MOD SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOD Singh, Smt. Harku Bai, Sardara and Ramesh, the appellants herein, along with one Bhuri Bai (absconded during trial), were placed on trial in Sessions Case No. 20/2000, before learned Additional Sessions Judge Aklera, District Jhalawar, who vide judgment dated July 2, 2002 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- MOD Singh, Harku Bai, Sardara and Ramesh: U/s. 302/149 IPC: Each to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer two months imprisonment. U/s. 326/149 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one month imprisonment. U/s. 324/149 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one month imprisonment. U/s. 148 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one month imprisonment. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case is under:- On December 25, 1999 parcha bayan (Ex. P. 1) of Ratan Lal (PW. 11) was recorded, wherein he stated that on the said day around 12 Noon while he along with Ummeda and Man Singh were traveling in a bus, Harku Bai and Bhuri Bai pulled Ummeda (now deceased) down from the bus. Ramesh, Mod Singh and Sardara belaboured Ummeda and Ramesh inflicted knife blow on the abdomen of Ummeda, whereas Mod Singh inflicted knife blow on his chest and Sardara gave axe-blow on his neck. Harku Bai and Bhuri Bai caused injuries with lathis. On the basis of aforesaid parcha bayan case under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148 and 149 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Autopsy on the dead body was performed, statements of witnesses were recorded, accused were arrested and necessary memos were drawn. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Aklera District Jhalawar. Charges under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 326/149, 324/149 and 120b IPC were framed. THE appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 19 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above.

(3.) HAVING closely scrutinised the evidence of Ratan Lal, Ganga Bai and Man Singh, we find that Ganga Bai and Ratan Lal were not present at the time of incident and they reached much after the incident occurred. Presence of Man Singh (PW. 18) is however, established even from the Parcha Bayan (Ex. P. 1 ). On examining the testimony of Man Singh from the point of view of trustworthiness were find it consistent in so far allegation against appellants Mod Singh, Ramesh and Sardara is concerned. Despite his searching cross examination nothing has been brought out, which may in any way cast doubt about his reliability and his evidence qua appellants Mod Singh, Sardara and Ramesh receives ample corroboration from the testimony of Himmat Singh, IO (PW. 15) as well as the evidence of Dr. Mohd. Akbar (PW. 14), who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ummeda. We find no substance in the submission of learned counsel that the testimony of Man Singh being close relative of the deceased is unreliable. It is well settled that when a witness holds a position of relationship favouring the prosecution, it is incumbent on the court to exercise appropriate caution when appraising his evidence and to examine its probative value with reference to the entire mosaic of acts appearing from the record. It is not open to the court to reject the evidence without anything mode on the mere ground of relationship or favour possible prejudice. Even where there is only sole eye witness of a crime, a conviction may be recorded against the accused provided the court which hear such witness regards him as honest and truthful. In Kartik Malhar vs. State of Bihar (1995 (8) JT (SC) 425), the Apex Court held that the ground being a close relative and consequently being partisan witness should not be relied upon, has no substance. This theory was repelled by this court as early as in Dalip Singh's case (AIR 1953 SC 364) in which the Apex Court expressed its surprise over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the members of the bar that relatives were not independent witness. Speaking through VIVIAN BOSE J. , the Court observed in para 25 of AIR 1953 SC thus: " We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eye witnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the facts of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no such rules. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to concur. "