DHANNA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DHANNA Singh, the appellant herein, was put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Bharatpur Camp Deeg, who vide judgment dated September 17, 2003 convicted and sentenced him as under:- U/s. 302 IPC: To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. U/s. 201 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) IT is the prosecution case that on July 10, 1990 informant Maya Kaur (Pw. 1) submitted a written report (Ex. P-1) at Police Station Sikri to the effect that around 3. 30 PM when she along with her brother Balbir Singh was going to village Barbada, they found just ahead of village Lavan, Amar Singh, Dhanna Singh (appellant herein) and Pyar Singh, who obstructed their way. Dhanna Singh was armed with Pharsi whereas others were having lathis. They had a scuffle with Balbir Singh and they instigated each other to kill him and inflicted injuries on the person of Balbir Singh as a result of which he died on the spot. His dead body was dragged by them to another field. The incident had been witnessed by Arjun Singh son of Rana Singh and Arjun Singh son of Jawahar Singh. On that report a case under sections 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Autopsy on the dead body was performed, necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, appellant was arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant and co-accused Amar Singh. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bharatpur Camp Deeg. Charges under sections 302, 302/34 and 201 IPC were framed against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial. During the course of trial the appellant absconded and trial proceeded only against co-accused Amar Singh, who ultimately stood acquitted. After the arrest of the appellant trial proceeded against him. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 10 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Crpc, the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in support of defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above.

(3.) THE evidence of the sole eye witness has to be scrutinised with caution and circumspection. Conviction can be recorded on the basis of the statement of single eye witness provided his credibility is not taken by any adverse circumstance appearing on the record against him and the court at the same time is convinced that he is a truthful witness.