These appeals are directed against the judgment and order
passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dated 1.11.2001 in Criminal
Appeal Nos. 335 & 305 of 1999 allowing the appeals preferred by the respondents
herein from the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.4.1999 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Hindon City in Sessions Case No.9/1998.
The occurrence took place on 29.9.1997 at about 9 a.m. The first
informant- Yadram (P.W.-4) lodged the First Information Report as regards murder
of Sheodan by Kallu s/o Harbhan and Sharvan s/o Malua which was recorded at
about 11.45 a.m. on the same day. The homicidal nature of the death of the said
Sheodan is not in dispute.
Yadram- P.W.4 in his first information alleged that when the
deceased had gone to the field to cultivate crop of millet, two-three persons came from
behind and fled away after causing 'cutting injuries' on him. The accused who were
named in the First Information Report were said to have been in possession of
Daranti(scythe) and
axe in their hands. Allegedly, he reached the place of occurrence from his own field
after hearing sound of
Sheodan, Kallu and Sarwan. Many other persons working in their fields arrived at
the place of occurrence and by that time the accused persons fled away. It, however, appears from
the judgment passed by the Courts below that apart from Yadram(P.W.4),Govind
(P.W.5)-nephew of the deceased, Sukhi(P.W.15) wife of the decased and Chandulal
(P.W.16) were eye
witnesses. Their names, however, were not disclosed in the First Information Report.
Those whose names have been mentioned in the First Information Report,namely,
Babulal, Chuttan, Vishram, and Sugan who examined themselves as P.W.14,P.W-7
and P.W.13, admittedly, did not witness the actual assault by the accused on the
deceased.
The statements of the so called eye witnesses were also recorded after a few
days in respect whereof the explanation of the investigating officer had not been
accepted by the High Court. The High Court in view of the fact that names of the
none of the so called eye witnesses had been disclosed in the First Information Report,
did not rely upon their statements.
More importantly Chandulal (P.W.16) came out with a story that
respondent No.1 was caught at the spot . If his deposition and depositions of other
witnesses on the said allegation were to be believed, Sarwan was brought to the house
of the deceased and kept tied there. Admittedly, however, he was arrested on
7.11.1997 i.e. after a period of about 1 1/2 months. The prosecution witnesses further
alleged that the Daranti which was the weapon of assault was kept at the house of the
deceased. A purported recovery of a blood stained Daranti, the memo whereof was
marked as Exhibit P.13, was shown to have been recovered from the house of the
accused. Similar purported recovery was said to have been made from the respondent
No.2.
The learned Sessions Judge also did not believe the entire prosecution case.
Accused Sarwan was convicted for an
offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
life. Accused Kallu was convicted for an offence under Section 324 IPC and he was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Learned Sessions Judge
in his judgment appears to have laid emphasis on the fact that respondent No.1 herein, admitted in his statement under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure that he had in fact been caught by the villagers but
having been found by them to be innocent he was let off. Whereas the learned
Sessions Judge had relied upon that part of the statement made by the respondent
No.1 in his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. to arrive at a conclusion that the
statement made by Chandulal(P.W.16) that he apprehended respondent No.1 at the
spot stood corroborated, the High Court on the other hand did not agree to the said
findings opining that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that respondent No.1
was caught at the spot.
The purported blood stained weapons were not sent for chemical
examination. No report of the Chemical Examiner was filed in Court. Land dispute
between the parties is accepted. The First Information Report might not have been
lodged after a great delay but the tenor of the same appears to be that more than two
persons took part in the incident.
Furthermore, the purported apprehension of the respondent No.1 at the
spot would have been a major factor which was expected to be disclosed in the F.R.R.
so as to enable the Investigating Officer to apprehend him at the first instance.
Why despite the fact that the main assailant had been caught at the spot
and was allowed to go away from there by the villagers had not been explained by the
prosecution. Yet again why the statements of so called eye witnesses Govind
(P.W.5), Sukhi(P.W.15) and Chandu(16) were not recorded within a reasonable time
by the investigating officer has not been explained by the Investigating Officer.
The view of the High Court is a possible one. We in exercise of our
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India would not ordinarily
interfere with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the High Court when it is found
that both the views of the learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court were possible
views. We, therefore, are
of the opinion that no case has been made out for interference with the impugned
judgment. The appeals are dismissed.
The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
[S.B. SINHA]
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA] New Delhi, April 30, 2008.