Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rajendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 November, 1989
Equivalent citations: 1989(2)WLN283
Author: A.K. Mathur
Bench: A.K. Mathur
JUDGMENT A.K. Mathur, J.
1. This jail appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6-9-1982 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused appellant Rajendra Singh under Section 302, 1PC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of fine to further undergo 3 month's rigorous imprisonment.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 7-9-1981 at about 5 p.m. PW 1 Jai Ram Singh was sitting at his tea stall which is near the Nathawala Bus Stand. Deceased Tara Singh came at the tea stall of Jai Ram Singh and sat on a Bench while waiting for boarding a bus for Ganganagar. In the mean while Surjeet Singh PW 2, Malkiyatsingh PW 3 and Balwinder Singh also came there and ordered for tea. Jairam Singh started preparing tea. At that time accused appellant Rajendra Singh came from east side and went towards went. After about 4-5 minutes he returned back and stood at Jai Ram Singh's hotel and told Tara Singh some thing Rajendra Singh took out his pistol and fired a gun shot which hit deceased Tara Singh. As a results of which he died at the scene. A First Information Report of the incident was lodged at the police station. The Police came on the scence and seized the dead body and prepared the necessary site inspection memo and site plan along with other necessary documents. Thereafter the accused was arrested and a pistol was recovered from his possession. After close of the investigation the police filed a challan in the court of Munsif Magistrate who ultimately committed the accused to the Court of Sessions.
3. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 35 witnesses and got a number of documents exhibited. The learned Sessions Judge after due trial found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal.
4. In the present case there are three eye-witnesses of the incident, namely, PW 1 Jai Ram Singh, PW 2 Surjeet and PW 3 Malkiyat Singh. Owe of then PW 2 Surjeet Singh and PW 3 Malkiyat Singh were declared hostile. There remains only one sole eyewitness i.e. PW 1 Jai Ram Singh. PW 1 Jai Ram Singh has deposed that on the fateful day deceased Tara Singh son of Ram Singh resident of Nathawala Chak was sitting at his tea stall. He was waiting for the bus. Thereafter three persons came in a cart and they demanded tea. Thereafter he was preparing tea for them. He also served water to these cart fellows. Thereafter, it is alleged that from the eastern side Rajendra Singh came and went away towards western side He again came after 4 to 5 minutes and stood before my shop. He deposed that he made some enquiries from Tara Singh but as the stove was burning, therefore, he could not know as to what transpired between the deceased Tarachand and accused Rajendra Singh. Thereafter, the accused pulled out pistol and fired at deceased Tara Singh. As a result of which Tarasingh fell down. He further deposed that he protested to the accused. Means while the accused started reloading his pistol and threatened him that if he mentions about the accused he will also he takes to task. The persons who came in the cart also ran away and he took rant away from that place. This witness has been cross-examined on various aspects but the testimony of this witness substantially remanded the same without being in any manner discredited. How ever the remaining two eyewitnesses, PW 7 Surjeet Singh and PW 3 Malkiyat Singh turned hostile. Therefore, there remains only the sole testimony of this witness. PW 4 Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta found the following injuries on the persons of the deceased:
Multiple lacerated wound on the Rt. axillary region in the upper l/3rd with area of 5" x 3";
One lacerated wound of 1/2" x 1/8" x 1/2" thoracic cavity deep which inverted margins. Around it multiple small punctured wound with inverted margins of 1/1" x 1/4" size as show in the diagram.
According to the Doctor these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
5. Mr. Charan, learned amicus curiae appearing for the accused appellant submitted that this case hinges on the sole testimony of a single eye-witness namely, PW 1 Jai Ram Singh and it will not be safe to convict the accused appellant on this sole testimony alone. Learned Counsel has submitted that the testimony of Jai Ram Singh, PW 1 is not of sterling worth Learned Counsel has pointed out contradictions in the statement of PW 1 Jai Ram Singh. According to the statement of PW 1 Jai Ram Singh, the accused fired from a distance of 5 6 ft. and the deceased was standing at that time. Therefore, he cannot receive injuries in axillary region The empty was found 5-7 fit. away from the place where the deceased was standing He also pointed out some omissions in the statement from the statement made in police by this witness, that he could not hear as to what transpired between the deceased and the accused as stove was burning.
6. We have bestowed our best of consideration to these arguments. But having gone through the statement of PW 1 Jai Ram Singh we are of the opinion that these small omissions in any case do not discredit the testimony of PW 1 Jai Ram Singh. The testimony of PW 1 Jai Ram Singh fully corroborate the injury report. Both these injuries were caused from a short distance, which is apparent from the main injury No. 1, and remaining pallet injury around injury No. 1. It shows that the deceased would not be more than 5-6 ft. away from the accused as is apparent from the injuries which were not caused in a larger part of body. Apart from this, PW 1 is a very natural witness because the whole incident has taken place at his tea stall and it is no body's case that he was not present at the scene of occurrence, Since he was the owner of the tea stall and has witnessed the incident, there fore, he was a natural witness and his testimony cannot be termed to be unreliable.
7. Learned Counsel has invited our attention to Kanchan S/o Anta Ram and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan; Chiranji and Dayaram v. State of Rajasthan and Gokha Singh v. State of Rajasthan to substantiate that in the case of a single eye-witness the testimony of such eye-witness should be of sterling worth. So far as this legal proposition is concerned, there is no dispute Butt in the present case as we are satisfied that the testimony of PW 1 Jai Ram Singh is of sterling worth and he was natural witness and his deposition stands corroborated by the injuries received by the deceased, therefore, the sols testimony of PW 1 Jai Ram Singh relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge inspires confidence and the conviction of appellant is upheld. There is no hesitation in saying that he is a truthfull witness.
8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused appellant is upheld.