STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus BABLU @ OM PRAKASH

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 450 · Decided: 24-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT, AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
450
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
v.
BABLU @ OM PRAKASH
(Criminal Appeal No.1475 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 24, 2021
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Appeal against acquittal: Interference with – Prosecution case
that 13 accused along with 10-12 persons armed with weapons,
forcibly entered the house of the informant and hurled abuses,
inflicted informant’s brother with injuries who later succumbed to
his injuries – Informant also suffered injuries when he tried to
intervene – Conviction of 13 accused in respect of offences
punishable u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 450 or 450/149, 452 or 452/149,
302 or 302 rw ss. 149, 307 or 307 rw 149 IPC on basis of the eye
witness account – High Court upheld the conviction and sentence
against A2 and A3, however, acquitted the remaining 11 accused –
On appeal, held: Even if the testimony of single witness is found
reliable by the Court, it can be the foundation of the order of
conviction – On facts, evidence of the informant-brother of the
deceased itself would normally be sufficient who received injuries
in the transaction and his presence could not be doubted –
Furthermore, on entirety, consistent and cogent eyewitness account
– Presence of the prosecution witnesses who were examined as
eyewitnesses to the occurrence, cannot be discredited – Five
eyewitnesses testified to the presence and participation of the
accused – Thus, in the face of such clear, consistent and cogent
evidence on record, the High Court not justified in not relying on
the evidence of the eyewitnesses without giving any valid reasons –
Order of acquittal manifestly erroneous and perverse – Accused
A1, A6, A7, A8, A10 and A13 were attributed certain overt acts not
only by PWs 1 and 27 but at least by one more witness, thus, their
acquittal is set aside and order of conviction and sentence is restored
whereas rest of the accused are given benefit of doubt and their
acquittal is confirmed – Penal Code, 1860 – ss 147, 148, 149, 450
or 450/149, 452 or 452/149, 302 or 302 read with ss. 149, 307 or
307 rw 149 – Evidence – Eye-witnesses – Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 – s. 378.
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 450
450
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
451
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 With regard to the presence of the prosecution
witnesses who were examined as eyewitnesses to the occurrence,
nothing was brought on record to discredit them except the
submission that the presence of PW6-was not spoken to or
adverted by PW24. The fact that one of these witnesses had
suffered injuries in the transaction and the rest of them had taken
the deceased as well as the injured to medical center immediately
after the occurrence lends credibility to the case of the prosecution
unfolded through these eyewitnesses. Nothing has been brought
on record in their cross-examinations to dislodge the credibility
of these witnesses. Even then, this Court may avoid the testimony
of PW6 as his presence was not adverted to by PW24. That leaves
with 5 eyewitnesses who had testified to the presence and
participation of the accused-respondents. [Para 17][437-D-F]
1.2 Even the version of a single witness, if his testimony is
found reliable by the Court, can be the foundation of the order of
conviction. In the instant case, the evidence of PW1-, the brother
of the deceased itself would normally be sufficient. Said witness
had received injuries in the transaction and his presence could
not even be doubted. Additionally, there were four witnesses viz.
PW2, PW24, PW25 and PW27. The chart tabulated shows the
role ascribed to each of the accused. [Para 20][476-F-G]
1.3 In the face of such clear, consistent and cogent evidence
on record, the High Court was not justified in proceeding on the
basis that the eyewitnesses had not named other accused in
specific terms or entertaining any doubt and then recording order
of acquittal. The approach of the High Court was completely
against the settled principles of law and no valid reasons were
given by the High Court as to why the evidence of all the
eyewitnesses could not be relied upon in so far as the role played
by the acquitted accused was concerned. The order of acquittal
recorded by the High Court is found to be completely unjust and
its conclusion is totally against the record. In these appeals against
acquittal, therefore, this Court is not persuaded to go by the order
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BABLU @ OM PRAKASH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
452
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
of acquittal passed

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