Bhola Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Bhola Singh vs State of Rajasthan

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Rajasthan Decided Mar 21, 1990

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/756772

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/756772
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Kanta Bhatnagar and; R.S. Verma, JJ.
Decided On: Mar 21, 1990
Case Number: D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 59 of 1990
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Appeal allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Penal Code - Section 302--Solitary witness states one thing in examination in chief and different thing in cross examination--Held, he is not witness of credence to justify conviction.;The statement of a witness is to be read as a whole. If a witness stated one thing in the examination in chief and an altogether dif...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Appeal allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bhola Singh

Advocate Mr. H.B. Kharlia

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In: 1990(2)WLN22

Excerpt

penal code - section 302--solitary witness states one thing in examination in chief and different thing in cross examination--held, he is not witness of credence to justify conviction.;the statement of a witness is to be read as a whole. if a witness stated one thing in the examination in chief and an altogether different thing in the cross examination, he cannot be said to be a witness of credence. we do not find any justification in the conviction of the appellant on the solitary evidence of such a witness to whom the prosecution has not found reliable and has disowened.;appeal allowed. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - we do not find any justification in the conviction of the appellant on the solitary evidence of such a witness to whom the prosecution has not found reliable and has disowned......has passed the judgment of conviction on the sole testimony regarding the extra-judicial coefession said to have been made by the appellant in the presence of sahi ram (pw 1), rulendra singh (pw 3), makhan singh (pw 4), darshan singh (pw 5) and amarjeet singh (pw 6). all of them have been declared hostile by the prosecution. the recovery of the sword and watch has not been supported by any independent witness and the learned trial judge has not attached any importance to the recovery.5. the pertinent question is whether the statement of a witness i.e. the statement of sahi ram, who in his examination in chief has denied the fact of any extra-judicial confession being made by the accused in his presence, should be taken to be a witness of sterling worth then in cross examination by the public prosecutor he has admitted to have heard the accused giving extra judicial confession. the statement of a witness is to be read as & whole. if a witness states one thing in the examination in chief and an altogether different thing in the cross-examination he cannot be said to be a witness of credence. we do not find any justification in the conviction of the appellant on the solitary evidence of such a witness to whom the prosecution has not found reliable and has disowned.6. under such circumstances, there is no ground to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant.7. consequently, the appeal is allowed. the conviction and sentence of appellant bhola singh are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. he is in jail. he shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

Full Judgment

Kanta Bhatnagar, J.

1. This appeal directed against the judg-ment dated 16-1-1990 by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh on which appellant Bhola Singh was held responsible for the murder of Mandar Singh alias Sukhmendra Singh and was convicted Under Section 302, IPC. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to under-go one month's simple imprisonment.

2. The prosecution case is that on 11-6-1988 at about 5.15 a.m. the father of the appellant and deceased Sukhmendra Singh lodged a report at Police Station, Hanumangarh that on the previous day Sukhmendra Singh and Bhola Singh had gone to the field with tractor to irrigate the field. In the evening Bhola Singh came to the house and took food for himself and his brother. That, at 12 or 12.15 in the night, the neighbourer of the field, Darshan Singh, went to Hameer Singh and informed him that Sukhmendra Singh had gone to his field and informed that at his tubewell four unknown persons had given a beating to him and Sukhmendra Singh and caused injuries. Hameer Singh along with some persons went to the field and found his son Sukhmendra Singh lying dead on a cot near the tubewell having a number of injuries on his person. Bhola Singh informed him about four unknown persons giving a beating to him and his brother Sukhmendra Singh and matching his watch and taking away the tractor. That, he got admitted Bhola Singh, injured in the town hospital. SHO, Mohan Singh (PW 10) went to the site and made necessary investigation. On 15-6-1988, the SHO arrested Bhola Singh, appellant on the ground that during the course of investigation it had come to his notice that Bhola Singh has committed the murder of his brother Mander Singh alias Sukhmendra Singh because he was suspecting illicit relations between his wife and the deceased. In pursuance of the information furnished by the appellant SHO recovered the sword and watch from the field on 20th of June, 1988. The blood stained clothes of the deceased and the appellant, the blood soaked soil and the sword were sent for chemical examination and human blood was detected on them Charge-sheet against the appellant Under Section 302, IPC was filed in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh. The learned Magistrate charge-sheeted the appellant and on his denying the charge, proceeded with the trial. Ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Appellant in his statement Under Section 313, Cr.PC totally denied the allegations levelled against him and stated that his relations with Shri Ram (PW 1) were inimical on account of party politics and, therefore, he might have stated against him The learned Judge placed reliance on the statement of Sahi Ram regarding the extra-judicial confession of the appellant and passed the judgment under appeal.

3. We heard Mr. H.B. Kharlia, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. N.D. Khan, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. M.C. Bhandari, learned Counsel for the complainant and perused the record of the case.

4. At the very outset it may be observed that the learned trial Judge has passed the judgment of conviction on the sole testimony regarding the extra-judicial coefession said to have been made by the appellant in the presence of Sahi Ram (PW 1), Rulendra Singh (PW 3), Makhan Singh (PW 4), Darshan Singh (PW 5) and Amarjeet Singh (PW 6). All of them have been declared hostile by the prosecution. The recovery of the sword and watch has not been supported by any independent witness and the learned trial Judge has not attached any importance to the recovery.

5. The pertinent question is whether the statement of a witness i.e. the statement of Sahi Ram, who in his examination in chief has denied the fact of any extra-judicial confession being made by the accused in his presence, should be taken to be a witness of sterling worth then in cross examination by the Public Prosecutor he has admitted to have heard the accused giving extra judicial confession. The statement of a witness is to be read as & whole. If a witness states one thing in the examination in chief and an altogether different thing in the cross-examination he cannot be said to be a witness of credence. We do not find any justification in the conviction of the appellant on the solitary evidence of such a witness to whom the prosecution has not found reliable and has disowned.

6. Under such circumstances, there is no ground to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

7. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of appellant Bhola Singh are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. He is in jail. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1990 Same Parties Bhola Singh vs State of Rajasthan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Kanta Bhatnagar and; R.S. Verma, JJ.

Criminal