DAYAL DAS versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2011] 2 S.C.R. 1136 · Decided: 22-02-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 2 S.C.R. 1136 
DAYAL DAS 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
(Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 2011) 
FEBRUARY 22, 2011 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
C 
ss.304 (part-II) and 328, and s.54-A of Rajasthan Excise 
Act - Conviction by trial court and High Court, of accused on 
the statement that the person who died of consuming illicit 
liquor was seen drinking in the soda-lemon shop of the 
accused - HELD: The statement of the witness which led to 
D conviction of the accused does not indicate that the deceased 
had purchased the illicit liquor from the shop of the accused 
-Moreover, the liquor consumed by deceased from shop of 
accused was not sent for chemical examination -
Consequently, accused cannot be connected with the crime 
E on the basis of such evidence - Judgments of trial court and 
High Court are set aside - Accused is acquitted - Rajasthan 
Excise Act. 
On the basis of 'Parcha Bayan' of PW12, the police 
registered an FIR against the accused, to the effect that 
F PW12 alongwith two others consumed liquor in the soda 
lemon shop of the accused; at that time he saw one 'LC' 
also drinking in the shop of the accused. PW12 stated that 
he became unconscious and when he gained 
consciousness the following morning, he found himself 
G in the hospital and learnt that 'LC' had died because of 
consuming illicit liquor. The trial court convicted the 
accused of the offences punishable u/ss 304 (Part -II) and 
328 IPC, and s.54-A of the Rajasthan Excise Act and 
sentenced him to imprisonment for 10 years. The High 
.. H 
1136 
DAYAL DAS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
1137 
Court upheld the conviction and the sentence. 
A 
In the appeal filed by the accused, it was contended 
for the appellant that the statement of PW12 nowhere 
mentioned that the victim died of the illicit liquor 
purchased from the shop of the accused and, as such, 
8 
the evidence did not connect the accused with the crime. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It could not be found from the original 
statement of PW-12 that the deceased had purchased C 
illicit liquor from the shop of the appellant. This part is 
totally missing from the original statement of PW-12, 
though his testimony has led to the conviction of the 
appellant. Consequently, the appellant cannot be 
connected with the crime on the basis of the statement D 
of PW-12. [Para 11] [1140-C-D] 
1.2 It may be pertinent to mention here that the other 
two witnesses, namely, PW-9 and PW-13 had turned 
hostile during the trial. It may also be pertinent to mention 
that the liquor consumed by the deceased at the shop of E 
the appellant, was not sent for chemical examination. 
Only on the basis of the statement made by PW-12, that 
the deceased was drinking at the shop of the deceased, 
it is difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellant u/s 
304 (Part-II) IPC. Thus, both the Court of Session and the 
F 
High Court have erroneously read and comprehended 
the statement of PW-12, and, unfortunately, that has led 
to the conviction of the appellant. The judgments of the 
High Court and the trial court are set aside. Consequently, 
the conviction of the appellant is set aside and he is G 
directed to be released. [Para 12, 14 and 15] [1140-E-F, 
H; 1141-A-B] 
.. 
. 
. 
CRIMINAL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 526 of 2011. 
H 
1138 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment & Order dated 25.05.2006 of the High 
Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Crl. Appeal No. 356 of 
1984. 
D.N. Goburdhan, Prabal Bagchi, Anirudh Anand for the 
B Appellant. 
Abhishek Gupta, R. Gopalakrishnan for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was deliver~d by 
C 
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. Delay condoned. Leave 
granted. 
D 
E 
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at 
length. 
3. This appeal emanates from the judgment and order 
dated 25th May, 2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature 
at Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, in Criminal Appeal No.356 of 1984 
by which the High Court has affirmed the order of conviction 
and sentence passed by the Trial Court. 
4. Brief facts which are relevant to dispose of this appeal 
are recapitulated as under: 
On 26.8.1979 at 11.30 a.m., the Station House Officer, 
Police Station, Clock Tower, Ajmer recorded the Parcha Bayan 
F (Ext.34) of Bheru Lal, PW-12 in Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, 
Ajmer. According to the Parcha Bayan, on 23.8.1979 at about 
8.45 p.m., while he was standing outside the New Maje

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.