JAIVEER SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal owes its origin in the judgment dated March 7, 1998 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Khetri (Distt. Jhunjhunu) whereby the accused appellant Jaiveer Singh was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced against Section 302 IPC to undergo rigorous life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/- (in default to further undergo six months R. I.) and against Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/- (in default to further undergo three months R. I. ).

(2.) THE prosecution case is woven like this:- On March 8, 1993 at 10. 05 a. m. informant Jai Singh lodged a written report at Police Station Khetri stating therein that earlier at 7. 00 a. m. on that day the informant and his younger brother Ganga Singh (since deceased) had gone to their field. Ram Chandra Singh @ Nanar Singh also joined them there. In order to operate the tube well Ganga Singh put on the diesel engine. THE informant soon thereafter noticed three persons approaching the tube well. Out of the three persons two were Umed Singh and Jaiveer Singh (appellant) and third was not known to the informant. Those three persons surrounded Ganga Singh near the water reservoir. Jaiveer took out pistol and pointed it towards Ganga Singh. Ummed Singh exhorted Jaiveer to fire at Ganga Singh, thereupon Jaiveer opened fire which hit Ganga Singh on his chest. THE informant and Ram Chandra Singh raised alarm. Har Nath Singh and Hanuman Singh who were working in the nearby field also shouted that Jaiveer had fired at Ganga Singh. THE three intruders ran away. On reaching near the water reservoir the informant found his brother Ganga Singh lying dead. Three years before Jaiveer and his elder brother Dharmpal committed murder of Nar Singh and Hari Singh, who were the brothers of the informant. In that case Jaiveer was released on bail.

(3.) ON the other hand Mr. S. C. Purohit, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. M. R. Mitruka learned counsel for the complainant supported the impugned judgment and urged that the eye witnesses are the natural and truthful witnesses. ON placing reliance on various authorities it was contended that in the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies however honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observations, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence. It was further urged that autopsy was conducted at the spot and in view of clear evidence that Ganga Singh died as a result of gun shot injuries, the post mortem examination loses all its significance.