KISHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant stood charged under section 302 Indian Penal Code for having caused the murder of Head Constable Charan Singh by means of a rifle. The Additional Deputy commissioner, Lunglei acquitted him of the charges, inter alia, on the ground that there was no eye-witness to the occurrence, and the duty hours of the accused was over at 1. 00 p. m. , whereas the occurrence in question is alleged to have taken place at 3.45 p. m. , and the Ballistic expert report does not indicate the exact time of firing of the rifle, which was stated to have been used by the accused in the case in hand. The learned Trial judge also came to the conclusion that the circumstances established being suspicious in nature, benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. On an appeal being carried, the High court reappreciated the entire evidence, and relying upon the testimony of PWs. 1 to 4, came to the conclusion that the order of acquittal is wholly unjustified, and the prosecution case must be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The order of acquittal has been reversed by the High court and the accused has been convicted under section 302. We have been taken through the evidence on record. Out of the four witnesses, PWs. 1 to 4, PW. 1 must be said to be star witness to the occurrence, who stated in his evidence that as soon as he heard the sound of gun firing, he rushed and found the deceased lying dead, and the accused with a rifle in his hand, standing there. He, further indicated that he asked the accused to hand over the rifle, and he did so after some time, whereafter the accused was taken into custody by the other CRPF personnel. PWs. 2, 3 and 4 have corroborated different parts of the version of PW. 1, and if PW. 1 is disbelieved, then obviously on the evidence of other witnesses, the prosecution case cannot be said to have been established. Since PW. 1 is the star witness in the case, and an order of acquittal has been set aside, and the accused has been convicted by the High court, we have thoroughly scrutinised the evidence of pw. 1. we find nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination of said PW. 1 to impeach his testimony, and therefore, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the evidence of PW. 1 has rightly been held to be reliable and truthful, and on his testimony the prosecution can certainly rely upon. If the evidence of pw. 1 is considered along with evidence of PWs. 2 to 4, then the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that the deceased met a homicidal death on account of gun shot injury, and it is the accused appellant, who had fired at the deceased from the rifle, which he was holding. The fact that accused was not on duty at that particular point of time, and handed over his own rifle to the competent authority, is of no consequence inasmuch as the question with whose rifle he fired at the deceased is not relevant. What is relevant is whether on the material it can be said that the accused fired at the deceased from rifle on account of which the deceased sustained injury, and ultimately succumbed to the same. As we have stated earlier, the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 fully establishes the aforesaid fact. In that view of the matter, we see no infirmity with the impugned judgment of the high court convicting the accused appellant of the offence under section 302 so as to be interferred with by this court. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.