Supreme Court of India
STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus MOHAN LAL AND ORS.
- Decided
- 15 April 2009
- Judges listed
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [2009] 6 S.C.R. 142 · 2009 INSC 509
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant-State and learned counsel for the respondents.
p. 143, margin D
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench directing acquittal of the respondents who faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). Originally five persons faced trial and out of them two accused persons namely Moti Ram and Ramji Lal were acquitted by judgment of learned Sessions Judge, jhunjhunu. By the judgment which was impugned before the High Court, the present respondents were found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
p. 143, margin D
The prosecution version in a nutshell that on 4.11.1995 Balusingh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was assaulted by the present respondents and the two acquitted accused persons and in the process Balu Singh lost his life. Information was lodged by Madan Singh Yadav (PW9) who was the son of the deceased. After investigation, charge sheet was filed and since the accused persons pleaded innocence, trial . was held. As noted above, the present respondents were found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read Section 34 IPC. The convicted person preferred an appeal before the High Court which as noted above directed acquittal. The High Court found the evidence of so-called witness PW1, 2,5 and 9 to be not credible and cogent therefore directed the acquittal.
pp. 143–144, margin F
In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant stated thttt since four eye-witnesses were there, there evidence should not have been discarded to direct acquittal. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the Court submitting that the view taken by the High Court possible view and has been arrived at after analysing evidence of eye-witness.
p. 144, margin B
It is to be noted that the conduct of the so-called witness was absolutely unnatural. They did not make any effort to either save the deceased when he was being assaulted when the accused persons purportedly took away the dead body of the deceased.
p. 144, margin A
T:10ugh in all cases the conduct of persons would be determinative, it would depend on several factors. In present case undoubtedly four persons who claimed to have witnessed the occurrence did not make any effort to save deceased from the assaults made by the accused persons. PW1 was the son of the deceased. The High Court noticed the presence of so-called eye witnesses was practically not acceptable because of the various variations in statement made during investigation and made in the court.
p. 144, margin D
The High Court found that the conduct was not unnatural but also proved that their presence at the place occurrence doubtful. The view taken by the High Court plausible one, we find no reason to interfere in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. O.G. Appeal Dismissed.
p. 144, margin F