being assaulted or when the accused persons purportedly took away the dead body
of the deceased.
6. Though in all cases the conduct of persons would not be determinative, it
would depend on several factors. In the present case undoubtedly four persons who
claimed to have witnessed the occurrence did not make any effort to save the
deceased from the assaults made by the accused persons. PW1 was the son of the
deceased. The High Court noticed that the presence of so-called eye witnesses was
practically was not acceptable because of the various variations in the statement
made during investigation and made in the court.
7. The High Court found that the conduct was not only unnatural but also proved
that their presence at the place of occurrence doubtful. The view taken by the High
Court is a plausible one, we find no reason to interfere in this appeal which is
accordingly dismissed.