LAWS(SC)-2023-4-34

RADHEY SHYAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On April 12, 2023
RADHEY SHYAM Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTUAL ASPECTS : The appeal is by accused nos.9, 2 and 1 respectively, who have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sec. 148 and Sec. 302 r/w Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). There were 29 accused named in the charge sheet, out of which accused nos.1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 15, 17 and 20 were convicted by the Sessions Court and the remaining 21 were acquitted. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has upheld the conviction of the appellants.

(2.) There was a political rivalry between the family of the deceased Raghunath Singh and some of the accused persons who belong to the Ahir community and who had formed a party known as Azad party. The incident is of 16/4/1976. PW6 Shiv Raj Singh, who is the brother of the deceased Raghunath Singh, lodged First Information Report (FIR). A group of Ahirs attacked the deceased. According to the prosecution case, PW nos.2, 3 and 4 were the eyewitnesses. The Trial Court discarded the testimony of PW2 but believed the testimony of PW3 Krishna, the minor, who was the daughter of the deceased, and PW4 Kanwarbai, who is the mother of the deceased. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that PW3 is a child witness whose evidence is required to be scanned very cautiously. Inviting our attention to the evidence of PW3 Krishna and, in particular, her crossexamination, she submitted that her testimony cannot be held to be reliable, particularly when the identification of the accused made by the witness in the Court is highly doubtful. Moreover, PW4 could not identify a single accused in the Court and, therefore, it was unsafe to rely upon her testimony. She also pointed out that there was a delay of 3 days in sending the FIR to the learned Magistrate. There was a political rivalry between the family of the deceased and the political party to which the accused belonged and, therefore, during the period of these three days, false implication of the accused must have taken place.