LexAMRIK SINGH, SATNAM SINGH AND ANR. versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B AMRIK SINGH, SATNAM SINGH AND ANR. v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN DECEMBER 17, 1993 [DR. A.S. ANAND AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] Indian Penal Code 186(}-Section 302-Trial-Appreciation of evidence -Evidence has to be weighed and not counted-Testimony of the sole eye- witness not suffering from any infinnity itself can fonn the base for convic- C tion-T..flhere other evidence is convincing and reliable, absconding of accused assumes some importance-Falsus in WW falsus omnibus, has never been accepted either as a rnle of law or evidence. Re-opening now, of an acquittal recorded in 1984 in respect of an occurrence in 1976-Held not proper. Appeal against acquittal-Principles to be followed-Held : That High D Court should take into consideration and be alive of the factors which influenced the Trial Court to record an order of acquittal. Circumstantial evidence-Surrender of absconding accused only after the verdict of acquittal by the Trial Court in respect of the other co-ac- E cused-Held : A circumstance against the accused. While returning from the Mela ground in the evening deceased S and deceased L along with the injured witness T and B were attacked in the station wagon of S by the accused by gunshots. The injured witness T managed to reach the Doctor's dispensary and informed him of the attack. F The Doctor seeing his serious condition sent him to the Government dispen- sary. Another witness N who was present at the dispensary of the Doctor, informed the Police Station about the incident over telephone. Consequent- ly the Police Officer proceeded to the spot and found the bodies of S & L. G In the Government Dispensary the Doctor finding the condition of T to be serious, transferred him to the hospital where on seeing his condition, the Magistrate was requested to record his dying declaration which was accordingly recorded. After prolonged treatment in the hospital, T managed to survive and was the sole eye-witness at the trial. H There were separate trials of accused A as well as the other six 996 i ... ASINGHv. STATE OF RAJ. 997 accused as A had surrendered only after the trial Court verdict in the case A of the other co-accused and in so far as A was concerned, both the Sessions Court and the High Court convicted him under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC to life imprisonment. In the other trial arising from the same incident six co-accused were tried and acquitted by the Sessi.:ins Judge and in Appeal while acquittal of B four accused were upheld by the High Court the acquittal of S & M were set aside and they were convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Hence this appeals. Dismissing the appeals, this Court HELD : 1. The evidence of the sole eye-witness T could be relied upon as he was injured during the occurrence and had identified the accused during the attack by the accused. [1001-C-DJ 2. In the normal course of human conduct T would not leave out the c real culprits and falsely implicate innocent persons. He is a truthful witness D and the statement given by him was registered as F .I.R. and non-disclosure of all the names of the assailants did not detract from the reliability of the FIR. The testimony of the sole eye-witness T suffer from no infirmity and could itself form the basis for conviction especially when it received cor- roboration from the medical and other evidence._ [1001-F-H, 1002-A·D] E 3. Absconding of A though not of conclusive circumstantial value, could be a circumstance which could not be ignored and if the other evidence was convincing and reliable the evidence relating to absconding assumed importance. The surrendering of A only after the Trial Court's acquittal of the other co-accused was a circumstance rightly relied upon by F the Trial Court and Higl. Court in considering the guilt of A. [1002-F] · CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 859 and 232 of 1985. From the Judgment and Order dated 27.4.83 and 7.12.84 of the Rajas- G than High Court in D.B. Crl. A. No. 487/80 & D.B. Crl. A. No. 73of1979. Sushil Kumar, U.R. Lalit, S.K. Jain, Kailash Mutha Jain and Sudhan- shu Atreya for the Appellants, R. Sasiprabhu and Mahabir Singh for the Respondent. H A B 998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ANAND, J. These two appeals arise out of an occurrence which took place on october 31. 1976, resulting in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.