STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus NANA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 771 · Decided: 02-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STA TE OF RAJASTHAN 
,, 
NANA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 2, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860-s. 304 Part II rlw s. 34-Murder-By three accused 
alongwith others-Injured eye-witnesses to the incident-Conviction uls 3021 
A 
,B 
34 by trial court-High Court acquitting two of the accused on the ground C 
that version of eye-witnesses were contradictory to the version in FIR and , 
altering conviction of one of the accused to one uls 304 (part 11)134-0n 
appeal, held: Acquittal of accused 'B' not justified-All the eye-witnesses 
except the one who had lodged FIR, had categorically stated about the role 
played by him-Contradictory version in FIR will have no effect on credibility 
of their evidence-Accused 'S' was rightly acquitted-Conviction of accused D 
'N' was rightly altered to one uls 304 (part-/1)134. 
Evidence-Contradictory evidence-Of witnesses-From the version of 
FIR-Effect of contradiction-On the credibility of other witnesses-Held: 
Statement in FIR is relevant so far as the malu!r of FIR is concerned-It has 
no effect on the credibility of evidence of other witnesses-FIR. 
E 
Respondents-accused 'N', '8' and 'S' were charged for offences 
punishable u/ss. 302/34, 302/149, 324/149, 325/149 and 323/149 IPC for 
having caused death of one person (deceased) and for having caused injuries 
to PWs 1,2,3 and 9. 
PW 1, in the FIR and in his statement during investigation stated that 
accused 'S' and 'N' had assaulted the deceased. But during trial PW-1 as 
well as PWs 2 and 3 stated that accused 'B' and 'N' had assaulted the deceased. 
F 
Trial Court convicted the respondents-accused for the offences charged· 
under, placing reliance on the version of the injured witnesses i.e. PWs t, 1, G 
3 and 9. In appeal, High Court in view of the contradiction of the statements 
_..1.. 
of the PWs from the version of FIR, acquitted accused '8' and 'S' ofall the 
charges and altered the conviction ofaccused 'N' from 302/34 IPC to 304 
771 
H 
~ 
)' 
r 
772 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 8 S.C.R. 
A (part II) 34 IPC. As the accused 'N' had already been in custody for about six 
'>-
~ 
years, High Court directed his release. 
.. 
~ 
! 
Partly allowing the appeal so far as it concerned accused 'B' and 
dismissing the appeal so far as it concerned the accused 'S' and 'N', the Court 
i_ 
B 
HELD: 1. The evidence of the eye-witnesses PWs 2, 3 and 9 need to be 
accepted so far as assault by accused '8' is concerned. In spite of incisive 
cross examination, all these witnesses have in clear terms described the role 
"·-
of 'B' and accepted that he had assaulted the deceased. The High Court was 
+ 
.; 
right that in the FIR and during investigation PW 1 had stated that 'N' and 
' ,. 
t 
'S' assaulted the deceased. The statement made in the FIR is a factor which 
I 
c is relevant so far as the statement of the maker of the FIR is concerned. It 
does not have any effect on the credibility of evidence of the other witnesses 
who have at all stages categorically stated about the role played by the accused 
r 
'B'. Therefore merely because there was some difference in the-version of 
PW 1 so far as his statement in the court vis-a-vis statement in the FIR is 
+-
D concerned that does not in any way affect the credible and cogent evidence of 
PWs 2 and 3. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in directing 
,-
} 
acquittal of accused 'B'. Acquittal of accused 'B' is set aside and he is convicted 
for offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC read with Section 34. 
His custodial sentence shall be seven years. 
E 
[Paras 7 and 8) (774-F, G, H; 775-A, B, C] 
2. So far as the role of accused 'S' is concerned, none of the witnesses 
had spoken anything about the role played by him. Thatbeing so, his acquittal 
is in oi-der. [Para 7) 1775-A) 
F 
3. In the case of accused 'N', High Court has indicated detailed reasons 
y 
as to why according to it, offence was one punishable under Section 304 Part 
II IPC. There is no infirmity in the reasons indicated to warrant interference. 
His custody was about six years. High Court had rightly directed his release. 
[Paras 7 and 81 [775-B-C) 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Cfiminal Appeal No. 817 of 
2002. 
From the .Judgment & Order 23 .8.200 I of the High Court of Judicature 
for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in Criminal Jail Appeal No.469of 1997 
H 
Naveen Kumar and Aruneshwar Gupta for the Appellant. 
.. 
STATEOFRAJASTHANv. NANA[PASAYAT,J.] 
773 
The Judgment of the Court
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.