STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus ARJUN SINGH & ORS. ETC

Citation: [2011] 10 S.C.R. 823 · Decided: 02-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011) 10 S.C.R. 823 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
ARJUN SINGH & ORS. ETC; 
(Criminal Appeal No. 552-554 of 2003 etc.) 
SEPTEMBER 2, 2011 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
A 
B 
ss.302134 and 307134 - Murders of two brothers and c 
attempt to murder the third one - Nine accused convicted by 
trial court ulss.3021149 and 3071149 - High Court acquitting 
six and convicting three u/s.302134 and 307134 - Held: The 
deposition of the injured, the medical evidence and other 
materials produced by prosecution clearly prove the guilt of 0 
the three convicted accused that they with their guns and with 
their common intention fired gunshots resulting in death of two 
brothers and serious injuries to the third - Their conviction 
and sentence as recorded by courts below confirmed -
Evidence. 
s.302 - Victim sustained 7 gunshot injuries and died 35 
days thereafter due to septiceemia - HELD: The injuries were 
sufficient to cause death - Case falls within the ambit of s. 302. 
CRIMINAL LAW: 
E 
F 
Motive - Held: Reliable evidence in the case indicates 
that there was previous enmity between one of the accused 
and the complainant because of a litigation - Even in the 
absence of specific evidence as to motive, in view of the 
evidence of the injured witness, the medical evidence and the 
G 
fact that two persons have been killed and the third one 
sustained fired arm injuries, the prosecution case cannot be 
thrown out on this ground. 
823 
H 
824 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 10 S.C.R. 
A 
EVIDENCE: 
Evidence of related witness - Discrepancies in evidence 
- Effect of - Held: The evidence of the eye-witness who 
suffered gun shot injuries in the incident is supported by 
8 medical evidence and other documentary evidence - Merely 
bec;ause he is related to the deceased is not a ground for 
rejection of his testimony - Certain discrepancies as to 
number of gun shots are liable to be ignored - However, High 
Court rightly observed that presence of other three eye-
witnesses at the place of occurrence on the stated date and 
C time was highly doubtful - Non recovery of pistol or carlridge 
does not detract the prosecution case, whose clinching and 
direct evidence is acceptable - Investigation. 
The three appellants in Crl. A. No. 558 of 2003, along 
D with the six respondents in Crl. A. Nos. 552-554 of 2003 
filed by the State and Crl. A. Nos. 555-557 of. 2003 filed 
by the son of the complainant, were prosecuted for 
causing murder of two brothers of P.W.2 and attempting 
to murder him. The prosecution case, as stated by injured 
E 'HS' who later succumbed to his injuries, was that on the 
day of incident when he was standing outside his house, 
accused 'AS' fired at him from the roof of the 
neighbouring house . On hearing his cries two of his 
brothers, namely, 'RR' and 'RS' (PW-2) came there and 
F took him inside the house and after leaving him there, 
when they were going to inform the police, accused 
'BhS', 'GS' (both absconding), 'BS', 'KS' and 'SS' fired 
gunshots at them. Thereafter accused 'BRS' with a 
'gandasa' came there and accused 'LR' also jumped into 
their house. Accused Smt. 'SB', Smt 'GK' and Smt. 'BK' 
G were also present on the roof of the said neighbouring 
house and they tried to kill other family members of the 
deceased. The injured were taken to the hospital where 
the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate recorded the 
statements of 'HS' and 'RS' (PW-2). Since 'RR' was not 
H 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. ARJUN SINGH & ORS. 
825 
ETC. 
medically fit, his statement could not be recorded and he 
A 
died the same day. 'HS' died subsequently. The trial court 
convicted and sentenced all the nine accused, inter alia, 
u/ss 302/149 and 307/1491PC. However, on appeal, the 
High Court acquitted the six respondents and convicted 
the three appellants u/ss 302/34 and 307/34 IPC. 
B 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
!-!ELD: 1.1. The doctor (PW-1) who examined the 
injured, explained to the Court that all the ·injuries . 
mentioned in Exts. P-1, P-2 and P-4, were caused by gun C 
shots; that PW-2 had also sustained injuries which were 
serious in nature; and that the injuries of 'HR' and 'RR' 
were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of 
nature. [para 9) [887-C] 
1.2. PW-2, in his evidence, has stated that accused 
'AS' was standing on the roof of the n~ighbouring house 
and fired from muzzle loaded gun at 'HR'. Though there 
is little discrepancy as to the distance from the upper 
portion
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.