CHANAN RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Criminal Appeals by 4 accused persons are directed against one of the same judgment of the High court affirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions judge. Appellant Arjun Ram has been convicted under section 302 and 447 whereas 3 other appellants have been convicted under S. 302/34 and 447 Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case in nutshell is while PW. 10 was taking his meals in the Dhani he heard cries, and on coming out he found that deceased prithvi Singh is being assaulted by all the 4 accused persons, accused Arjun with kulhari and others by means of lathis. He, therefore, went to save the deceased. He was chased away, and therefore, he ran away from the place and met his cousin brother PW. 4, and when they (PW. 4 and 10) came to 'the spot the accused had already left scene of occurrence. They found the deceased to be dead, and as such PW. 10 went to the Police Station and lodged report which was treated as F. I. R. On the basis of the said F. I. R. , the police started investigation, and on completion of the investigation, filed the charge-sheet. On being committed, the accused persons stood their trial, as earlier stated. The Doctor PW. 11, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, came to the conclusion that the deceased met a homicidal death, and of all the 14 injuries found on the body of the deceased, injury No. 2 is fatal. Further, he stated that injuries 1 and 2 could be caused by a sharp cutting weapon and rest could be caused by blunt weapon. Injury No. 2 was incised wound of 15 cms. x 3 cms. on the occipital perital region of scalp which was obliquely placed 5.5 cms on the left side from mid line. On the basis of the aforesaid medical evidence, the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge that deceased prithvi Singh met a homicidal death is not assailed before us, and rightly so. To bring home the charge against accused persons, the prosecution relies upon the solitary statement of PW. 10 in whose presence the occurrence took place, which gets corroboration from the medical evidence of PW. 11, and also to some extent the evidence of PW. 4, to whom PW. 10 narrated incident almost contemporaneously. The learned Sessions Judge as well as the High court on a thorough scrutiny of the said evidence of PW. 10 have come to the conclusion that the evidence is reliable, and fully establishes the prosecution case. The learned counset for the appellants in this court contended that the solitary evidence of PW. 10 could not have formed the sole basis of conviction, more so, when the said evidence is of an impeachable nature. In view of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, we have been taken through the said evidence of PW. 10, and we find, though he has been cross-examined at great length, but the entire cross-examination is directed on the question as to whether said PW. 10 was in possession of the disputed land or not, and if so, how much prior to the date of occurrence. So far as the substratum of the prosecution case is concerned which consists of the assault by the accused persons by different weapons of assault, there has been practically no cross-examination. On going through the evidence of PW. 10, and on examining the impugned judgment of the High court, we see no infirmity in the matter of appreciation of the said evidence of pw. 10. That apart, as has been stated earlier, the medical evidence also corroborates the ocular testimony of pw. 10. Further PW. 4 to whom PW. 10 narrated the incident shortly after the occurrence also establishes the fact that PW. 10 came in a horrid condition and narrated the incident as to how arjun and other persons assaulted the deceased by means of Kulhari and lathi. In the aforesaid premises, we do not find any infirmity with the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions judge and affirmed in appeal so as to be interfered with by this court. These appeals accordingly fail and are dismissed. In view of the order passed in the appeals, no further orders are necessary on Special Leave Petition (CRL) No. D2437/ 1998.