Dinesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan

`IPC'). In all, five persons faced trial. The appeal filed by four

others was allowed and conviction in respect of each one of

them was set aside. They were convicted in terms of Section

302 read with 149 IPC, 307 read with 149, 324/149, 148/452

and 323 IPC. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment

for life and to pay a fine with default stipulations and to suffer

10 years, 1 year, 2 years and 6 months imprisonment in

respect of other offences.

4. Background facts giving rise to the trial are as follows:

Informant-Suresh Kumar (PW-10) submitted a written

report (Ex.P-5) at Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, Kota, on

8.4.2001 at about 3.00 a.m. stating that his house is situated

at Keshave Nagar, Kota, and Babu Lal Nai was also residing in

2 front of his house. There had been long standing enmity

between them and many a times they had altercations in the

past. On 7.4.2001 at about 11 O'clock, while the informant

and his family members were sleeping in the house after

bolting the door from inside, the accused Babu Lal Nai along

with his wife Smt. Geeta, and sons Dinesh, Sattu @

Satyanarayan and Sonu @ Sunil and Smt. Nirmla W/o Shri

Dinesh armed with deadly weapons entered into his house.

Chittar Lal, father of the informant (hereinafter referred to as

the `deceased') enquired from the accused as to why they had

entered into the house. On this, Babu Lal Nai and his wife

Smt. Geeta exhorted the accused to finish them. Dinesh with

the sword which he was carrying pierced abdomen of Chittar

Lal. Babu Lal Nai inflicted injury on the abdomen of Chittar

Lal. Uma Shanker and the informant Suresh Kumar rushed

to rescue Chittar Lal. Satyanarayan inflicted blow with an

iron rod on the head of Chittar Lal. Dinesh and Satyanarayan

inflicted knife injury to Uma Shankar and Vinod; while

Nirmala W/o Dinesh and Smt. Geeta W/o Babu Lal and Sonu

@ Sunil inflicted injuries to his father and brother with lathies 3 and iron rod. Chittar Lal and Uma Shankar became

unconscious on the spot. On hearing hue and cry,

neighbours also gathered there. Injured Uma Shankar and

Chittar Lal were taken to the hospital. Chittar Lal succumbed

to the injuries while injured Uma Shankar was admitted to the

hospital. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a case under

Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 452 and 323 IPC was

registered and investigation commenced. After investigation,

charge sheet was filed. In due course, the case came up for

trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2 (Fast

Tract), Kota. Charges under Sections 148, 452, 302 or

302/149, 307 or 307/149, 324 or 324/149 and 323 or

323/149 IPC were framed against the appellant and other co-

accused who denied the charges and claimed trial. The

prosecution in support of its case examined 18 witnesses. In

their explanation under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (in short `Cr.P.C.') the appellant and other co-

accused claimed innocence. Appellant-Dinesh got himself

examined as DW-1 under Section 315 Cr.P.C. Before the Trial

Court, the primary stand was that there was long standing 4 enmity between the parties and, therefore, there was false

implication. It was also submitted that appellant was, in fact,

assaulted by the complainant party had also suffered injuries

and had lodged a cross case.

Learned Trial Judge on hearing final submissions

convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated

hereinabove.

In appeal, the stand was reiterated. The High Court

found that though there was some amount of exaggerations so

far as the others are concerned, the evidence of the eye-

witnesses PWs 7, 10 and 13 was credible and cogent and,

therefore, dismissed the appeal so far as the appellant is

concerned.

5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the

appellant submitted that when four persons have been

acquitted by the High Court, the conviction of the appellant

should not have been maintained, more particularly, when 5 they are related. Learned counsel for the respondent-State,

on the other hand, supported the judgment of the High Court.

6. It is to be noted that PWs 7 and 13 were the injured

witnesses and PW-10 was another eye-witness and was the

informant. Law is fairly well settled that even if acquittal is

recorded in respect of co-accused on the ground that there

were exaggerations and embellishments, yet conviction can be

recorded if the evidence is found cogent, credible and truthful

in respect of another accused. The mere fact that the

witnesses were related to the deceased cannot be a ground to

discard their evidence. In law testimony of an injured witness

is given importance. When the eye-witnesses are stated to be

interested and inimically deposed towards the accused, it has

to be noted that it would not be proper to conclude that they

would shield the real culprit and rope in innocent persons.

The truth or otherwise of the evidence has to be weighed

pragmatically. The Court would be required to analyse the

evidence of related witnesses and those witnesses who are

inimically deposed towards the accused. But if after careful 6 analysis and scrutiny of their evidence, the version given by

the witness appears to be clear, cogent and credible, there is

no reason to discard the same. Conviction can be made on the

basis of such evidence. In the instant case, the Trial Court

and the High Court have analysed the testimony of PWs 7, 10

and 13 in great detail. It is revealed that the appellant had

inflicted the first sword blow to the deceased in his abdomen

and he fell on the ground. The High Court, however, found

that the role ascribed to the others was not fully satisfied. The

sword used in the offence was recovered at the instance of the

appellant and the same was found to be stained with same

group of human blood, as that of the deceased, as per the FSL

report, Exh.P-28. PW-7 stated that when he tried to save his

father, the deceased also inflicted blows on him and he

sustained injury by sharp edged weapon i.e. the sword.

According to him, the accused inflicted the blow by the sword

on his neck and he fell down. Though, the appellant stated

that he had suffered injuries at the hands of the deceased and

his sons, as rightly noted by the Trial Court and the High

Court, they were superficial injuries and as the doctor opined, 7 could be self inflicted.

7. Above being the position, we find no merit in this appeal,

which is, accordingly dismissed.

.........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

...........................................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi, August 4, 2008

8