Pal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Pal Singh vs State of Rajasthan

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Rajasthan Decided Jan 05, 1990

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/761078

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/761078
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: S.N. Bhargava, J.
Decided On: Jan 05, 1990
Case Number: S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 1 of 1979
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Appeal allowed

Case Summary

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

Penal Code - Section 307--Witness R not fully & entirety supporting prosecution story--Evidence of R in contra-distinction to other witnesses--Evidence not showing that pistol could be fired and injured any person--Held, prosecution failed to prove guilt and accused is entitled to be acquitted;Appeal Allowed - ...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Appeal allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pal Singh

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In: 1990WLN(UC)2

Excerpt

penal code - section 307--witness r not fully & entirety supporting prosecution story--evidence of r in contra-distinction to other witnesses--evidence not showing that pistol could be fired and injured any person--held, prosecution failed to prove guilt and accused is entitled to be acquitted;appeal allowed - - therefore, in my opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused appellant and the accused appellant is entitled to be acquitted.s.n. bhargava, j.1. this appeal has been directed against the judgment of the learned additional sessions judge, sri ganganagar, convicting the accused appellant under section 307, ipc and sentencing him to three years's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 1000/-.2. fir in this case has been lodged by pw 1 heeranand who has been declared hostile. similarly all other alleged eye witnesses, namely, pw 2 ram chander, pw 4 subhash chandra, pw 6 hansraj, pw 7 norangrai and pw 8 bodaldas have been declared hostile none of them has supported the prosecution story as given in the fir. the learned additional sessions judge has based his conviction solely on the evidence of pw 10 radhey shyam and the recovery of the pistol at the instance of the accused. it may be mentioned at the outset that the pistol was a licensed one and the licence was also in the name of the accused appellant and he had handed over the pistol along with the licence.3. i have carefully gone through the first information report as also the statement of all the witnesses, including pw 10 radhey shyam. radhey shyam also has not fully and entirely supported the prosecution story as given in the fir and a bare perusal of the evidence will show that entire evidence is contra-distinction of the other pws, as mentioned above. it is very difficult to believe and rely on the sole testimony of pw 10 radhey shyam. his evidence does not show, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that the pistol could be fired and injured any of the persons, including radhey shyam. therefore, in my opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused appellant and the accused appellant is entitled to be acquitted.4. in the result, this appeal is allowed, the conviction passed by the learned sessions judge is acquitted of charges under section 307, ipc.5. the accused appellant is on bail. he need not surrender. his bail bonds are hereby discharged.6. the licenced pistol may be returned to the appellant.

Full Judgment

S.N. Bhargava, J.

1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, convicting the accused appellant Under Section 307, IPC and sentencing him to three years's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-.

2. FIR in this case has been lodged by PW 1 Heeranand who has been declared hostile. Similarly all other alleged eye witnesses, namely, PW 2 Ram Chander, PW 4 Subhash Chandra, PW 6 Hansraj, PW 7 Norangrai and PW 8 Bodaldas have been declared hostile None of them has supported the prosecution story as given in the FIR. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has based his conviction solely on the evidence of PW 10 Radhey Shyam and the recovery of the pistol at the instance of the accused. It may be mentioned at the outset that the pistol was a licensed one and the licence was also in the name of the accused appellant and he had handed over the pistol along with the licence.

3. I have carefully gone through the First Information Report as also the statement of all the witnesses, including PW 10 Radhey Shyam. Radhey Shyam also has not fully and entirely supported the prosecution story as given in the FIR and a bare perusal of the evidence will show that entire evidence is contra-distinction of the other PWs, as mentioned above. It is very difficult to believe and rely on the sole testimony of PW 10 Radhey Shyam. His evidence does not show, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that the pistol could be fired and injured any of the persons, including Radhey Shyam. Therefore, in my opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused appellant and the accused appellant is entitled to be acquitted.

4. In the result, this appeal is allowed, the conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge is acquitted of charges Under Section 307, IPC.

5. The accused appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are hereby discharged.

6. The licenced pistol may be returned to the appellant.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1990 Same Parties Pal Singh vs State of Rajasthan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge S.N. Bhargava, J.

Criminal