Full Judgment Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5603 of 2007)
Dinesh Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan ...Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, upholding
conviction recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge
No.2, Fast Track Court, for offences punishable under
Sections 302, 307, 324, 148, 452 and Section 323 read with
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the
‘IPC'). In all, five persons faced trial. The appeal filed by four
others was allowed and conviction in respect of each one of
them was set aside. They were convicted in terms of Section
302 read with 149 IPC, 307 read with 149, 324/149, 148/452
and 323 IPC. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment
for life and to pay a fine with default stipulations and to suffer
10 years, 1 year, 2 years and 6 months imprisonment in
respect of other offences.
4. Background facts giving rise to the trial are as follows:
Informant-Suresh Kumar (PW-10) submitted a written
report (Ex.P-5) at Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, Kota, on
8.4.2001 at about 3.00 a.m. stating that his house is situated
at Keshave Nagar, Kota, and Babu Lal Nai was also residing in
2
front of his house. There had been long standing enmity
between them and many a times they had altercations in the
past. On 7.4.2001 at about 11 O’clock, while the informant
and his family members were sleeping in the house after
bolting the door from inside, the accused Babu Lal Nai along
with his wife Smt. Geeta, and sons Dinesh, Sattu @
Satyanarayan and Sonu @ Sunil and Smt. Nirmla W/o Shri
Dinesh armed with deadly weapons entered into his house.
Chittar Lal, father of the informant (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘deceased’) enquired from the accused as to why they had
entered into the house. On this, Babu Lal Nai and his wife
Smt. Geeta exhorted the accused to finish them. Dinesh with
the sword which he was carrying pierced abdomen of Chittar
Lal. Babu Lal Nai inflicted injury on the abdomen of Chittar
Lal. Uma Shanker and the informant Suresh Kumar rushed
to rescue Chittar Lal. Satyanarayan inflicted blow with an
iron rod on the head of Chittar Lal. Dinesh and Satyanarayan
inflicted knife injury to Uma Shankar and Vinod; while
Nirmala W/o Dinesh and Smt. Geeta W/o Babu Lal and Sonu
@ Sunil inflicted injuries to his father and brother with lathies
3
and iron rod. Chittar Lal and Uma Shankar became
unconscious on the spot. On hearing hue and cry,
neighbours also gathered there. Injured Uma Shankar and
Chittar Lal were taken to the hospital. Chittar Lal succumbed
to the injuries while injured Uma Shankar was admitted to the
hospital. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a case under
Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 452 and 323 IPC was
registered and investigation commenced. After investigation,
charge sheet was filed. In due course, the case came up for
trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2 (Fast
Tract), Kota. Charges under Sections 148, 452, 302 or
302/149, 307 or 307/149, 324 or 324/149 and 323 or
323/149 IPC were framed against the appellant and other co-
accused who denied the charges and claimed trial. The
prosecution in support of its case examined 18 witnesses. In
their explanation under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) the appellant and other co-
accused claimed innocence. Appellant-Dinesh got himself
examined as DW-1 under Section 315 Cr.P.C. Before the Trial
Court, the primary stand was that there was long standing
4
enmity between the parties and, therefore, there was false
implication. It was also submitted that appellant was, in fact,
assaulted by the complainant party had also suffered injuries
and had lodged a cross case.
Learned Trial Judge on hearing final submissions
convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated
hereinabove.
In appeal, the stand was reiterated. The High Court
found that though there was some amount of exaggerations so
far as the others are concerned, the evidence of the eye-
witnesses PWs 7, 10 and 13 was credible and cogent and,
therefore, dismissed the appeal so far as the appellant is
concerned.
5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that when four persons have been
acquitted by the High Court, the conviction of the appellant
should not have been maintained, more particularly, when
5
they are related. Learned counsel for the respondent-State,
on the other hand, supported the judgment of the High Court.
6. It is to be noted that PWs 7 and 13 were the injured
witnesses and PW-10 was another eye-witness and was the
informant. Law is fairly well settled that even if acquittal is
recorded in respect of co-accused on the ground that there
were exaggerations and embellishments, yet conviction can be
recorded if the evidence is found cogent, credible and truthful
in respect of another accused. The mere fact that the
witnesses were related to the deceased cannot be a ground to
discard their evidence. In law testimony of an injured witness
is given importance. When the eye-witnesses are stated to be
interested and inimically deposed towards the accused, it has
to be noted that it would not be proper to conclude that they
would shield the real culprit and rope in innocent persons.
The truth or otherwise of the evidence has to be weighed
pragmatically. The Court would be required to analyse the
evidence of related witnesses and those witnesses who are
inimically deposed towards the accused. But if after careful
6
analysis and scrutiny of their evidence, the version given by
the witness appears to be clear, cogent and credible, there is
no reason to discard the same. Conviction can be made on the
basis of such evidence. In the instant case, the Trial Court
and the High Court have analysed the testimony of PWs 7, 10
and 13 in great detail. It is revealed that the appellant had
inflicted the first sword blow to the deceased in his abdomen
and he fell on the ground. The High Court, however, found
that the role ascribed to the others was not fully satisfied. The
sword used in the offence was recovered at the instance of the
appellant and the same was found to be stained with same
group of human blood, as that of the deceased, as per the FSL
report, Exh.P-28. PW-7 stated that when he tried to save his
father, the deceased also inflicted blows on him and he
sustained injury by sharp edged weapon i.e. the sword.
According to him, the accused inflicted the blow by the sword
on his neck and he fell down. Though, the appellant stated
that he had suffered injuries at the hands of the deceased and
his sons, as rightly noted by the Trial Court and the High
Court, they were superficial injuries and as the doctor opined,
7
could be self inflicted.
7. Above being the position, we find no merit in this appeal,
which is, accordingly dismissed.
……….………………………….J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
…………………………………….J.
(Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)
New Delhi,
August 4, 2008
8