Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raju @ Awadesh @ Naresh Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 July, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MP 1067
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR
Criminal Appeal No.1867 of 2007
Raju alias Awadhesh alias Naresh Sharma & another
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh
Date of Order : 4.7.2019
Bench Constituted of : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Atul
Sreedharan and Hon'ble
Mr.Justice V.P.S.Chauhan
Approved for Reporting : Yes
Name of Counsel for : Shri D.D.Bhargava,learned
Advocate appears as
Amicus Curaie
Name of the counsel : Mr.Madhur Shukla,
for the respondents learned Government
/State Advocate
Law Laid Down : In spite of having an inimical
relationship, if testimony of a
witness is found natural and
supported by other cogent
evidence found on the spot,
the witness could be relied
upon and his testimony may
be acted upon.
Significant Paragraphs : 25
(V.P.S.Chauhan)
Judge
2
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
D.B : HON. MR. JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
HON. MR. JUSTICE VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN
Cr.A. NO.1867/2007
Raju alias Awadhesh alias Naresh Sharma & anothr
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
Shri D.D. Bhargawa, learned counsel appears as Amicus Curiae for
the Appellants.
Shri Madhur Shukla, learned Government Advocate for the
Respondent State.
JUDGMENT
(04/07/2019) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN The appellants have filed this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16th August, 2007 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in S.T. No.43/2007 whereby learned trial Court has convicted appellant No.1-Raju alias Awadesh alias Naresh Sharma for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for six months and appellant No.2-Dinesh Sahu alias Dinnu has been convicted for the offence punishable under 3 Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for six months.
2. The case of prosecution against both the appellants, in short, is that Vinod Sai (since deceased) was running a light refreshment stall under the name and style of Ajay Tea Stall Baba Board Chowraha. Kamal Sanwale (PW-6) was an employee in that shop. There was previous enmity between the appellants and the deceased-Vinod. On 10/09/2004, upon a quarrel between the parties, both sides lodged reports against each other. Motivated by revenge, on 11/11/2006 at 7.00 p.m., when Vinod and Kamal Sanwale (PW-6) were at the shop, appellant-Raju Sharma alias Awadhesh Sharma alias Naresh Sharma armed with a sword and Dinesh Sahu alias Dinnu armed with a Khukri, came on the spot. Appellant- Raju Sharma alias Awadhesh Sharma alias Naresh Sharma assaulted the deceased by inflicting several blows with the sword. Appellant-Dinesh also assaulted the deceased by inflicting blows with the Khukhri on the deceased. Ultimately Vinod fell down on the spot. On hearing the commotion, Kamal, Kalim, Anil, Salman, Santosh rush to the spot to save Vinod, however, appellant- Dinesh threatened them by showing Khukhari and both the accused persons fled away from the spot. Shashi Bai (PW-13) was coming to take charge of shop saw the whole incident. 4
3. After receiving information, Arvind Singh Raghuvanshi, I.O.
(PW-16) rush to the spot, Vinod was lying dead there. Kamal Sanwale (PW-6) informed the incident to Arvind Singh Raghuvanshi (PW-16) who prepared Dehati Nalisi (Ex.P/1) at the instance of Kamal Sanwale and registered a temporary Crime No.0/06 for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sent Dehati Nalisi for original registration at Police Station, Habibganj where Crime No.1100/2006 registered. Arvind Singh Raghuvanshi (PW-16) summoned the witnesses after issuing notice and observed the body of the deceased, prepared inquest memo (Lash Panchnama) (Ex.P/9) and took photographs of the body. Witnesses opined that death caused on account of injuries received during quarrel. For knowing the real cause of death, Arvind Singh Raghuvanshi (PW-16) sent body of the deceased for post-mortem to hospital with Constable- Shyambihari. Arvind Singh Raghuvanshi (PW-16) prepared spot map at the instant of Kamal Sanwale (PW-6) and on searching the spot, found blood stained earthen particles, broken teeth, pieces of bone, one red cap, broken handle of sword (hilt), one Bajaj Scooter bearing registration No.M.P.26 H-4186 on which blood stain were found, seized all articles and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/7) before Kamal Sanwale (PW-6), Ramavatar (PW-5) and Ikrar (PW-15).
5
4. Expert Dr. C.S. Jain (PW-17) examined body of the deceased and found seven incised wounds on the body and opined that all the injuries were caused by hard and sharp weapon and the victim died on account of excessive bleeding that caused shock. This witness opined that death was of homicidal in nature and within 24 hours from examination of the body. His report is Ex.P/48, short report Ex.P/48-A and also sketched picture showing injuries is Ex.P/48-B. This witness sealed the apparel worn by the deceased and handed over to Constable. Constable submitted that apparel to the Police Station where seizure memo was prepared.
5. Investigating Officer recorded the statement of eye witnesses and arrested accused- Raju Sharma alias Awadhesh Sharma alias Naresh Sharma and on the basis of his disclosure, seized blood stained sword and cloths at his instance and in the same manner arrested accused-Dinesh and at his instance seized one Khukhari and blood stained cloth. All seized articles sent for examination to the FSL. FSL report (Ex.P/37) has been received and sent the weapons for querry before Dr.C.S. Jain (PW-17) who after examining the weapons found blood stain upon them. He applied Benzedrine test and found that blood was there and also after examining the pieces of teeth and pieces of bones, found that all belonged to human. His report is Ex.P/52 and opined that the injuries found on the body of the 6 deceased may be caused by seized weapons, sent the report Ex.P/49 and drew the picture of the weapons vide Ex.P/51 and P/52. After investigation, Police filed charge sheet under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. before the Court of CJM, Bhopal where the case was registered as Criminal Case No.735/2017 and from where the case was committed to the Sessions Court for its trial vide committal order dated 02/02/2007.
6. Learned trial Court framed charges against appellant No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and against appellant No.2 for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. After explaining the charge, both the appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty and sought trial.
7. Prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses to bring home the charge. Both the appellants, during examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied all the incriminating evidence come against them. Appellant No.1 stated that at the time of incident, he was in train coming from Khandwa to Bhopal and pleaded that he has falsely been implicated. Appellant No.2 pleaded that he has falsely been implicated. In their defence, the appellants submitted certified copy of documents Ex.D/3 to D/63.
7
8. Learned trial Court after hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, delivered judgment dated 16th August, 2007 and found proved the ingredients of offences beyond reasonable doubt against appellants and convicted appellant No.1- Raju Sharma alias Awadhesh Sharma alias Naresh Sharma for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and appellant No.2-Dinesh for the offence under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced them as aforementioned. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants have filed this appeal before this Court.
9. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants submits that all the material witnesses have been declared hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. Shashi Bai (PW-13) deposed that she was an eye witness, but, there are so many contradictions and omissions found in her statement. She reached in the spot after the incident. The main eye witness is Kamal Sanwale (PW-6) who turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution, but, he admitted that he signed on the papers prepared by the Police and other eye witness Ramavatar (PW-5) who is father of the deceased-Vinod, in his statement, has deposed that he got information by one Sabbu alias Salman who was working on the shop of the deceased. He reached at the spot after incident. Santosh (PW-7), as per prosecution he was an eye witness, also turned hostile and not 8 supported the case of prosecution. In the same manner Ramesh (PW-8), who was claimed to be an eye witness, turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Anil Yadav (PW-
9) has also turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. Kalim Khan (PW-10) also turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Salman (PW-11) also not supported the case of the prosecution and declared hostile by the prosecution. Ravi Patil (PW-12) also turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Pratap Singh (PW-14) is the witness of seizure memorandum. Another witness Ikrar (PW-15) who is the witness of seizure turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned conviction and sentence and prayed for acquittal of the appellants of all the charges.
10. Learned Government Advocate submits that Shashi Bai (PW-
13) saw the incident and she stated the whole incident which happened before her and Kamal Sanwale (PW-6) also proved Dehati Nalisi lodged by Arvind Singh Raghuvanshi (PW-16), Investigating Officer, on the basis of information provided by Kamal Sanwale. Kamal Sanwale (PW-6) in his statement has admitted that he put the signature on that Dehati Nalisi. Learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence minutely and concluded that the main culprit should not escape and after that learned trial Court convicted the appellants. The judgment of 9 conviction and order of sentence is well founded based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record, therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of S.T. No.13/2017.
12. Dehati Nalisi prepared by Arvind Singh Raghuvanshi (PW-16) who is Investigating Officer has deposed that he received information from the Control Room that at the place of Sai Baba Chowraha, there was quarrel between the parties. He reached on the spot, Kamal Sanwale (PW-6) provided all information and informed him that appellants by sword and Khakhuri murdered Vinod. He registered Crime No.0/2006 and prepared Dehati Nalisi (Ex.P/1) for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. The Investigating Officer called witnesses and prepared inquest report (Ex.P/9) and sent body of the deceased along with Shyam Bihari to Redico Legal Institution for post-mortem. Dr. C.S. Jain (PW-17) performed post-mortem of the body and opined that deceased sustained incised wounds on nose, face, near jaw, neck and on head. All wounds cut bones. This fact shows that deceased was assaulted by the sharp weapons. Dr. opined that due to cumulative affect of the wound, on account of excess bleeding, deceased gone into shock and ultimately died. Death was of homicidal in 10 nature. His report is Ex.P/48. This goes to show that the victim died on account of the injuries inflicted on his body and his death was homicidal in nature. He was murdered.
13. The question before this Court is whether prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt that both the appellants inflicted fatal injuries to the deceased by means of deadly weapons.
14. Arvind Singh Raghuvanshi (PW-16) recorded Dehati Nalisi (Ex.P/1). K.S. Narvariya (PW-1) has stated that he took Ex.P/1 to Police Station, Habibganj where he registered FIR (Ex.P/2) in original crime number and sent copy to the concerning Magistrate. Hiramani Singh (PW-2) stated that he registered report in Rojnamcha. Kamal Bhan Singh (PW-3) stated that he recorded to and fro movement of the police parties in the Rojnamcha.
15. Perused Ex.P/1 Dehati Nalisi recorded at the instance of Kamal Sanwale (PW-6). In this Dehati Nalisi Kamal Sanwale who was worker at the time of incident in the shop ran by the deceased- Vinod, stated that after hearing commotion witnesses Salim, Anil, Salman and Santosh rushed to spot for rescuing the deceased.
11
16. Santosh (PW-7) has stated that he does not know anything about the incident. He has not seen the incident but he admitted that he worked in the shop run by the deceased-Vinod. This witness turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Another eye witness Anil Yadav (PW-9) has stated that he does not know anything about the incident. He also turned hostile. He did not narrate anything about the incident in his statement. Kalim Khan (PW-10) has stated in the same manner that he did not know anything about the incident and on asking the leading question, he has not deposed anything in favour of the prosecution to support the case of prosecution. Salman (PW-11) has also stated in the same manner and turned hostile, not supported the case of prosecution.
17. Ikrar (PW-15) has stated that he came to know that there was quarrel. He went to Police Station and did not go to the spot. He also stated that he did not know anything about the incident. Ravi Patel (PW-12) also not supported the case of prosecution and turned hostile. While asking leading questions, he did not support the proceeding of the prosecution.
18. Other witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution, they clearly stated that the incident did not happen before them. They are not having any knowledge of this incident. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that on account of terror of the 12 appellants, all the witnesses turned hostile because all witnesses are living in the same vicinity where the appellants are residing and this may be a cause of witnesses. However, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that all the witnesses are hand in glove with the accused, therefore, they are denying the incident. Their evidence on the point of eye witness is of no avail and on that basis benefit cannot be given to the accused persons/appellants because they are not stating anything about the incident.
19. Ramavatar (PW-5), is father of the deceased and Shashi Bai (PW-13), is mother of the deceased. Ramavatar (PW-5) has stated that at the time of incident he was at home. One Sabbu alias Salman informed him appellants were beating to his son Vinod and he also stated that Vinod was murdered. When he reached to the spot with Ikrar and saw that his son was lying dead. Police was present there. Thereafter Kamal Sanwale (PW-6) lodged a report, Police prepared spot map, seized plain and blood stained earth and pieces of teeth, red colour cap and handle of sword and prepared seizure memo Ex.P/7. This witness signed on that documents. This witness also stated that deceased was having an old enmity with the accused persons and result of which was the present incident. This witness also supported the inquest report (Ex.P/9). This witness nowhere stated that the incident happened before him. This witness in 13 cross-examination in para-4 has categorically stated that at the time of incident, he was at home, however, his wife (Shashi Bai) was on the spot because she reached on the shop at 6.00 p.m. and he specifically stated that on the date of incident, she was at shop. After perusal of whole statement of this witness, this fact clearly emerges out that at the time of incident his wife Shashi (PW-13) was present on the spot, but, this witness was at home. He could not see the incident, however, this witness categorically stated that accused was having enmity with the deceased.
20. Another witness Shashi Bai (PW-13) stated that she goes daily in the evening to the shop of the deceased-Vinod. He is running shop of tea at Saibaba road. She also stated that before this incident, there was quarrel between appellant- Raju Sharma alias Awadhesh Sharma alias Naresh Sharma and deceased Vinod. When she reached near the shop she saw that appellants were assaulting Vinod by sword and Vinod fell down. On seeing that, she felt dizziness and public caught hold her and said did not go there, Vinod died. When she reached to the spot, she saw blood was oozing from his body, there was handle of sword (hilt) on the spot. She stated that on account of previous enmity, the appellants killed the deceased. Her presence on the spot is supported by Ramavatar (PW-5). 14
21. Shashi Bai (PW-13), in para-7 of her statement, has categorically stated that she was not feeling well after incident. Police recorded her statement on 13th at her home and at that time she clearly stated to the Police that accused Dinesh inflicted sword blows on the person of the deceased. She was cross-examined at length. In para-10 she has categorically stated that at the time of incident her son was sitting on the scooter and she reached near the spot. In para-12 she has categorically stated that she could not reach to save her son because within one minute a blow of sword inflicted in his neck and on his face and both the appellants fled away from the spot before she reached. On asking the question, she stated that she did not made an alarm but at that time on seeing the incident she could not say anything as she was nervous. In para-15 she stated that at the time of incident Ramavatar (PW-5) was not on the spot. This witness is a related witness as she is the mother of deceased. In her cross-examination, she was confronted with previous statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. (D/1), but, she remained intact. There was no contradiction, omission and exaggeration found in her statement. Her presence on the spot is proved by Ramavatar (PW-5) who reached the spot after incident.
22. Arvind Singh Raghuvanshi (PW-16) is the investigating officer.
He has stated that he arrested appellant- Raju Sharma alias 15 Awadhesh Sharma alias Naresh Sharma and interrogated him. Appellant Raju Sharma furnished information to the effect that the clothes worn by him were washed and along with the weapons used in commission of the offence were hidden below the cart at his home. The memorandum of Appellant Raju Sharma was prepared in the presence of witnesses Ramesh, Dhavi and Pratap Singh. One sword without a handle, on which blood stained was found on both sides and clothes were recovered pursuant to the memorandum of Appellant Raju Sharma which is seizure memo Ex.P/17 before the said witnesses. Arvind Singh Raghuvanshi (PW-16) also stated that he arrested appellant-Dinesh alias Dinnu and interrogated him. He furnished the information that he used a Khukri at the time of incident and hid the same in a drum along with his clothes which he had washed. The seizure memo is Ex.P/19. Blood stains were found on both side of Khukri . This witness also stated that Constable Shyambihari brought the blood stained cloths of the deceased in a sealed cover from the hospital and seizure memo Ex.P/29 was prepared by HCM Kamalbhan who sent all these articles for examination to FSL, Sagar vide memo Ex.P/31. FSL report is Ex.P/32.
23. On perusal of FSL report Ex.P/32, cap, pieces of stone, teeth and pieces of bones and shirt, blood stained sword were seized at the instance of accused Raju Sharma alias Awadhesh Sharma 16 alias Naresh Sharma and the Khukri was seized at the instance of appellant-Dinesh. Presence of human blood of group 'B' were found on all these articles. These facts go to show that blood found on the spot and on the weapons used in commission of the offence, are of the same blood group. It seems that the weapons seized at the instance of appellants connected the appellants with crime and supported that these weapons are used in commission of offence which corroborates the substantive evidence against the Appellants.
24. All proceeding done by the Investigating Officer (PW-16) is supported by the witness Pratap Singh (PW-14) who supported the information furnished by the appelalnt- Raju Sharma alias Awadhesh Sharma alias Naresh Sharma and at his instance seized the blade of sword and clothes. This witness also supported the information furnished by appellant-Dinesh before the Investigating Officer and also supported the seizure of Khukri and clothes at the instance of appellant-Dinesh. Another independent witness Ravi Patil (PW-12) turned hostile and he categorically stated that nothing has been done before him by Police Officer, but, Pratap Singh (PW-14) supported the act of the Investigating Officer (PW-16) while recording the memorandum and seizure of articles. Pratap Singh (PW-14) was cross-examined at length, however, no material 17 contradiction was brought out which reflects the credibility of this witness.
25. Now we come to the evidence of Shashi Bai (PW-13), mother of the deceased, near relative of the deceased and having previous enmity with the appellants. The appellants also submitted the documents in defence which reveals that there was enmity between deceased-Vinod and the appellants. Before this incident, there was a quarrel and in that quarrel deceased Vinod inflicted injuries upon the father of appellant- Raju Sharma alias Awadhesh Sharma alias Naresh Sharma and others. Vinod also lodged a report of that incident, a case was also registered against appellant- Raju Sharma alias Awadhesh Sharma alias Naresh Sharma and his father. No doubt, considering the evidence adduced by both the side, there was previous enmity between the deceased and the appellants. This enmity could have resulted in two eventualities; one may lead to incident in question and the other may lead to false implication of the appellants. Shashi Bai (PW-13) has categorically stated the act of the accused/appellants and how they inflicted the injuries on the person of the deceased-Vinod and by what weapon and on which part of the body of the deceased. As discussed above, the evidence of this witness does not disclose any material infirmity which shakes the origin of the incident. This witness is found reliable by this Court as 18 her statement is supported by other cogent evidence. The evidence of this witness may be acted upon.
26. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dalip Singh and others Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364 has laid down as under :
"A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means, unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts."
27. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Singh Vs. State of M.P. , AIR 2009 SC 285 has reiterated the 19 same principles by referring its earlier judgment in the case of Dalip Singh and others (supra).
28. After perusal of the whole statement of Shashi Bai (PW-13) and the evidence of other witnesses, there is no parallel hypothesis which reflects that there is a possibility of the deceased being murdered by some other persons. No doubt, Shashi Bai (PW-13) is mother of the deceased but why she would implicate the appellants by hiding the real culprit, is not explained by learned Amicus appearing for the appellants. Evidence of Shashi Bai (PW-13) does not suffer from any material infirmity arousing a suspicion that she is trying to shield the real culprit. The evidence of Shashi Bai (PW-13) inspires confidence of the Court and is a reliable witness.
29. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Waman and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 7 SCC 295, explained the reliability of the evidence of relative of deceased in paras-14 to 20 which reads as under :
"14. In view of the stand of the counsel for the appellants that since PWs 1-4, eye-witnesses are closely related to the deceased and complainant, conviction cannot be based on such evidence, let us state the law on the admissibility/acceptability or otherwise of their evidence as considered by this Court.
15. In Sarwan Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab, a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while considering the evidence of interested witness held that (1976) 4 SCC 369) 20 "10. ......it is not the law that the evidence of an interested witness should be equated with that of a tainted witness or that of an approver so as to require corroboration as a matter of necessity. The evidence of an interested witness does not suffer from any infirmity as such, but the courts require as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinized with a little care. Once that approach is made and the court is satisfied that the evidence of the interested witness has a ring of truth such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration."
16. The fact of being a relative cannot by itself discredit the evidence. In the said case, the witness relied on by the prosecution was the brother of the wife of the deceased and was living with the deceased for quite a few years. This Court held that (Sarwan Singh case, SCC p.379 para 16) "...16..... But that by itself is not a ground to discredit the testimony of this witness, if it is otherwise found to be consistent and true".
17. In Balraje vs. State of Maharashtra,, this Court held that the mere fact that the witnesses were related to the deceased cannot be a ground to discard their evidence. It was further held that when the eye- witnesses are stated to be interested and inimically disposed towards the accused, it has to be noted that it would not be proper to conclude that they would shield the real culprit 21 and rope in innocent persons. The truth or otherwise of the evidence has to be weighed pragmatically and the court would be required to analyze the evidence of related witnesses and those witnesses who are inimically disposed towards the accused. After saying so, this Court held that : (SCC p.679, para 30) "...30.....if after careful analysis and scrutiny of their evidence, the version given by the witnesses appears to be clear, cogent and credible, there is no reason to discard the same."
18. The same principles have been reiterated in Prahalad Patel vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. In para 15, this Court held that : (SCC p.265) "...15.....Though PWs 2 and 7 are brothers of the deceased, relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. In a series of decisions this Court has accepted the above principle (vide Israr vs. State of U.P., and S. Sudershan Reddy vs. State of A.P."
19. The above principles have been once again reiterated in in State of U.P. vs. Naresh & Ors. Here again, this Court has emphasized that relationship cannot be a factor to affect the credibility of an witness. The following statement of law on this point is relevant: (SCC p.334 para 29) "....29. .... The evidence of a witness cannot be discarded solely on the ground 22 of his relationship with the victim of the offence. The plea relating to relatives' evidence remains without any substance in case the evidence has credence and it can be relied upon. In such a case the defence has to lay foundation if plea of false implication is made and the Court has to analyse the evidence of related witnesses carefully to find out whether it is cogent and credible. [Vide Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab, Vishnu & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, and Balraje]"
20. It is clear that merely because the witnesses are related to the complainant or the deceased, their evidence cannot be thrown out. If their evidence is found to be consistent and true, the fact of being a relative cannot by itself discredit their evidence. In other words, the relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness and the courts have to scrutinize their evidence meticulously with a little care."
30. Statement of Shashi Bai (PW-13) is supported by the documents Ex.P/1, which is Dehati Nalisi recorded by Arvind Singh Raghuvanshi (PW-16). In the Dehati Nalisi, the entire incident is mentioned more or less in the same manner as stated by Shashi Bai (PW-13). No doubt, this information was given by Kamal Sanwale (PW-6) who admitted that he put his signature on the documents, but has turned hostile. However, Arvind 23 Singh Raghuvanshi (PW-16) has clearly stated that on the basis of information given by Kamal Sanwale (PW-6), he recorded Ex.P/1. The whole incident is mentioned in Ex.P/1 which has been recorded promptly without delay by Arvind Singh Raghuvanshi (PW-16).
31. Dr. C.S. jain (PW-17) also found the injuries on the person of the deceased on such places as disclosed by Shashi Singh (PW-
13) in her statement. It clearly goes to show that statement of Shashi Bai (PW-13) is well supported by Ex.P/1 and the medical report. The weapons seized at the instance of both the appellants are having human blood of 'B' group which was the blood group of blood of the deceased found at the place of incident.
32. On the basis of forgoing discussions, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court was well founded. There is no need to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court.
33. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any substance, is hereby dismissed. Appellant No.1-Raju alias Awadhesh alias Naresh Sharma is in jail and Appellant No.2-Dinesh Sahu alias Dinna is on bail. The bail bonds of Appellant No.2-Dinesh Sahu alias Dinnu are hereby cancelled and he is directed to 24 surrender immediately before the trial Court for serving out the remaining part of the jail sentence.
(Atul Sreedharan) (Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan)
Judge Judge
ts
Digitally signed by TULSA SINGH
Date: 2019.07.11 11:51:27 +05'30'