LexHUKAM SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A HUKAM SINGH AND ORS. v. ST A TE OF RAJASTHAN SEPTEMBER 14, 2000 B [K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 226, 231, 313, 379- During the course ·of trial, Public Prosecutor not examining the only two independent witnesses having learnt that those two witnesses would speak C against the prosecution version-Propriety of-Held, if the Public Prosecutor knew that certain persons cited by the investigating agency as witnesses might not support the prosecution case, he is at liberty to state before the caurt that fact and skip those witnesses being examined as a prosecution witness-If the version which any particular witness might speak in court is D not in support of the prosecution case, it would be unreasonable to insist on the Public Prosecutor to examine those persons as witnesses for prosecution- Public Prosecutor is expected to produce evidence in support of the prosecition and not in derogation of the prosecution case. Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302134-Appe/lants being variously armed E converging at the bus stop waiting/or the return of the deceased after his day's work and after one of them having shot him, all joining together in inflicting blows on the fallen victim and also on his wife and son who rushed to the deceased 's rescue-The appellants then jointly dragging the deceased up to the pyre and setting him ablaze-Held, on a scrutiny of the evidence there is no F doubt that all the appellants are liable to be convicted of the offences of murder-Conviction and sentence awarded by the High Court, affirmed An Advocate's Clerk was murdered in the vicinity of his own house by Al, A2, A4 and AS when he was returning home after day's work. As he alighted from a bus near his house and was proceeding to his house with his G son walking a little ahead, the appellants waited at the bus stop variously. armed. On sighting him Al made an exhortation to finish him off and then D who died before the trial started, fired his pistol which hit him on his back and he slumped down on the spot. His son and wife rushed to rescue him. All the accu~ed assaulted both of them. Then 'the assailants dragged the deceased along the ground and brought him to their courtyard. They made l-l 284 ' - - .. - HUKAM SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 285 a funeral pyre and cremated him in the sight of his bereaved widow and son. A Police charge-sheeted six persons including the appellants. Sessions Court acquitted them all. High Court reversed the order of acquittal as against the appellants and convicted them for murder. Hence the present appeal under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. B On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the Public Prosecutor could not withhold the evidence of the two independent witnesses as the remaining witnesses were the close relatives of the deceased person; that the discretion of the Public Prosecutor in choosing the witnesses for examination cannot include the freedom to keep away such independent witnesses from C being examined. It was alternatively argued that even if Al and D were found responsible for the murder that would not warrant any need to tag the remaining appellants with the murder of the deceased by means of either Section 149 or Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code; that ifthe acts attributed to rest of the appellants were true, the offence of which they were liable to D be convicted could not escalate beyond Section 201 IPC. On behalf of the State, it was contended that the Public Prosecutor did not commit any impropriety in not examining those two witnesses ; that when the Public Prosecutor learnt that those two witnesses would speak against the prosecution version, he side stepped them and it was the prerogative of E the Public Prosecutor not to examine such persons as prosecution witnesses; that it was open to the Public Prosecutor to report to the cQurt about his decision not to examine any person as prosecution witness particularly when he got report through his own sources that those witnesses were won over by the accused. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. The role played by each of the appellants can be discerned with reasonable degree of ce~ainty. Starting with their convergence at the F bus stop, presumably waiting for the return of the deceased after his day's G work, the fact that all were variously armed, the fact that they all joined together in inflicting b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.