DINESH KUMAR versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2008] 11 S.C.R. 843 · Decided: 04-08-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 11 S.C.R. 843 
,.,_ 
')< 
DINESH KUMAR 
A 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1215 of 2008) 
AUGUST 4, 2008 
B 
)--
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
ss. 302, 307, 324, 148,452,323 rlw s.149 - Conviction of c 
accused-appellant affirmed by High Court while acquitting four 
others - HELD: Even if acquittal is recorded in respect of co-
accused, conviction can be recorded in respect of another 
accused if evidence against him is found cogent, credible and 
truthful - Conviction upheld - Evidence. 
D 
"' 
Evidence: 
Testimony of related witnesses - HELD: Mere fact that 
witnesses were related to deceased cannot be a ground to dis-
card their evidence if the same is found to be clear, cogent E 
and credible - On facts, High Court analysed the testimony of 
injured and other eye witnesses and found the same as co-
gent and credible - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 307, 324, 
148, 452, 323 rlw s. 149. 
The appellant along with four others was prosecuted 
F 
.l 
for commission of offences punishable under ss. 
302,307,324,148, 452,323 r/w s.149 IPC. The prosecution 
case was that there was long standing enmity between 
the accused party and the complainants. In the night of 
occurrence the accused party armed with deadly weap-
G 
ons entered the house of the victims at about 11.QO P.M. 
~· 
and attacked them. The accused appellant pierced his 
sword in the abdomen of one of the victims who sue-
cumbed to his injuries in the hospital. The other accused 
843 
H 
r 
844 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 11 S.C.R. 
I 
"-( ,... 
A 
also were stated to have caused severe injuries to the vie-
tims. The trial court convicted all the five accused of the 
f
offences charged. The High Court acquitted four of the 
~ 
accused but dismissed the appeal as regards the appel-
lant. 
.B 
In the instant appeal filed by the convict, it was con-
tended for the ap·pellant that since four persons were ac-
"1 
quitted by the High Court, it should not have maintained 
j_ 
his conviction more particularly when the witnesses were 
-~ 
related . 
.. c 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Law is fairly well settled that even if acquit-
... 
tal is recorded in respect of co-accused on the ground 
.. 
that there were exaggerations and embellishments, yet 
D conviction can be recorded if the evidence is found co-
gent, credible and truthful in respect of another accused. 
... 
[para 6] [847-G] 
"( 
,..: 
2.1 The mere fact that the witnesses were related to 
E 
the deceased cannot be a ground to discard their evi-
dence. In law testimony of an injured witness is given 
importance. In the instant case, PWs 7 and 13 were the 
injured witnesses and PW-10 was another eye-witness 
and was the informant. When the eye-witnesses are stated 
F to be interested and inimically deposed towards the ac-
cused, it has. to be noted that it would not be proper to 
condude thal they would shield the real culprit and rope 
.A 
in innocent persons. The truth or otherwise of the evi-
d~n·ce h~_s to be weighed pragmatically. The Court would 
b~.-required· to analyse the evidence of related witnesses 
.G c;tnd those witnesses who are inimically deposed towards 
·the accused. But if after careful analysis and scrutiny of 
their ~vidence·, the versjon given by the witness appears 
to. be clear, cogent and credible, there is no reason to dis-
--r-
card the same. Conviction can be made on the basis of 
H such evidence. [para 6] [847 -H 848 A,B,C] 
t 
I 
DINESH KUMAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
845 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
-
""' 
2.3 In the instant case, the Trial Court and the High A 
- ,., 
.... 
-
y-
-, 
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 sword used in the offence was 
recovered at the instance of the appellant and the same B 
was found to be stained with same group of human blood, 
as that of the deceased. The High Court, however, found 
that the role ascribed to the others was.not fully satisfied. 
In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the appeal. 
[para 6] [848 C,D,E,D] 
c 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1215 of 2008 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 14.5.2007 of 
the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Crl. 
Appeal No. 176 of 2002 
Vijay Singh Charak (A.C.) for the Appellant. 
Aruneshwar Gupta, Nave

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