LAWS(SC)-1998-1-127

MAHIPAL ALIAS MAHAVEER SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On January 08, 1998
MAHIPAL ALIAS MAHAVEER SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Rajasthan High Court in D. B. Crl. Appeal No. 27/79. The High Court reversed the order of acquittal and convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC.

(2.) Guru Nam Singh (P.W. 17), Jeet Singh (the deceased) and the appellant left Calcutta in a truck. Guru Nam Singh and Jeet Singh were the drivers of the truck and the appellant was the Khalasi. Up to Indore the said vehicle was driven by Jeet Singh. At Vijay Nagar they took food in a hotel. While proceeding ahead Jeet Singh slept in the cabin which was behind the cabin of the driver. The prosecution case was that the truck then passed Nasirabad check post and reached Dundu at about 4.45 a.m. Guru Nam Singh stopped the truck there, told the appellant to look after it and went to a nearby hotel for taking tea. He also sent one cup of tea for the appellant. The appellant after taking tea went to the hotel where Guru Nam Singh was sitting and returned the tumbler. Guru Nam Singh again told him to attend to the vehicle and continued to sit in the hotel after placing an order for some articles of food. Within a short time Guru Nam Singh was informed that near his vehicle one driver was seen lifting another driver lying on the road. Guru Nam Singh went near the truck and saw that Jeet Singh was lying on the road and the appellant was sitting with Jeet Singh's head in his lap. Guru Nam Singh asked the appellant as to what had happened and thereupon the appellant told him that Jeet Singh had fallen down from the truck and was then hit by a passing vehicle. On the basis of this information Guru Nam Singh went to the Police Station and lodged a report that an accident had taken place. After registering the offence the A.S.I. Banwari Lal reached the place of offence. While examining the place closely he noticed that there was a trail of blood up to the truck. He also noticed blood in the cabin. He also felt that the wound on the neck of Jeet Singh was not likely to have been caused by an accident but was probably caused by a sharp edged weapon. On further investigation he was of the view that Jeet Singh was murdered. At about 6.00 p.m. he arrested the appellant. The appellant was then tried for the murder of Jeet Singh.

(3.) The prosecution has examined P.W. 17 Guru Nam Singh, P.W. 1, Hazari Lal, P.W. 2, Ram Singh and P.W. 3, Narayan to prove the guilt of the appellant. P.W. 3 did not support the prosecution and he was declared a hostile witness. The trial Court found the evidence of P.W. 17 inconsistent with the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 as regards who informed Guru Nam Singh about the incident and, therefore, held that his evidence could not be relied upon. It also held that the conduct of P.W. 17 was not natural as he had not made further enquiries from the person who informed him as to how the incident had taken place and that also made his evidence doubtful. His evidence was also doubted on the ground that in the F.I.R. he had not stated that some currency notes were found missing from the pocket of deceased Jeet Singh. The trial Court also held that P.W. 17 stood contradicted by the evidence of P.W. 1, Ratan Lal who had produced the record maintained at the Check Post to show that there was no entry regarding the truck having passed Nasirabad Check Post. It also held that find of blood in the cabin was not inconsistent with some one else committing the murder of Jeet Singh in the truck and then throwing his body on the road. The trial Court did not believe the evidence regarding recovery of blood stained knife at the instance of the appellant on the ground that it was lying in water for more than 24 hours. It then held that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were not sufficient to prove its case and, therefore, acquitted the appellant.