STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SADHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have two matters before us, namely, the appeal of the State against the acquittal and the application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. of the Investigating Officer for expunging certain remarks made against him and since both the matters arise out of one and the same judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated February 13, 1976, they were heard together and are decided by a common judgment. By the impugned judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the six accused -respondents Sadhu Singh, Indra Singh, Chand Singh, Mala Singh, Hansa Singh and Harbans Singh of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 440, 436, 150 and 148, I.P.C.

(2.) BRIEFLY staled, the prosecution case is that PW 1 Bakhtawar Singh Jat -Sikh was living with his wife Mst. Harnam Kaur and son Hari Singh in a hut which he had raised in a field situate in Rohi 7 -BNW, P.S. Sadar Kotwali. Ganganagar. Bakhtawar Singh has one more son PW 2 Atma Singh, who lives in village Pacca in Punjab. The fields situate in Budharwali and other places in district Ganganagar belonged to the father -in -law of PW 1 Bakhtawar Singh. His farther -in -law committed some murder nearly 40 years before this incident and since then he remained absconding and was not heard of. On his death, his wife i.e. the mother -in -law of Bhakhtawar Singh (PW I) was cultivating the fields of her husband, but she was murdered. Thereafter Bakhtawar Singh came in possession of the fields of his father -in -law and he gave them to Hazoor Singh, Kaka Singh, Karnel Singh and Kartar Singh for cultivation on the condition that they would pay Rs. 1000/ - per Bigha to him Some of the amount was paid. However, these persons refused to make further payment and to execute a registered document in favour of Bakhtawar Singh or his wife Smt. Harnam Kaur. They started picking -up quarrels and disputes with him. This led to criminal litigations between Bakhtawar Singh and the above persons. On May 31, 1974, Bakhtawar Singh went to Goduwali Dhani and from there to Hanumangarh, to meet his Lawyer in connection with the criminal case. At about 12.30 in the noon on June 3, 1974, he reached his village and found his wife Smt. Harnam Kaur and son Hari Singh lying dead and half burnt. He further found his hut completely burnt. He straight -way went to Police Station, Sadar Kotwali, Ganganagar and verbally lodged report Ex. P 1 of the occurrence at about 5.55 p.m. on the same day i.e. June 3, 1974. The police registered criminal case No. 61/1974 under Section 302 etc. of the Penal Code. The investigation was taken -up by the Station House Officer Gopal Ram (PW 10). When the FIR Ex. P 1 was completed and the Investigating Officer was just to leave the police station to reach the spot, PW 2 Atma Singh appeared there. He alleged that he had seen the entire incident. His statement Ex. D 1 was recorded on the same day i.e. June 3, 1974. In his statement Ex. D 1, he named the six accused persons referred to at the very beginning as the miscreants who had set fire to the hut and killed Smt. Harnam Kaur and Hari Singh. The S.H.O. arrived on the spot, inspected the site, and prepared the inquest report and made other investigation. The post -mortem of the victim's dead bodies was conducted at about on June 4, 1974 by Dr. Ramlal. Though the doctor did not express any definite opinion about the cause of death, but held that the death of Smt. Harnam Kaur could be possible due to multiple fractures on her face and the death of Harisingh could be possible on account of throttling. His reports are Ex. P 6 and Ex P 7. The accused respondents were arrested. On the completion of investigation, the police submitted a crime report against all of them in the Court of the Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate. Ganganagar, who, in his turn, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The case came for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who framed charges under Sections 302, 440, 436, 380, 148 and 336, I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arms Act against them, to which they pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, no evidence was adduced Out of 13 witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW 2 Atma Singh has claimed to have seen the entire incident from the commencement to the end. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Session Judge made a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the prosecution evidence and held that the fate of the case depends on the sole testimony of PW 2 Atma Singh. After making a full and elaborate analysis of the testimony of PW 2 Atma Singh, the learned Judge held that he was falsely introduced as an ocular witness by the prosecution. He had not seen the incident nor his statement Ex. D 1 was recorded on June 3, 1974. He further held that the Investigating Officer Gopal Ram (PW 10) had wrongly shown that statement Ex. D 1 of Atma Singh was recorded on June 3, 1974. Since Atma Singh (PW 2) was found a witness of no reliance and faith, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the six accused -respondents of the offences they were charged with. Simultaneously, he passed an order purporting to be under Section 344, Cr. P.C. and took cognizance of the offence under Section 194, I.P.C. against Atmasingh (PW 2) and Gopal Ram (PW 10). Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment, the State has come up in appeal and challenges the acquittal. The Investigating Officer Gopal Ram (PW 10) has presented an application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for expunging the remarks made against him in the judgment and for quashing the cognizance of the offence Under Section 194, I.P.C. taken against him.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge formulated three points for decision. The first is whether the death of victims was homicidal and the second and third are whether the two victims were done to death by the accused -respondents and whether they committed the other offences like that of setting fire to the but etc. The learned Sessions Judge held that the death of Smt. Harnam Kaur and Harisingh was homicidal. Regarding the actual incident, he observed that the entire case depends on the sole testimony of PW 2 Atmasingh. We agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the fact of the prosecution case hinges on the testimony of PW 2 Atmasingh, who is the sole and lone witness of the incident. In case his testimony is accepted as true and he is treated as a witness of faith and reliance, there is no escape for the accused -respondents But if he is found to be a witnesses of doubtful credentials, the entire prosecution case crumbles down.