HARDEO SINGH Vs. STATE ERF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment dated January 24, 1974 of the learned Sessions Judge, Ganganagar whereby the accused-appellant Hardeo Singh, son of Lalsingh was convicted for the murder of Ram Kumar under sec. 302, I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details the prosecution story as disclosed at the trial is that some days prior to the date of occurrence the accused had a quarrel with Ramkumar (deceased) in the cinema house. On May 8, 1973 at 8 p. m. near the shop of Bhaguram and the Gandhi Park in the Mandi of Karanpur the accused caught hold of Ramkumar (since deceased), threw him down, sat on his chest, inflicted four injuries with a knife on the person of Ramkumar and took to his heels. PW. 5 Hariram witnessed the occurrence, but without helping the Injured or informing any body regarding the occurrence he quietly went to his residence. P. W. 1 Suratsingh, P. W. 2 Bhogaliya and others reached the site of the occurrence. P. W. 1 Suratsingh took his brother Ramkumar (since deceased) to the hospital at Karanpur in a jeep. The doctor on duty declared him dead. Thereafter P. W. 1 Suratsingh went to the Police Station at Karanpur and gave first information report Ex P. 5 at 8. 40 p. m. By the time the first information report was lodged, the name of the assailant was not known to the informant and as such the name of the assailant has not been mentioned in the first information report Ex. P. 5. P. W. 10 Jagmalram, Station House Officer, Karanpur after registering a case under sec. 302, I. P. C. , proceeded to the hospital and thereafter went to the scene of occurrence. He prepared a site plan, recovered the sheath Art. 1 and handle Art. 2 of the knife from the scene of occurrence. The recovery memo is Ex. P. 14. The autopsy on the dead body of Ramkumar was performed by P. W. 9 Dr. Chanderhash Sharma. The post-mortem report is Ex. P. 1. On May 9, 1973 the house of the father of the accused was searched. One shirt Art. 7 and a 'chaddar' Art. 8 were seized (vide Ex. P. 11) because they were suspected to be stained with blood. None of these articles, however, were sent to the Chemical Analyser or to the Serologist for analysis and as such their recovery is of no avail to the prosecution. On May 10, 1973 the accused was arrested vide Ex P. 18. The Police after usual investigation submitted a challan against the accused-appellant under sec. 302, I. P. C. , in the Court of Munsiff and First Class Magistrate, Karanpur, who after taking proceedings under sec. 207-A, Cr. P. G. committed the accused-appellant to the Court of Sessions Judge, Sri Gapga-nagar to stand his trial under sec. 302, I. P. C.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicant has argued by placing reliance on Sharnappa vs. State of Maharashtra (1) that since P. W. 5 Hariram, according to the prosecution, resiled from his previous statement made in the committing court and his statement in the committing court has been brought on the record of the trial court under section 288, Cr. P. C, his evidence cannot be accepted unless the Court is satisfied that it is true and reliable and this requirement that the statement to be acted upon must be proved to be true and reliable is absolutely binding. He further urged that the evidence of this witness suffers from serious infirmities and it ought not to have been relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge for convicting the accused appellant or at any rate should not have been acted upon in the absence of its corroboration in material particulars fey independent evidence. In support of the above contention he has placed reliance on Sharnappa vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) wherein Hon'ble Das Gupta J. , speaking for the Court observed as under: - "where a person has made two contradictory statements on oath it is plainly unsafe to rely implicitly on his evidence. In other words, before one decides to accept the evidence brought in under sec. 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as true and reliable one has to be satisfied that this is really so. How can satisfaction be reached? In most cases this satisfication can come only if their is such support in extrinsic evidence as to give a reasonable indication that not only what is said about the accurrence in general but also what is said against the particular accused sought to be implicated in the crime is true. " P. W. 5 Hariram in his statement Ex, P. 9 recorded in the committing court stated that on the of the date occurrence at 7-30 pm. after being relieved of his duty he was going home. When the witness reached near the shop of Bhaguram, he heard a quarrelling noise. Walking 2 or 3 steps he saw that the accused appellant Hardeo Singh threw Ramkumar (deceased) on the road, sat on his chest and inflicted about 4 knife injuries on his person, and thereafter took to his heels. THE witness further goes on to state that the accused was known to him. As a result of injuries Ramkumar (deceased) bled profusely and could not speak. Bhaguram, Shiveyal, Bhagaliya and others reached the scene of occurrence. P. W. 2 Bhagaliya went to inform Ramkumar's brother Gabbar. THE witness P. W. 5 Hariram did not go to inform Gabbar about the occurrence because there had been some quarrel between them. THE witness further goes on to state that he narrated the occurrence before the Panchayat. THE witness in his cross-examination stated that at the time when the accused inflicted knife blows, the other persons were also present on the scene of occurrence, such as Jhabar Hotelwala and his brother in-law. He neither cried for help nor stated that the accused Hardeo Singh had inflicted the knife blows. He quietly left the scene of occurrence after the accused had taken to his heels. For the first time he narrated the occurrence before the Pancahyat at 12 noon on the next day on the cremation ground. In his cross-examination before the trial court he admitted that he did not raise any alarm for help at the time when the accused Hardeo Singh inflicted injuries on Ramkumar. Neither the accused nor the victim uttered any word at the time of occurrence. He stayed at the scene of occurrence for 20 minutes A large number of persons had gathered there. Some of them asked him as to who had caused injuries to Ramkumar, in reply to which the witness stated that he did not know. THE witness further goes on to state that P. W. 1 Suratsingh and PW. 3 Gordhan Das met him, but he did not disclose to them the name of the assailant as they had not asked him about it It is also admitted that the witness went to the hospital, but there also he did not disclose the name of the assailant to any one. THE witness also admitted that a few days prior to the occurrence the accused Herdeosingh had quarrelled with him, when they beat each other with shoes. THE witness watered down his statement Ex. P. 9 made in the committing court and stated that his relations with P. W. 1 Suratsingh were not good, but there was no exchange of hot words or blows with each other. Thus it is clear that some facts were introduced in the statement of the witness during the course of cross-examination in the trial court which may in fact have the effect of nullifying what he stated earlier.