TAKHAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the flowing darkness of night Chauth Mal was mercilessly killed. Girraj Prasad, son of Chauth Mal, who at the trial was examined as eye witness of the occurrence gave graphic details of the incident. Placing reliance on the sole testimony of Girraj Prasad, learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced Takhat Singh, Narendra Singh @ Nehru Singh, Bhanwar Singh, Bapu Singh and Rameshwar, appellants herein, as under:- U/s. 302/149 IPC: Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1000, in default to further suffer seven days imprisonment. U/s. 447 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. U/s. 148 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Bapu Singh: U/s. 302 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1000, in default to further suffer seven days imprisonment. U/s. 447 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. U/s. 148 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Rameshwar: U/s. 302/149 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1000, in default to further suffer seven days imprisonment. U/s. 447 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. U/s. 147 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) IT is the prosecution case that Girraj Prasad (Pw. 1) lodged written report (Ex. P-1) on June 6, 1996 at Police Station Bapawar Kalan to the effect that in the preceding night around 12-1 AM while the informant and his father Chauth Mal were sleeping near the well of their field, the informant woke up on hearing cries of his father and saw Bhanwar Singh armed with gun and sword, Takhat Singh had sword, Nehru Singh had Kutia, Bapu Singh had Gandasi and Rameshwar was having lathi. All of them were inflicting injuries on the person of his father. When the informant made attempt to intervene, he was threatened and forced to run for his life. The informant reached to the village and informed about the incident to the villagers who went to the place of occurrence and found Chauth Mal dead. On that report case was registered and investigation commenced. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Kota. Charges under sections 447, 147, 148, 302, 302/149 IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 29 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants claimed innocence. Two witnesses in defence were examined. On hearing final submissions learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein 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.