SUBADI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants, eight in number, were accused on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Deeg (Bharatpur) bearing Sessions Case No. 260/2002. Learned Judge vide judgment dated February 24, 2003 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- U/s. 302/149 IPC: Each to suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one Month Rigorous Imprisonment. U/s. 332/149 IPC: Each to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years. U/s. 147 IPC: Each to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. U/s. 341 IPC: Each to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. Substantial sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) IT is the prosecution case that on July 1, 2001 around 8. 40 AM or in the course of investigation of Criminal Case No. 113/2001 registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 323 and 341 IPC, Damodar Singh, ASI of Police Station Sikri and Constables Girwar Singh and Sampat Singh were carrying the dead body of deceased Idris in private jeep No. HR-51/ B6244. As many as sixteen relatives of Idris including those who sustained injuries in the incident also boarded in the jeep. Their names were Mumrej, Kallu, Iqbal, Iliyas, Rahish, Juhru, Sahji, Marium, Rukiya, Issan, Sharif, Deena, Ibbar, Nasru, Subadi and Azad. Hamid was the driver of the jeep. When the jeep was passing near the canal Tutuwali, Bannu a person belonging to opposite group was seen coming on motor cycle. Kallu and Iqbal jumped down form the jeep, got the motor cycle halted and pushed Bannu down. Thereafter Kalu, Iqbal, Subadi, Ibbar,rahish, Sharif, Azad and Nasru caught hold of Bannu and Kalu,azad and Ibbar inflicted injuries on his head with stones and killed Bannu on the spot. Damodar Singh, Girwar Singh and Sampat Singh made unsuccessful attempt to intervene and sustained injuries. Constable Sampat Singh was left with the dead body of Bannu and Damodar Singh proceeded with Kalu, Iqbal, Subuddi, Mumrej, Iliyas, Nasru, Juhru and Azad to Police Station Nagar and they were handed over to Police. Damodar Singh lodged written report at 10. 15 AM and a case under Section 147, 149, 302, 341, 336, 332, 353 and 323 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. No. 2 Deeg. Charges under Sections 147, 341, 332/149, 302 and 302/149 IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 14 witnesses and got exhibited the documents. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants claimed innocence. The appellant Subadi stated that on July 1, 2001, Damodar, ASI asked him to take the dead body of Idrish for post mortem in private jeep of Hameed. He thereafter proceeded with the dead body in the said jeep Damodar ASI and others constables were not in the jeep and they proceeded in a Maruti car. When the jeep reached near canal `tutuwali', they found that people gathered and dead body of Bannu was lying. IT was revealed by the crowed that Bannu Khan died in a an accident. Damodar, ASI, Girwar Singh and Sampat Singh reached there in Maruti car after some time. A false case was registered by Damodar, ASI against them in order to save his service. Taiyab Hussain (DW. 1) was examined in defence by the appellants. Learned trial Judge on hearing the final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above.

(3.) THE Evidence Act does not purport to lay down any rule as to the weight to be attached to the evidence when admitted, nor is any such rule possible for proper appreciation of evidence. For weighing evidence and drawing inferences from it, there can be no canon. Each case presents its own peculiarities and common sense shrewdness must be brought to bear upon the facts elicited in every case. THE probabilities of a case are a material test in judging of the credibility of a witness. By probability is meant the likelihood of anything to be true, deduced from its conformity to our knowledge, observation and experience. When a supposed fact is so repugnant to the laws of nature that no amount of evidence could induce us to believe it, such supposed fact is said to be impossible or physically impossible. THEre are two things which must never be lost sight of when weighing testimony of any kind: (i) the consistency of the different parts of narration; (ii) the possibility or probability, the impossibility or improbability, of the the matters related-which afford a sort of corroborative or counter evidence of those matters. THE onus of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against the accused, lies on the prosecutor. Inspite of the presumption of truth attached to oral evidence under oath if the court is not satisfied, the evidence inspite of oath is of no avail.