SAMAY SINGH ALIAS GOPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18-9-2001 of the Special Judge, SC/st (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sawai Madhopur, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:- u/s. 302/149 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer 3 months rigorous imprisonment. u/s. 148 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. u/s. 326/149 IPC: To suffer seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 300/- in default to suffer two months rigorous imprisonment. u/s. 325/194 IPC: To suffer three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/- in default to further suffer one month rigorous imprisonment. u/s. 3 (2) (v) SC/st (Prevention of Atrocities) Act: To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE background facts which led to the trial of the appellant are summarized thus: On 28-7-1997 a written report was lodged by Shri Ratan Lal at Police Station Nadoti (Sawai Madhopur) wherein he alleged that few days back samay Singh S/o Lohare Gujar of village Gopalpura Kemari had assaulted his neighbour Somotya and others of Berwa Community, whom he had taken to the Police Station Nadoti in his tractor-trolly for lodging the report, therefore, Samay Singh was annoyed with him and consequently Samay Singh had come to his house on 27-7-1997 and asked his wife about him and threatened of dire-consequence of killing him. It was further alleged that in the afternoon Shanker and Bheem Singh came to his house and gave a threatening to kill him. It was further alleged by Ratan Lal that an agriculture field of one Ratan Master he had taken on share basis, therefore, he had done to that field on his tractor along with his father-in-law Pakhandi, tractor driver Murari Mali, Prabhu (husband of his sister-in-law), Batti Lal (his sister's husband), where Murari Mali started ploughing the field, while they went to the well for the bath, where from Prabhu and Batti Lal both had gone towards the nalla to ease themselves at about 7:00 or 7:30 pm. It was alleged that there both of them were surrounded and beaten by Samay Singh, Bheem Singh, Daya S/o Lohre, Hargyan S/o Ghamandi and Shanker S/o Hansraj Gujar, who were duly armed with weapons Lathi, Gandasi and Dhariya. It was stated that there was one more person whom he could not recognise. He also alleged that hearing the hue and cry he along with his father-in-law Pakhandi and driver Murari Mali reached the spot, but they were also threatened by Samay Singh of killing them, if they intervene during the beating. It was further stated that Samay Singh and Hargyan were duly armed with Dhariya and Gandasi whereas Shanker had Gandasi in his hand and the remaining were having Lathies in their hands, who stated beating and inflicting injuries to the Prabhu and Batti Lal, however, on their `halla-hale' after beating they left the place of incident in a jeep standing near Gopalpura whereupon they came near Prabhu and Batti Lal but till than they had lost their lives. On the aforesaid written report case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 302 IPC and 3 SC/st Act was registered against the accused persons and investigation commenced. Necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, after inquest proceedings the dead bodies were subjected to autopsy. After completion of investigation, in the first instance challans were filed for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 202, 323, 341, 325, 326 and 3 (2) (v) SC/st Act against the accused Hargyan, Dayaram and Bheem Singh inasmuch as co-accused Samay Singh (present appellant) and Shanker Singh were absconding. THE investigation against them were kept pending under Section 173 (8) of Cr. P. C. THE trial of the co-accused Hargyan, Dayaram and Bheem Singh was conducted by the Special Judge, SC/st (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sawai Madhopur, who framed the charges against them for offences under Sections 148, 302/149, 326/149, 325/149 IPC besides Section 3 (2) (v) of the SC/st Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After due trial of the accused persons were convicted by the learned trial Court for the offences under Sections 148, 302/149, 326/149, 325/149 IPC and under Section 3 (2) (v) of the SC/st Act and were ordered to suffer the sentences of various descriptions. THE sentences awarded to the aforesaid co-accused were confirmed by this Court vide judgment dated 20-2-2001 rendered in DB Criminal Appeal No. 337/2000.

(3.) IT is settled law that the conviction can be based on testimony of solitary eye-witness if his version is of sterling worth and the verdict of the Court can rest even on a sole witness if the Court is fully satisfied that such witness is a truthful witness and his presence at the time of occurrence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The reference in this regard may be made of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab (1973 (3) SCC 657) and Kartik Malhar vs. State of Bihar (1996) (1) SCC 614 ). After having considered the case law, threedbare this Court while deciding the appeal of the co-accused Hargyan and others (DB Criminal Appeal No. 537/2000 decided vide judgment dated 20-2-2001) observed as under:- ``after having browsed through the dictum of law referred to above we must hold that conviction can be based on the testimony of solitary witness provided it inspires confidence and is reliable and the only caution to be taken in this regard, is that the Court must be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony direct or circumstantial, if such evidence is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, inasmuch as where evidence of eye witness is found to be consistent and substantially conforming to the version appeared in the FIR or case diary statement and medical evidence, wherein contradictions and omissions are immaterial, evidence of solitary witness cannot be viewed with suspicion if it is unimpeachable and hence should not be discarded and can from the basis for sustaining the conviction. Even otherwise, if the solitary evidence is wholly reliable the Court may convict the accused and if such an evidence is wholly unreliable then the Court may acquit the accused. However, the Court has only to take into account all the surrounding facts and circumstances prevailing at or about the time of occurrence. "