DHANPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The discovery of an injured person, on the outskirt of a city park, in the dead of the night, an alleged threat given by the appellant to the deceased forms the background of this appeal. Conviction for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (henceforth to be referred to as "IPC", for short) and sentenced to life imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs. 200/- and to further suffer a simple imprisonment for fifteen days in default thereof, the appellant challenges the judgment dated 17.8.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 5, Kota.

(2.) According to the prosecution story, on 18.12.1992, at about 10 PM., one Mr. Ambalal Luhar, (P.W. 16), saw an injured person lying near the park. Immediately, he informed the Police Station Nayapura about his discovery. The police reached the spot and immediately rushed the injured person, Ram Chandra, a Constable in the Police Force itself to a hospital. However, on 19.12.1992 around 4.40 A.M., Ram Chandra succumbed to his multiple injuries. The accused, Dhanpal, also a Constable in the Police Force, was arrested on 19.12.1992. For, accordingly to the prosecution, it is he who had threatened the deceased over a quarrel that had taken place at the Police Line, where both of them were employed. The deceased was also seen for the last time in the company of the accused when both were seen along with one Mr. Virendra Singh. After investigation, a callant was filed and the accused was charged for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as twenty-three witnesses and submitted a number of documents. Although, the statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth to be referred to referred to as 'Cr.PC.', for short), he did not examine any witness in defence. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

(3.) Mr. Khurshid Ahmed Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised various contentions : firstly, that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. However, the circumstances do not form a complete chain unerringly pointing to the guilt of the appellant. Therefore, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Secondly, there are many lacunae in the prosecution story. Although the prosecution claims that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant, the fact remains that he was also seen along with the appellant in the company of Mr. Virendra Singh. Ram Gopal, P.W. 14 had seen the three of them were seen coming out of the hospital. But the prosecution has not eliminated the possibility that the deceased might have gone subsequently with Mr. Virendra Singh. Thirdly, that according to Ram Gopal, all three of them were sober when they left the hospital. But when the deceased was found in the injured condition, he was drunk. Therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that the deceased might have gone somewhere after he left the hospital and might have gotten into a fight while being drunk with someone else. Fourthly, that although the cloths of the appellant contained blood but according of the F.S.L. report, only human blood was discovered. However, the particular blood group could not be ascertained. Fifthly, although the prosecution claims that the appellant had stuck the head of the deceased against the iron gate of the park, no blood was found on the iron gate of the park. Sixthly, only P.W. 2, Radheyshyam, claims that the appellant had threatened the deceased that he will settle his score with him later on after both the deceased and the appellant had a verbal altercation at the Police Station. Lastly, that the eyewitnesses Mr. Virendra Singh, PW. 4, has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution. Thus, the appellant has been convicted on flimsy evidence.