Mukhtiar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
criminal trial - witness--witness denying medical examination and injuries--held, it is not safe to rely on unreliable witness.;the last straw on the camel's back is his denial that he did not receive any injury and no medical examination of his injuries was made. whereas he has stated in his police statement that he was beaten by one madan singh and received the injuries. thus, it is not safe to rely on the testimony of such an unreliable witness.;appeal accepted - - lodha, learned counsel for the appellant has criticised the testimony of this witness & has submitted that he is a totally unreliable witness learned counsel has submitted that since he is the sole-eye-witness therefore his testimony should be scrutinised very closely and unless he is of sterling worth he should not be relied upon. it has further been argued that the conduct of this witness is also very unnatural this witness instead of going to the police station which is about 5 miles away has travelled all the way to sri ganganagar and got the first information report written from the petition writer and approached the additional superintendent of police, got it endorsed from the additional superintendent of police and then went to ghamurwali police station in a jeep and lodged that written first information report at 6 p. after going through the testimony of this witness and having regard to the criticism we are of the opinion that this witness cannot be said to be wholly reliable so as to uppold the conviction of the accused person. it is true that whenever there is a single witness then such single witness should be of sterling worth and it should be wholly reliable one. but this witness does not appear to be wholly reliable witness as his testimony appears to be very shaky. thus, it is not safe to rely on the testimony of such an unreliable witness.ashok kumar mathur, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned sessions judge sri ganganagar dated 22-9-1976 whereby the learned sessions judge has convicted the accused appellant under sections 302 ipc and 27 of the arms act and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and three years rigorous imprisonment respectively. both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. the facts giving rise to this case are that the accused appellant mukhtiar singh fired a gun shot at dayal singh and caused his death on 24-12-1974 in village butra in front of the house of gurditia singh pw 1. a first information report of this incident was riled by gurditia singh pw 1 at 2 p.m. at police station ghamur wali. it is alleged that when he came to his house from his field he saw hakam singh standing in the main door of his house with a gun and saw that a dead body was lying in front of his house behind kakam singh. the dead body was bleeding from the chest and abdomen. he asked hakam singh as to what happened to dayal singh. hakam singh informed him that perhaps some body has murdered dayal singh deceased by gun shot injury. after saying this hakam singh ran away towards the house of inder singh. thereafter he went to the house of megharam panch and brought him to the scene of occurrence and after that both of them went to the police station ghamurwali and filed the first information report. the police reached at the scene of occurrence, prepared the site plan and took up the dead body and sent the same for post mortem. blood stained earth and clothes were seized. one empty cartridge, one pellet and three wads were also seized at the scene of occurrence. the police thereafter took up the other necessary investigation and filed the challan against the accused persons mukhtiar singh, kartarsingh and nathasingh under section 302 read with section 34 ipc and under section 27 of the arms act against accused mukhtiar singh. during the course of investigation, the police arrested accused mukhtiar singh, nathasingh and kartarsingh. at the time of arrest accused mukhtiar singh produced a gun and he got recovered two empty cartridges of 12 bore gun from his house from a room facing east. accused kartar singh gave information which led to the recovery of two lathies and accused nathasingh gave information which led to the recovery of one gandasi. these articles were sent to the ballistic expert. as the fire pin of the gun was missing therefore he was unable to give any opinion whether the empty cartidges were fired from this gun or not. thereafter, the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial.3. during the trial, the prosecution examined about 13 witnesses and got a large number of documents exhibited. in the present case the prosecution relied upon mainly on two eye-witnesses, namely, pw 3 sarjitsingh and hakamsingh pw 4. pw 3 sarjitsingh turned hostile and thereby the prosecution left with the sole eyewitness pw 4 hakamsingh. the learned sessions judge after close of the trial convicted the accused mukhtiar singh as aforesaid and acquitted accused nathasingh and kartarsingh. aggrieved against his conviction and sentence the accused appellant mukhtiar singh has approached this court by filing the present appeal.4. we have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned public prosecutor and have also perused the record.5. mr. lodha, learned counsel for the appellant has specifically invited out attention to the testimony of pw 4 hakamsingh the sole eyewitness. pw 4 hakamsingh has deposed that deceased dayal singh came to ganganagar a day before the occurrence and he stayed with him in the night. deceased dayal singh is the god-brother of his father-in-law. on the next day at about 10.30 a.m. after taking meals they proceeded towards cc head because dayal singh had to catch the bus therefor going to his village. when he reached near the house of gurditiasingh he saw nathasingh, kartarsingh, mukhtiar singh and amili (absconding) standing there. amili and nathasingh had gandasas. kartarsingh had a lathi mukhtiar singh had a double barrel 12 bore gun. nathasingh on seeing them told that enemies have come and they should not be spared. thereafter, mukhtiar singh came with a gun. dayal singh signalled him that he should get back and he also withdrew little backward and mukhtiar singh fired a shot which hit dayal singh. thereafter, dayal singh could move 2 to 3 steps backward and fell down near the door of gurdittasingh. he has further stated that he immediately went inside the house. thereafter gurdittasingh came and enquired from him as to what happened to the deceased. he told gurdittasingh that mukhtiar singh has shot dayal singh. thereafter he went to his house and narrated the incident to nihalkaur. mr. lodha, learned counsel for the appellant has criticised the testimony of this witness & has submitted that he is a totally unreliable witness learned counsel has submitted that since he is the sole-eye-witness therefore his testimony should be scrutinised very closely and unless he is of sterling worth he should not be relied upon. learned counsel has pointed out that according to this witness he has informed gurdittasingh that mukhtiar singh is the person who has shot deceased dayal singh. but gurduttasingh who first reached at the scene of occurrence has totally denied that this was disclosed to him. he has deposed that if he had known the name of the assailant ha would have mentioned it in the first information report. it has further been argued that the conduct of this witness is also very unnatural this witness instead of going to the police station which is about 5 miles away has travelled all the way to sri ganganagar and got the first information report written from the petition writer and approached the additional superintendent of police, got it endorsed from the additional superintendent of police and then went to ghamurwali police station in a jeep and lodged that written first information report at 6 p.m. whereas gurdittasingh immediately went to the police station and lodged the first information report and action has already been initiated by the police. this conduct of this witness does not appear to be natural. learned counsel has further argued that the same day an another incident has taken place in which one more murder was committed and in that case hakamsingh is said to be one of the accused. learned counsel has also invited our attention to the fact that one protest petition ex. d 2 was filed by hakamsingh for taking cognizance against madansingh and moda singh. but he has completely disowned that. after going through the testimony of this witness and having regard to the criticism we are of the opinion that this witness cannot be said to be wholly reliable so as to uppold the conviction of the accused person. it is true that whenever there is a single witness then such single witness should be of sterling worth and it should be wholly reliable one. but this witness does not appear to be wholly reliable witness as his testimony appears to be very shaky. the fact that gurdittasingh had come on the scene of occurrence and the dead body was lying in front of his house if he has known the name of the assailant he would have mentioned it to gurditta singh, immediately. this witness pw 4 says that this act was mentioned by him to gurdittasingh but gurdittasingh refused that sugestion and he further stated that if he had known the assailant he would have mentioned the same when he filed the first information report at 2 p.m. at police station ghamurwali. so much so this witness hakamsingh when he went to the house to inform about the death of deceased dayal singh he did not mention the name of; the assailant to nihalkaur. the conduct of pw 4 hakamsingh going to sri gangabagar and approaching the petition-writer and then to the additional superintendent of police for endorsing the same and reached at the police station ghamurwali at 6 p.m. creates a great suspicion and casts a doubt on the veracity of his version. it is strange that the incident took place at 11 a.m. in the morning and he has left nihalkaur his wife near the body of the deceased and ultimately reached at the police station ghamurwali at 6 p.m. for filing the first information report. this conduct is highly unnatural. if he was a truthful witness then he could have filed the first information report at the police station, ghamurwali which is 5 miles away from the place of occurrence. but his conduct in taking a circuitous route for reaching ghamurwali at 6 p.m. creates a great suspicion regarding his testimony.6. lastly, a very bold denial was made by hakamsingh pw 4 that he did not file the protest petition ex. d. 2 before the learned magistrate that cognizance should be taken against accused madansingh and moda singh. this protest petition ex. d. 2 bears the signature of his counsel. he has deliberately denied that any such application was filed by his advocate, whereas this application was filed before the learned magistrate and be has admitted that shri jagrajsingh bear was his advocate though he has given him up later. the last straw on the camel's back is his denial that he did not receive any injury and no medical examination of his injuries was made. where as he has stated in his police statement that he was beaten by one madansingh and recieved the injuries. thus, it is not safe to rely on the testimony of such an unreliable witness.7. in the result we accept the appeal of the accused appellant set aside judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the sessions judge, sri gangna nagar and acquit the accused appellant of all the charges. the accused is on bail so he need not surrender.