RAITANLAL versus STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 1029 · Decided: 10-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

,..,. 
RAITANLAL 
A 
v. 
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR 
APRIL 10, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
* 
Ranbir Penal Code: s.302-Trial Court found inconsistencies in evidence 
and ordered acquittal-High Court reversed order of acquittal-On appeal, 
held judgment of trial Court not a view which was not possible to be taken- c 
High Court not considered matter in proper prospective-Acquittal upheld 
·' 
The accused and complainant party were not on talking terms. Accused 
party felt that opposite party had spread rumour in the village that appellant 
was having relations with the wife of his brother 'K'. Appellant, his brother 
'K' and father SD came to the house of complainant. Appellant asked PW-S, D 
~ 
son of deceased to come out and talk to 'K'. PW-S his father deceased, 
complainant and PW-R came.out. K asked PW-S as to why they were creating 
problem and gave drat below ·on forehead. Deceased came to his rescue. 'SD' 
exhorted appellant to kill deceased who gave Khukri blow. Appellant's father 
'D' also gave a latbi blow. Within an hour, oral report was given to police post E 
and copy was sent to Police Station where FIR was registered. Deceased and 
injured were medically examined and then taken to hospital where be died. 
Large number of witnesses appeared as PWS. Trial Court found the case full 
of inconsistencies and acquitted the accused persons. High Court reversed 
the judgment holding appellant guilty u/s. 302 R.P.C., 'K' u/s. 324 RPC and F 
SD u/s. 323 IPC. Only appellant appealed before this Court. 
..,. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. First Information Report, according to the prosecution, was 
recorded at 09.30 p.m. on the same day. The Investigating Officer, allegedly G 
also recorded the statement of the first informant on the said day. There are 
some inconsistencies in this behalf. [Para 9] (1033-G] 
,<. 
2. In regard to the arrest of the accused also, there appears to be some 
inconsistencies. Whereas the High Court proceeded on the basis that SD and 
Appellant were arrested on 11.02.1993 and 'K' could not be arrested as he H 
1029 
1030 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 4 S.C.R. 
A had goneback to his unit, ASI in his evidence stated that he not only reached 
the place of occurrence and preserved blood at the place of occurrence, but 
also interrogated the accused; whereas according to Constable 'KK' all the 
accused were in their house at 02.30 p.m. next day and they were four in 
number. The prosecution has not been able to establish as to who the fourth 
B accused was. [Para 16) [1034-H; 1035-A] 
3. The Trial Judge had raised doubts in regard to the recovery of 
weapons of the offence. According to the prosecution witnesses, the police 
had come to the spot on the next day and seized the weapons of offence, whereas 
the recovery was shown to have taken place on the next day i.e. only after the 
c accused were taken in custody. Even no nexus was shown as to whether the 
weapons seized had been used for commission of the crime or not 
[Para 17) [1035-B-C] 
4. The Trial Judge disbelieved 'V' and 'D' as being eye-witnesses to the 
D 
occurrence. The High Court held them to be so. According to 'V', the 
occurrence was witnessed by 'K' and 'KL'. According to him, they came to 
the place of occurrence at a later stage. If their evidence is .taken at its face 
value, .they came to the place of occurrence even before PW-S came out from 
his house. The Trial Judge laid emphasis on the fact that there was total 
. 
. 
dai:kness. It was so said also by 'KL'. He also said that electricity light was 
E only in his house and not outside. According to PW-S, he became unconscious 
on receiving the assault. The High Court did not rely on that part of his 
evidence as the said witness categorically stated that he did not know as to 
how the occurrence took place. (Para 18) [1035-D-E) 
5. It is unfortunate that the High Court in its judgment has considered 
F only the statements made by the witnesses 'S', 'V', 'R' and 'D' and the 
statements of 'KL' and 'D' in their examination-in-chief and their cross-
examination. The glaring inconsistencies between the evidences of the 
witnesses, as has been recorded by the Trial Judge, had also not been taken 
note of by the High Court. The High Court also did not meet the reasonings 
G of the Trial Judge. (Para 19) [1035-F) 
6. Presence of 'V' and 'D' at the place of occurrence was found to be 
doubtful by the Trial Judge, inter alia, on the premise tha

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