THAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MURDER of Kishna, in dead of the night, three alleged eye-witnesses and recovery of `kulhari' (axe) forms the backdrop of this case. The appellant has challenged the order dated 22. 3. 2003 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Laxmangarh, District Alwar whereby he has been convicted for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and was imposed with a fine of Rs. 500/ -.

(2.) THE brief facts are that on 18. 10. 2000, one Shri Hariom Saini (P. W. 3) submitted a written report (Ex. P/1) to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Kherli wherein he claimed that "in he night of 17. 10. 2000, his brother Kishna was sleeping outside the floor mill on a raised platform ("chabutari" ). He further alleged that Mohan Singh, Pooran and he had gone to the house of Gujarmal Saini for watching films on VCR. In the morning around 4' O clock, when they were coming back, after watching the films, as soon as they came near the Panchayat building suddenly they heard a scream. THEy saw that Mahaveer and Than Singh were assaulting his brother Kishna with Kulhari (axe) and knife. THE moment these two assailants saw the complainant and his companions, they ran away towards their neighbourhood. he further alleged that he and his companions ran after the assailments, but the assailants made good their escape. According to him, they came back to Kishna and saw that he sustained certain injuries on his neck. He expired without speaking a word to them. Lastly, he claimed that after consulting the family members and the villagers, he came to the Police Station to lodge the said report. "

(3.) THE testimony of the complainant Hariom (P. W. 3) is replete with contradictions. In the written report (Ex. P/1) submitted by him at the police station, he claims the incident occurred at 4. 00 a. m. Yet, in his testimony he says it occurred at 5. 00 a. m. Likewise, in Ex. P/1 he had clearly stated that he and his two companions had seen Mahaveer and the appellant assaulting the deceased. Yet, in his examination-in-chief he states that there was "no one along with he appellant Than singh at the scene of the crime". In his cross-examination, he claims that he did not write the name of Mahaveer. Similarly, in the written report, he claimed that he and his companions had pursued the assailants. but this fact, he denies in his cross-examination. He claims that they did not pursue the assailants. Moreover, he claims that he had himself gone to police station where he had submitted a written report. yet, Ajiram (P. W. 8) and Nihal Singh (P. W. 15), the Investigating Officer, clearly state that Hariom had submitted this written report at the scene of the crime and not in the police station. Furthermore, he claims that he had gone to the house of Gujarmal Saini but he does not remember the names of any of the three films which were screened. Interestingly, none of the prosecution witnesses remember the names of the picture which were screened in the night of 17. 10. 2000. Ajiram (P. W. 8) tells us that winter had started setting in and it was cold at night. According to him, the deceased had even covered himself with a "rajai" (quilt ). THErefore, it is difficult to believe that Hariom and Pooran and Mohan Singh had watched tree films in one night from 8 p. m. till 5 a. m. and then had decided to walk to their respective homes in cold weather. Thus, it seems that Hariom, Pooran and Mohan Singh have been created as chance witnesses in order to bolster the case of the prosecution. Considering the fact that Hariom changes the time of occurrence, changes the number of assailants, changes the place where the alleged written report was given to the police. His credibility is highly doubtful.