SATNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, a truck driver was convicted under S. 302, I.P.C. and was sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 33 of 1994. On appeal, the said conviction and sentence has been upheld by the High Court of Rajasthan. The present appeal is directed against the said conviction and sentence.

(2.) The prosecution case in nutshell is that on 26-8-1992 at 10.55 p.m. deceased Munir Khan was going on his scooter and the appellant who was the truck driver, intentionally dashed against him and crushed him under the truck, as a result of which, said Munir Khan died. Initially, a case under Section 304-A, I.P.C. had been registered but later on, charge-sheet was filed under S. 302, I.P.C. and the appellant was convicted under S. 302, I.P.C. as already stated. P.W. 4 gave a report at Suratgarh Police Station, Exh. P4 at 11.15 p.m. which was treated as F.I.R. and the police started investigation. On the basis of the said F.I.R., P.W. 10 registered a case under S. 304-A, I.P.C. The investigation was then handed over to P.W. 15, who rushed to hospital and learnt that the injured had died and, therefore, the case was converted to one under S. 302, I.P.C. P.Ws. 5, 6 and 8 are supposed to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. According to the prosecution case, the accused had some dispute with one Mohan Singh and in a panchayat held, it was settled that Mohan Singh will pay some compensation to the accused and victim Munir Khan guaranteed for the payment, but as no money was paid and the guarantor did not discharge his obligation, the accused took the extreme steps of taking away his life. Of the three eye-witnesses, examined by the prosecution, the trial Judge disbelieved P.Ws. 6 and 8 but relied upon the evidence of P.W. 5 and the motive as already stated, and came to the conclusion that the accused committed murder of the deceased by crushing him under his truck. Though the prosecution also relied upon the extrajudicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused of P.W. 3 but the learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court did not rely upon the same and excluded the so-called extrajudicial confession from the purview of consideration. The High Court apart from relying upon P.W. 5 also relied upon P.Ws. 6 and 8 in arriving at the conclusion that the case is one of murder.

(3.) Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant contended before us that the evidence of the three eye-witnesses P.Ws. 5, 6 and 8 could not have been relied upon in view of several material omissions in their statement recorded under S. 161, Cr. P.C. and the Courts committed error in relying upon the same. The learned counsel further contended that even if the evidence of P.W. 5 is relied upon, who saw the accused getting down from the truck and running away from the place of occurrence, then at the most the offence can be said to be one under S. 304-A and not under S. 302 inasmuch as it is difficult to hold that the accused-appellant, intentionally crushed the deceased under his truck.