Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 2100 OF 2008
KRIPAL SINGH ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order
th
dated 4 February, 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature
of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench confirming the conviction of the
appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC
passed by the learned trial Court under the impugned judgment
nd
dated 22 November, 2002.
th
2. The brief facts as per the prosecution case are that on 28
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2019.02.15
13:44:21 IST
Reason:
July, 2001, at 9.15 p.m. informant Sunil Kumar Goyal(PW13)
submitted a written report(Exh. P1) at Police Station Dug
1
wherein it was stated that around 6.30 p.m., he was going along
with his brother Yashwant and Paras Mal on motor cycle bearing
no. RJ20 8M 9309 to their agricultural farm situated at
village Doodhlai. Yashwant was on the driving seat, Paras
Mal(PW1) was in the middle and the informant Sunil Kumar
Goyal(PW13) was sitting on the rear seat. While they were
returning back, the accused Kripal Singh along with Ramlal,
Arjun Singh and Sultan Singh met them near the house of
Dhoole Singh. All the four were armed with axe, lathi, dharia,
sword and pharsa surrounded their motor cycle and exhorted to
kill Yashwant. Informant Sunil Kumar Goyal(PW13) and Paras
Mal(PW1) got down and distanced themselves but Yashwant
could not do so and was severely beaten up. All the assailants
inflicted blows with axe, dharia, sword, pharsa and lathi on the
person of Yashwant. They attempted to kill even the informant
Sunil Kumar Goyal(PW13) and Paras Mal(PW1) while they were
running for their life. They were chased by Kripal Singh who
gave a blow with axe on the left shoulder of Paras Mal(PW1). On
the complaint made by Sunil Kumar Goyal(PW13), the first
information report(Exh. P2) came to be registered. Autopsy on
the dead body of deceased Yaswant was conducted. Initially, all
2
the four accused persons, namely, Kripal Singh, Ram Lal, Arjun
Singh and Sultan Singh were arrested and on completion of
investigation, chargesheet was filed and charges under Sections
302, 394, 394/34, 324 or 324/34 IPC were framed against them
who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in
support of its case examined as many as 24 witnesses. The
appellant claimed innocence in the explanation under Section
313 CrPC, three witnesses in support of defence were examined
and learned trial Court after hearing acquitted coaccused
persons namely, Ram Lal, Arjun Singh and Sultan Singh and
convicted the appellant and sentenced him under Sections 302,
204, 394 and 324 IPC. Against conviction & sentence, accused
appellant preferred appeal & the State of Rajasthan also
preferred appeal against acquittal of the other three accused
persons, both the appeals were dismissed affirming the judgment
th
of the trial Court vide judgment impugned dated 4 February,
2008.
3. Against the said judgment, this appeal by way of special
leave has been filed.
3
4. Heard Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel for
the appellant and Ms. Ruchi Kohli, learned counsel for the State.
5. The main emphasis of Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned
senior counsel for the appellant is that PW13 Sunil Kumar Goyal
was the sole eye witness on whose statement conviction has been
recorded and the present appellant has been assigned only an
injury on the head of the deceased Yashwant which is not the
only cause of death as per the statement of PW6 Dr. Bhupesh
Dayal and PW7 Dr. Ramesh Chandra Khatik and further
submitted that after the acquittal of other three accused persons
namely Ram Lal, Arjun and Sultan Singh who too inflicted
injuries on the various parts of the body of the deceased
Yashwant, the appellant alone cannot be held guilty of causing
the fatal injury and conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot be
sustained and he at the most is liable to be convicted under
Section 304 Part I or II IPC.
6. Learned senior counsel further submits that conviction of
the appellant is only based on the statement of PW13 Sunil
Kumar Goyal who has been disbelieved qua the other three
4
accused persons, namely, Ram Lal, Arjun Singh and Sultan
Singh by the learned trial Court as well as by the High Court.
The High Court has come to the conclusion that the three co
accused persons namely Ram Lal, Arjun Singh and Sultan Singh
were falsely implicated for the various reasons and presence of
these coaccused persons at the time of the incident itself was
doubtful at least based on the statement of PW13 Sunil Kumar
Goyal who was highly interested and unreliable witness and on
whose statement, at least the appellant could not have been held
guilty and convicted under Section 302 IPC.
7. Learned senior counsel further submits that the conviction
of the appellant on the sole ocular testimony of PW13 Sunil
Kumar Goyal is otherwise not sustainable for the reason that the
material portion of the prosecution case with regard to the
manner of the incident and the injuries assigned to various other
alleged accused persons, namely, Ram Lal, Arjun Singh and
Sultan Singh has been disbelieved and the very genesis of the
incident is itself doubtful and in the given circumstances, the
learned trial Court and the High Court has committed a serious
manifest error in holding conviction of the appellant based on the
5
testimony of PW13 whose sole testimony was not believed with
regard to the material portion of the prosecution case as alleged
in the first information report and the statement of witnesses and
in support thereof placed reliance on the judgment of this Court
in 2010(2) SCC 131 and
Hari Kishan Vs. State of Haryana
Arshad Hussain Vs. State of Rajasthan 2013(14) SCC 104 and
submits that once the substantial part of the prosecution story
has been disbelieved and the conviction of the appellant rests
solely on the testimony of Sunil Kumar Goyal(PW13) whose
statement otherwise lose credibility, it will not be sufficient to
hold conviction under Section 302 IPC and further submits that
the cause of death is the common factor for all the injuries
assigned to four accused persons out of which three of them,
namely, Ram Lal, Arjun Singh and Sultan Singh have been
acquitted and in the statement of Dr. Bhupesh Dayal(PW6) and
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Khatik(PW7), it is clearly stated that cause
of death of the deceased Yashwant was due to shock which
occurred due to haemorrhage because of the injuries inflicted in
the brain which has been recorded even in the postmortem
report(Exh. 33). In the given facts and circumstances, it could
not be established that the fatal injury was caused by the
6
appellant and he could not have been convicted under Section
302 IPC.
8. Learned senior counsel further submits that the recovery
memos of axe(Exh. 40), dhoti(Exh. 36) and motorcycle(Exh. 51)
has been attested by the police personnel with no independent
witnesses i.e. PW 15 Dhara Singh and PW 22 Raghuveer Singh
for axe and Birdhi Chand, SHO(PW20) and Shafiq
Mohammed(Head Constable) PW23 for motor cycle have been
produced to attest the said recoveries and a presumption with
regard to statement by police officer as independent evidence
cannot be presumed under Section 114 of the Evidence Act.
9. Learned counsel Ms. Ruchi Kohli, for the respondent, on the
other hand, submitted that although the State has not preferred
any appeal against the acquittal of other accused persons but in
the light of evidence adduced by the prosecution assigning the
specific role of the appellant, no error has been committed by the
High Court in confirming his conviction and prays for dismissal
of the appeal. Learned counsel submits that the testimony of the
eyewitness Sunil Kumar Goyal(PW13) is reliable and he has
7
withstood the same in his crossexamination as well which has
been discussed in detail by the learned trial Court and also by
the High Court as well and needs no further reappraisal of the
evidence and further submits that what is being stated by the
eyewitness Sunil Kumar Goyal(PW13) is corroborated by the
medical evidence of PW6 Dr. Bhupesh Dayal and PW7 Dr.
Ramesh Chandra Khatik who have conducted the autopsy on the
body of the deceased Yashwant and who, in their cross
examination, has stated that the injury caused to deceased
Yashwant by the accused appellant was sufficient to cause death.
Learned counsel further submits that although Paras Mal(PW1
injured) was turned hostile but still it proves the presence of the
accused and the deposition of Sunil Kumar Goyal(PW13) that
the accused hit the deceased Yashwant on his head and the
injury on the shoulder of Paras Mal(PW1) is also being supported
by the medical evidence on record and apart from the
corroboration of the medical evidence, the recovery of axe(Exh.P
40) at the behest of the accused appellant from his house has
been proved by Dhara Singh(PW15) and Raghuveer Singh(PW
22) and recovery of Motorcycle of the deceased has been proved
by Birdhi Chand SHO(PW20) & Shafiq Mohammed(Head
8
Constable)(PW23) in their respective statements and merely
because they are the police witnesses, their evidence cannot be
disregarded as unworthy and placed reliance on the judgment of
this Court in 2015(17) SCC
Baldev Singh Vs. State of Haryana
554 and Girja Prasad(Dead) by LRs Vs. State of M.P. 2007(7)
SCC 625 and submits that the High Court was justified in
upholding the conviction of the appellant.
10. In order to appreciate the rival submission of the parties, it
may be apposite to refer the first information report(Exh. P2)
made by Sunil Kumar Goyal(PW13) which reads as under:
“Today at about 630 O’clock in the evening as usual
my elder brother Yashwant Kumar, Parasmal ji son of
Shri Sobhagmal ji and I in my Hero Honda Motorcycle,
the number of which is RJ208M 9309 and LOVE is
written in English on the backside number plate, we
three went to village Dudhlai village to look after our
agricultural farm. After staying there for about an
hour when we are coming back via Dudhlai village, we
met these four persons, namely Kripal singh, son of
Than Singh, caste Rajput, resident of Dudhlai, 2.
Ramlal, son of Anar singh ji, caste Rajput, resident of
Mandpur, 3. Arjun Singh, son of Bheru Singh, caste
Rajput, resident of Padla, 4. Sultan Singh, son of
Bheru Singh, caste Rajput, resident of Padla in front of
the house of Dule Singh. Kripal singh was having axe
and Ramlal was having a lathi fitted with Dharia,
Sultan Singh was having sword and Arjun Singh was
having farsa. On seeing us they said that today do not
allow Yaswant Singh to go alive today. Got a good
opportunity today. Saying this, these four surrounded
us. Seeing this Paras and I got down from the
motorcycle. When my brother Yashwant ji, who was
9
driving the motorcycle, when wanted to get down
Kripal Singh hit axe on his head. After that Ramlal hit
the lathi fitted with Dharia above the left eye and Arjun
Singh gave blow with his sword on his neck. Sultan
Singh hit the lathi fitted with farsa on the head. While
we were standing there they stated that these two
should not be left alive. Then we ran away from there.
While fleeing Kripal Singh gave a blow with his axe on
the left shoulder of Parasmal ji. We two in order to
save our lives when ran towards the field, Kripal Singh
took my motorcycle and chased us. In the dark we hid
ourselves in the field. After some time everything
became quite there. We went there and saw that my
brother Yashwant had died because of serious injuries
on his body. Those four persons killed my brother and
took away my Hero Honda Motorcycle No. RJ 8M 9309,
the colour of which is Maroon. These persons
committed this criminal act on account of our old
enmity in connection of our lands. Report is submitted
for appropriate action.”
11. On scrutinising the content of the first information report
recorded by Sunil Kumar Goyal(PW13), it is clear that the
th
occurrence took place on 28 July, 2001 at around 6.30 p.m.
when the informant Sunil Kumar Goyal(PW13) along with his
brother Yashwant and Paras Mal were returning back on a motor
cycle from their agricultural farm situated at Village Doodhlai,
they met the present accused appellant along with Ram Lal,
Arjun Singh and Sultan Singh near the house of Dhoole Singh.
All the four were armed with axe, lathi, dharia, sword and
pharsa. The informant Sunil Kumar Goyal(PW13) and Paras
Mal(PW1) got down and distanced themselves but deceased
10
Yashwant could not do so and the accused inflicted blows with
axe, dharia, sword, pharsa and lathi on the person of the
deceased Yashwant. The accused appellant chased Paras
Mal(PW1) and gave blow with axe on his shoulder. The analysis
of the evidence came on record and the learned trial Court after
hearing acquitted the other accused persons, namely, Ram Lal,
Arjun Singh and Sultan Singh and held the present appellant
guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life
imprisonment and the appeal preferred by the appellant came to
be dismissed by the High Court under the impugned judgment
th
dated 4 February, 2008.
12. Before we proceed to examine the rival submissions of the
parties, it will be apposite to take note of postmortem report on
the body of the deceased Yashwant which is as under:
1. Incised wound 4” x 2” x cervical vertebrae deep
ocrophagus trachea & CS vertebrae tractmend present on
the anterior side of neck at the level of thyroid region.
2. Incised wound 3” x 2” x muscle deep sustained on the
right side of base of neck.
3. Incised wound 2 ½ ” x 1” x muscle deep present on the
right shoulder.
11
4. Incised wound 7” x 1” x muscle deep sustained on the
front of neck just below the thyroid region.
5. Incised wound 6” x 1 ½” x muscle deep sustained just
below the ramus of left mandible.
6. Incised wound 3” x 1” x brain deep sustained on the left
side of forehead just above the left eye brow, bone cut
and brain matter present.
7. Incised wound 4” x 1 ½” x brain deep sustained on the
left parietal region of the scalp, bone cut and brain
matter present.
8. Incised wound 2 ½ ” x 1” x bone deep sustained on the
right temporal region of the scalp bone cut & brain
matter present.
9. Incised wound 1 ½” x ½” x brain deep sustained on the
upper half of right ear pinna. Mastoid process cut and
brain matter present.
13. We also find that Paras Mal(PW1) was related to the
informant Sunil Kumar Goyal(PW13). The allegation against the
appellant is that he inflicted injuries on the person of deceased
Yashwant and Paras Mal(PW1) and took away the motor cycle of
deceased Yashwant which was recovered in the presence of
Birdhi Chand SHO Ganganagar P.S.(PW20) and Shafiq
Mohammed, Head Constable(PW23). The axe(Exh. P40) was also
recovered in the presence of Dhara Singh, Constable(PW15) and
Raghuveer Singh(PW22). Although Paras Mal(PW1) who
sustained injury in the incident, did not support the prosecution
12
and he was declared hostile but his medical legal report (MLR)
indicates that he too was injured by the present accused
appellant in the alleged incident.
14. The emphasis of Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned senior
counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been assigned
only one injury on the head of the deceased Yashwant which is
not only the cause of death and when the statement of Sunil
Kumar Goyal(PW13) has been partially disbelieved qua the other
three coaccused persons who are actively shown in participating
in the commission of crime and who have been acquitted by the
learned trial Court and confirmed by the High Court on dismissal
of the appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan, no credibility
be attached and on the same set of evidence, the appellant could
not have been held guilty and his conviction under Section 302
IPC needs interference of this Court.
15. We have already noted the contents of the first information
report and the conclusions of the High Court upholding the
conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The ocular
witness relied upon by the prosecution is Sunil Kumar Goyal(PW
13
13), the complainant/informant. A perusal of the evidence of
Sunil Kumar Goyal(PW13) shows that he supported what was
contended by him on which the first information report was
registered and his court statement as PW13 was in conformity
with the contents of the first information report. In other words,
he reiterated what he has stated in the first information report.
th
It was specifically deposed by him that on 28 July, 2001, i.e. at
6.30 p.m., he along with his brothers Paras Mal(PW1) and
Yashwant(deceased) were returning back on the motor cycle from
their agricultural farm situated at Village Doodhlai and while
they were returning back on the motor cycle near the house of
Dhoole Singh, they met Kripal Singh(appellant) with three other
persons namely, Ram Lal, Arjun Singh and Sultan Singh. The
accused appellant was having axe and he hit on the head of
deceased Yashwant and while returning back, accused appellant
hit axe on the shoulder of Paras Mal(PW1). There was a recovery
of axe and motor cycle of the deceased Yashwant by Dhara
Singh(PW15) and Raghuveer Singh(PW22) and the injury was
supported by Dr. Bhupesh Dayal(PW6) and Dr. Ramesh
Chandra Khatik(PW7) who conducted the autopsy on the body of
the deceased Yashwant. The statement of the doctors was read
14
over to us who in their deposition stated that the injuries were
inflicted on the person of the deceased before his death. Injury
no. 1 which was caused on the neck and throat and all the
injuries caused on the head were separately sufficient to cause
death of the injured. In the statement of Sunil Kumar Goyal(PW
13), the injury on the head of the deceased has been specifically
attributed to the accused appellant by axe. The prosecution has
proved the case against the present accused appellant beyond
reasonable doubt that the injury on the head of the deceased
which was attributed to the accused appellant could in itself be
sufficient to cause death and this is what has been considered by
the learned trial Court and confirmed by the High Court in
appeal and we too are of the view that the prosecution has
believed the case against the appellant and the possibility of over
implication of coaccused Ram Lal, Arjun Singh and Sultan Singh
would not in any manner rule out the case of the present
appellant and the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable
doubt holding him guilty. It would have been unreasonable on
our part if we could have mechanically rejected such evidence
available on record on the sole ground that it is partisan would
invariably lead to failure of justice. No hardandfast rule can be
15
laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated but
what is required is that judicial approach has to be cautious in
dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence
should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as
correct. This has been considered by this Court in
Rizan and
Another Vs. State of Chhatisgarh through the Chief
Secretary, Government of Chhatisgarh, Raipur, Chattisgarh
2003(2) SCC 661 at para 12 as under:
“12. Stress was laid by the accusedappellants on the
nonacceptance of evidence tendered by some
witnesses to contend about desirability to throw out
the entire prosecution case. In essence, prayer is to
apply the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus
(false in one thing, false in everything). This plea is
clearly untenable. Even if a major portion of evidence is
found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to
prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of
a number of other co accused persons, his conviction
can be maintained. It is the duty of the Court to
separate the grain from the chaff. Where the chaff can
be separated from the grain, it would be open to the
Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact
that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove
guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of a particular
material witness or material particular would not ruin
it from the beginning to end. The maxim falsus in uno
falsus in omnibus has no application in India and the
witnesses cannot be branded as liars. The maxim
falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has not received
general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy
the status of a rule of law. It is merely a rule of
caution. All that it amounts to, is that in such cases
testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be
disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question
of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a
16
given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be
called “a mandatory rule of evidence”. ( Nisar Ali v.
State of U. P. AIR 1957 SC 366 ). Merely because some
of the accused persons have been acquitted, though
evidence against all of them, so far as direct testimony
went, was the same does not lead as a necessary
corollary that those who have been convicted must also
be acquitted. It is always open to a Court to
differentiate accused who had been acquitted from
those who were convicted. ( Gurcharan Singh v. State of
Punjab AIR 1956 SC 460). The doctrine is a dangerous
one, specially in India for if a whole body of the
testimony were to be rejected, because a witness was
evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to
be feared that administration of criminal justice would
come to a deadstop. Witnesses just cannot help in
giving embroidery to a story, however, true in the
main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as
to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance,
and merely because in some respects the Court
considers the same to be insufficient for placing
reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not
necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be
disregarded in all respects as well. The evidence has to
be shifted with care. The aforesaid dictum is not a
sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across
a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of
untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or
embellishment. ( Sohrab v. State of M. P. 1972(3) SCC
751 and Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar AIR 1965 SC 277).
An attempt has to be made to, as noted above, in terms
of the felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the
chaff, truth from falsehood. Where it is not feasible to
separate truth from falsehood, because the grain and
the chaff are inextricably mixed up, and in the process
of separation an absolutely new case has to be
reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented
by the prosecution completely from the context and the
background against which they are made, the only
available course to be made is to discard the evidence
in toto. ( Zwinglee Ariel v. State of M. P. AIR 1954 SC 15
and Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab 1975(4) SCC 511 ).
As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan v.
Kalki 1981(2) SCC 752 normal discrepancies in
evidence are those which are due to normal errors of
observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of
time, due to mental disposition such as shock and
17
horror at the time of occurrence and those are always
there, however honest and truthful a witness may be.
Material discrepancies are those which are not normal,
and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to
label the category into which a discrepancy may be
categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode
the credibility of a party’s case, material discrepancies
do so. These aspects were highlighted recently in
Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar 2002(6) SCC 81 and
Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa 2002(8) SCC 381 .
Accusations have been clearly established against the
accusedappellants in the case at hand. The Courts
below have categorically indicated the distinguishing
features in evidence so far as the acquitted and
convicted accused are concerned.”
16. It was further held in Vutukuru Lakshmaiah Vs. State of
2015(11) SCC 102 as under:
Andhra Pradesh
“23. At this juncture, it is worthy to note that the High
Court has acquitted A4, A8 and A9 on the foundation
that they have been falsely implicated. Learned senior
counsel for the appellants has contended that when the
appellate court had acquitted the said accused persons,
there was no warrant to sustain the conviction of other
accused persons. On a perusal of the judgment of
appellate court, we find that the judgment of acquittal
has been recorded on the score that the names of A8
and A9 do not find mention in the evidence of PWs 1 to
3. On a similar basis, A4 has been acquitted. Suffice it
to mention here because the High Court has acquitted
A4, A8 and A9, that would not be a ground to
discard the otherwise reliable dying declaration, for the
evidence in entirety vividly show the involvement of the
appellantaccused.”
17. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the
appellant that recovery has not been proved by any independent
witness is of no substance for the reason that in the absence of
independent witness to support the recovery in substance cannot
18
be ignored unless proved to the contrary. There is no such legal
proposition that the evidence of police officials unless supported
by independent witness is unworthy of acceptance or the
evidence of police officials can be outrightly disregarded.
18. The judgments on which the reliance has been placed by
learned senior counsel for the appellant in Hari Kishan’s
(supra) and (supra) may not be of
case Arshad Hussain’s case
any assistance for the reason that earlier was a case where there
was a serious dispute when the incident took place and that was
not even supported by the medical evidence which has been
referred to in paragraph 31 of the judgment which is as under:
“31. Summing up the discussions made above, we
have before us a case where a substantial part of the
prosecution story has been disbelieved and the
conviction of the appellant rests solely on the
testimony of Harkesh (PW 2) who does not seem to
have particular respect for truth as observed by the
trial court. His credibility as an eyewitness lay only in
that the trial court and the High Court assumed that
he had received injuries in the same occurrence in
which Dinesh was killed. As shown above that
assumption does not appear to be very sound and is
not borne out by the evidences on record. In such a
situation, we find it highly unsafe to uphold and
sustain the appellant's conviction for the offence of
murder. To us, it appears that the prudent and safe
course would be to give him the benefit of doubt.”
19
19. In Arshad Hussain’s case (supra), it was a case where the
prosecution supressed the genesis and the manner in which the
incident took place and that was not even supported by the
nature of the weapon used and there were lot of discrepancies
pointed out in the case set up by the prosecution of which details
have been referred to in paragraphs 17 to 19. That was the
reason for which the partial statement of the witnesses could not
have been relied upon and as already observed, there cannot be
hardandfast rule that can be laid down and each case has to be
examined on its own facts.
20. In the instant case, the statement of eyewitness Sunil
Kumar Goyal(PW13), the injury attributed to the accused
appellant, recovery of weapon and the motor cycle and the
statement of Dr. Bhupesh Dayal(PW6) and Dr. Ramesh
Chandra Khatik(PW7) that the injury on the head attributed to
the appellant could have been sufficient to cause death, clearly
corroborates the prosecution case which leaves no manner of
doubt that the appellant was actively involved in the commission
of crime and once that fact is predicated beyond reasonable
doubt, the partial statement which has been doubted could not
20
be used by the appellant as a defence to shake the prosecution
case which has been discussed by us in detail, deserves rejection.
21. In our considered view, the appeal is devoid of merit and is
dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are
cancelled. He is directed to surrender forthwith and serve the
remaining part of sentence.
…………………………J.
(A.M. KHANWILKAR)
…………………..…….J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
NEW DELHI
February 15, 2019
21