RAM NARAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants, five in number, were the accused on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Baran (Camp Chhabra) bearing Sessions Case No. 69/2003. Learned Judge vide judgment dated September 19, 2003 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- U/s. 302/149 IPC: Each to suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/- , in default to further suffer Six Months Simple Imprisonment. U/s. 147 IPC: Each to suffer Simple Imprisonment for One Year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer One Month Simple Imprisonment. U/s. 447/149 IPC: Each to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Three Months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer One Month Simple Imprisonment. U/s. 148 IPC: Each to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Two Years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer Two Months Simple Imprisonment. THE substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) WE may state and refer to the necessary and bare facts and the relevant evidence for disposal of points involved in this appeal. On March 22, 2002 around 10-10. 30 PM while Rudra Pratap Singh had been to his house, four persons viz. Pappu, Prakash, Ram Swaroop and Prem arrived and Pappu told him that his brother Madan Lal was killed by some unknown assailants and his dead body was lying in the field. Rudra Pratap Singh then telephonically communicated the information to Police Station Kawai. The information was recorded in Rojnamcha No. 874 dated March 22, 2002 at 11. 15 PM. Thereafter Pappu handed over a written report at Police Station Atru with the averments that he had seen Ram Narain. Chhotu Lal, Roop Chand, Brij Mohan and Bhag Chand (appellants) inflicting injuries with Dharias and Gandasis on the person of his brother Madan Lal, who died at the spot. On the basis of said report a case under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 447 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. After usual investigation the charge sheet came to be filed against the appellants. Investigation against co-accused Laxmi Chand was kept however pending under 173 (8) Cr. P. C. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Baran, Camp Chhabra. Charges under Sections 147, 148 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 20 witnesses and got exhibited 34 documents. In their explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants claimed innocence and examined two witnesses in defence. Learned trial Judge on hearing the final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.

(3.) IT is well settled that conviction can be recorded on the basis of the testimony of a single eye witness provided his credibility is not shaken by any adverse circumstance appearing on the record against him and the court is convinced that he is a truthful witness. The court has to judge the evidence in a criminal case by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and anymus of the witnesses. While dealing with a criminal case it has to be remembered that there is a long mental distance between "may be true" and "must be true" and this basic and golden rule only helps to maintain the vital distinction between "conjectures" and "sure conclusion" to be arrived at on the touchstone of a dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case as well as quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The evidence of the sole eye witness has to be scrutinised with caution and circumspection. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Krishna Mochi vs. State of Bihar (1), indicated thus: (Para 50) "appreciation of evidence can not conceive of any rule of universal application and is certainly not to be treated as a theorem, and there can be no empirical formula. The evidence on the facts of each case has to be analysed and conclusion drawn, and there can not be pigeon holing of evidence on any set formula. "