YAMUNA DUTT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of judgment dated 17. 9. 2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jhunjhunu, whereby the learned Judge has convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 302, 307 and 342 IPC. For offence under Section 302 IPC the learned Judge has sentenced the appellant to Life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and to further undergo a sentence of two months of simple imprisonment in default thereof. For offence under Section 307 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and has been imposed with a fine of Rs. 500/- and to further undergo a term of fifteen days of simple imprisonment in default thereof. For offence under Section 342 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to a simple imprisonment of six months and has been imposed with a fine of Rs. 100/- and to further undergo a simple imprisonment of seven days in default thereof.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 25. 4. 1998, one Mr. Shyam Sunder, (PW. 1) lodged a report (Ex. P. 8) wherein he claimed as under: On 25. 4. 1998, about seven O'clock, his neighbor, Yamuna Dutt s/o Ram Singh came to his farm and told him that he needs to take a jute bag ("bori") from his house to the road. Yamuna Dutt, therefore, needed his help. He accompanied Yamuna Dutt to his house. When I reached his house, Yamuna Dutt locked me in a room and took out a "lathi" (bamboo stick) and pulled out a pistol, which was concealed in his pajama, and asked me as to what is the relationship between his own wife and my tractor driver, Daluram. I told him that "i didn't have any idea about any relationship between the two. " He, thereupon, stuck me thrice with the `lathi' on my left foot and below the left shoulder. I pulled the "lathi" out of his hand and threw it away. He pulled the pistol and tried to shoot me. I grappled with him and threw him on the floor. He shot at me, but the bullet missed me. I tried to snatch away the pistol; he bit me on the right side of my chest. THE pistol fell from his hand and slipped under the bed in the room. I pushed him and ran to my house. Upon reaching my house, I informed my father. In my house, at that time, Mahendra's brother, Indraj was also sitting there. He told us that Yamuna Dutt had also taken his brother Mahendra to his house in the morning. THEreafter my father, Hanumanaram, my uncle Ram Kumar, Indraj and I went to the house of Yamuna Dutt. As we approached the house, we saw that Mahendra was running out of Yamuna Dutt's house. We heard a gun shot. We ran. Near his own well, Yamuna Dutt fired again on Mahendra. Mahendra ran and fell near Satya Prakash's house. We went to Mahendra, but he had become unconscious. We took him in Naurang Singh's jeep along with Indraj, Rajesh, Radhuveer, Sunil, Ram Pratap and my father. We took him to the Jhunjhunu hospital. Mahendra was injured on the right side of his chest and was bleeding. Yamuna Dutt has shot at Mahendra with an intention to kill him.

(3.) UNDOUBTEDLY it is the duty of the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. The prosecution must discharge this duty by producing convincing and cogent evidence. The distance between "may be true" and "must be true" is a long distance, which the prosecution must successfully traverse. In case the prosecution story is replete with gaps and contradictions, with improbable and inexplicable events, then no matter how strong the suspicion might be, but the conviction cannot be sustained. To convict a person on suspicion is not a legal conviction, but a moral one. Moral conviction is alien to our criminal jurisprudence. The cardinal principle of the Common Law is that every person is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty. Hence, it is for the State-the prosecution to prove his guilt. Merely showing the probability of the occurrence does not discharge such a burden. The prosecution must stand on its own strong wicket.