Chhote Lal vs Rohtash

2023 INSC 1072 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2490 OF 2014

CHHOTE LAL …APPELLANT

VERSUS

ROHTASH & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Out of the ten accused persons before the Court of Sessions,

six were convicted for the offences under Sections 148,

201/149 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code1 and separate

punishment for each of the offences was prescribed, the

Signature Not Verified maximum being imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,000/- Digitally signed by

and in default thereof, to undergo further imprisonment of six Anita Malhotra Date: 2023.12.14 17:28:17 IST Reason:

1

Hereinafter referred to as “IPC”

Page 1 of 7 months under Section 302/149 IPC. The said conviction and

sentence has been set aside by the High Court vide impugned

judgment and order dated 20.11.2008.

3. Aggrieved by the acquittal of all the six accused, the

appellant/complainant Chhote Lal has preferred this appeal.

4. The sole submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is

that in matters where the accused persons are convicted and

sentenced by the trial court, the appellate court is normally

slow in upsetting the conviction, more particularly in the light

of the evidence on record, especially, that of the eyewitness

(complainant).

5. There is no dispute to the fact that there was serious enmity

between the two rival groups which were in fact interrelated.

The dispute between the two groups was quite old

commencing in the year 1986 in connection with the access to

the public road which was being blocked by one party. The

said dispute was compromised but still continued to persist

which resulted in the murder of Ram Kishan. It is in

retaliation to the above dispute, it appears that the rival group

Page 2 of 7 now killed the Kishan Sarup (victim). In connection with the

above killing of Kishan Sarup, an FIR was allegedly lodged on

04.11.2000 by the appellant/complainant but it was registered

on 05.11.2000.

6. According to the FIR, the incident occurred on 04.11.2000 at

7 pm. At that time Kishan Sarup was returning from duty and

the appellant/complainant was returning from Faridabad.

They met at scooter stand, Badshahpur and the

appellant/complainant joined Kishan Sarup on motorcycle to

proceed towards the village Aklimpur. When they reached Tikli

Road, they saw a car parked on the road side which chased

their motorcycle and pushed it to the left side of the road

forcing the appellant/complainant and Kishan Sarup to fall in

the bushes. The appellant/complainant noticed the accused

persons alighting from the vehicle and thereafter attacking

Kishan Sarup with knifes, iron rod etc. The accused persons

took Kishan Sarup in injured condition in their car and left. A

report about the said incident in writing was submitted to the

Incharge Police Post Badshahpur under the signatures of the

appellant/complainant.

Page 3 of 7

7. It may be pertinent to point out that the

appellant/complainant had worked with Delhi Police and at

least three of the accused persons were also in Delhi Police.

8. We have considered the findings of the two courts below and

have also gone through the ocular testimony of PW-9 i.e. the

sole eyewitness (complainant). His testimony reveals that on

05.11.2000 at about 2 pm when they reached ‘Pahar’ with the

investigation team, they found a dead body burning which had

almost perished. The fire was extinguished and from there one

copper ring and the buckle of a belt were recovered which were

identified to be that of Kishan Sarup (victim).

9. The appellant/complainant (PW-9) happened to be the sole

eyewitness but he had neither seen anyone killing his son

Kishan Sarup nor he had deposed that he had seen anyone

burning the victim Kishan Sarup. Therefore, he is not actually

an eyewitness either to the killing or to the burning of the

deceased Kishan Sarup though he may be an eyewitness to

the incident which took place on 04.11.2000 at 7 pm wherein

a car had chased their motorcycle, pushed them towards the

Page 4 of 7 roadside making them fall in the bushes, thereupon assaulting

the deceased Kishan Sarup and then taking him away in an

injured position in the car.

10. It may be noted that he has not deposed anything as to why he

had not tried to intervene and save his son from assault or

stop the accused persons from taking him away in the car. He

himself had not received any injuries. The statement that he

could not do so on account of the threats extended by the

accused persons appears to be a bald statement as no one in a

situation where his son is being assaulted and carried away

would remain a mere spectator.

11. The appellant/complainant (PW-9) stated in the FIR that the

accused assaulted his son with a knife and iron rod. He didn’t

mention about the use of a pistol by the accused. However, the

police have recovered empty cartridge. Cause of death as per

postmortem is also firing from close range.

12. In view of the above situation and the other evidence on

record, the very presence of the appellant/complainant even

during the incident of 04.11.2000 appears to be doubtful. He

Page 5 of 7 appears to have met Kishan Sarup on the scooter stand per

chance whereupon he took lift from Kishan Sarup to travel

towards the village.

13. It may not be out of context to mention that the

appellant/complainant, a sole eyewitness, happens to be the

most interested witness being the father of the deceased and

having long enmity with the group to which the accused

persons belong, therefore, his testimony was to be examined

with great caution and the High Court was justified in doing so

and in doubting it so as to uphold the conviction on his

solitary evidence.

14. In the light of the evidence on record, both versions as was

taken by the trial court and that by the High Court may

appear to be the possible views. However, the conviction has to

be based on the evidence which proves the accused guilty

beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution in this case has

failed to prove the guilt of the accused both by circumstantial

evidence and by means of evidence of the eyewitness. In

respect of circumstantial evidence, the chain of events is not

Page 6 of 7 complete whereas the presence of eyewitness is also doubtful.

Thus, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the High

Court in extending the benefit of doubt to the accused persons

appears to be the most plausible view.

15. Accordingly, we do not deem it necessary to interfere with the

opinion expressed by the High Court.

16. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.

……………………………….. J.

(ABHAY S. OKA)

……………………………….. J.

(PANKAJ MITHAL) NEW DELHI;

DECEMBER 14, 2023.

Page 7 of 7