LexSHAHID KHAN versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H (2016] 2 S.C.R. 284 SHAHID KHAN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 1460of2008) MARCH 02, 2016 (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.) Penal Code. 1860: ss.1../7. 148, 3021149 and 397 - Murder - Prosecution case that accused five in number caused injuries to the victim-deceased with sword and knife -· Incident stated to have been witnessed by PW25 and his driver PW24 who had come from Kota to Jhalawar to meet the deceased - Thereafter, out of fear they hid themselves - Victim was declared brought dead - Trial court acquitted accused no. I and convicted accused no.2 to 5 - High Court affirmed the conviction of accused no.2 to 5 - On appeal, held: Presence of PW24 and PW25 at the place of occurrence appeared doubtjiil -· Their conduct in not informing the relatives of the deceased and in nor lodging police complaint was also quite unnatural - Their statements were recorded after 3 days of occurrence - Delay in recording the statement had cast doubt about their being eye-witnesses to the occurrence - In view of delay, PW24 and PW25 did not appear to be who11y reliable witnesses - Moreover. there was no corroboration of their evidence from any other independent source - Therefore, PW24 and PW25 were not reliable witnesses so as to record conviction of the accused - The case against accused not proved beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction set aside. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. PW 24 and PW 25 are residents of Kota which is at a distance of about 150 kms. from Jhalawar- town. According to PW25, he went to Jhalawar to meet the deceased and on reaching the factory at 1.00 p.m. they happened to witness the occurrence. PW9 and PW19, who on intimation rushed to the occurrence place, did not state that they saw PW25 and PW 24 in the occurrence place. It was only PW19, the brother of the deceased with the help of PW9 and PW20 lifted the injured and put in the Maruti vehicle and took him to Jhalawar hospital, where 284 SHAHID KHAN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 285 h·e was declared dead. Thereafter PW19 went to the Police Station A and lodged the written complaint. In the said complaint, the names of the assailants were not mentioned and also the names of the persons who were present during the .occurrence are not mentioned. PW25 and PW24 stated in their cross-examination that they did not help PW9 and PW19 to shift the injnred to the hospital and they rushed towards Toll Tax and reached the hospital in a trnck and on seeing their car, without entering the hospital, they drove to Kola and they did not inform any one about the occurrence and they did not also go to the Police Station for lodging the complaint. The High Court concluded that the presence of PW25 was established in view of the fact that his Maruti van was used for shifting injured to the hospital. There was nothing on record to show the Maruti vehicle used for transporting the deceased to the hospital belonged to PW25. PW25 and PW24 slipping away unnoticed by the others particularly after the alleged attack is utterly unbelievable. They did not render any help for shifting the injnred to the hospital nor had ihe courtesy to go inside the hospital to ascertain the condition and also did not inform the occurrence to the police. The aspect of fear was without any foundation and was not supported by any evidence of act or conduct. (Paras 8, 10) [289-H; 290-A-G) 2. The statements of PW25 and PW24 were recorded after 3 days of the occurrence. No explanation was given as to why they were not examined for 3 days. It is also not known as to how the police came to know that these witnesses saw the occurrence. The delay in recording the statements casts a serious doubt about their being eye-witnesses to the occurrence. It may suggest that the investigating officer was deliberately marking time with a view to decide abont the shape to be given to the case and the eye- witnesses to be introduced. The circumstances in this case lend such significance to this delay. PW25 and PW24, in view of their unexplained silence and delayed statement to the police, does not appear to he wholly reliable witnesses. There was no corroboration of their evidence from any other independent source either. It is, therefore, unsafe to rely upon their evidence only to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellants. The case against the appellants has not been p~oved beyond reasonabl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.