CRL.A. No. 184 of 2004 1

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   

             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 184 OF 2004

RAWAT RAM ..  APPELLANT

vs.

RAJU SINGH & ORS. ..  RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

1. Six  persons  i.e.  the  four  respondents  herein  Raju  

Singh, Kishor Singh, Moti Singh and Anish and two  others  

Hakam  Ali  and  Birju  Singh  were  brought  to  trial  for  

offences punishable under Sections 302, 148/149 etc. of the  

IPC for having committed the murder of Ram Chandra on 9th  

December, 1994, at about 3:45p.m. in Rampura Basti, Police  

Station, Naya Shahar, Bikaner.   As per the prosecution  

story, P.W. 7 Mohini, the mother of the deceased had gone  

to buy vegetables from a shop near her residence and while  

she was doing so she noticed the six accused (the seventh

CRL.A. No. 184 of 2004 2

one who had absconded and is undergoing trial) belabouring  

her son Ram Chandra.  As per her allegations, Raju Singh's  

brother whose name was not known to her, fired a shot into  

Ram Chandra's head, killing him.  Seeing the incident P.W.  

7, shouted and went close to her son but before she reached  

the spot the accused persons ran away.  The motive for the  

incident was prolonged enmity and litigation between the  

parties arising out of a property dispute.  Soon after the  

incident, P.W. 2, Rawat Ram, the appellant herein, and the  

father of the deceased, reached the place of incident and  

the story was narrated to him by P.W. 7.  He then rushed to  

the Police Station and lodged a report at about 4:20p.m.  

which was recorded by P.W. 10 Hemant Sharma, ASI.   The  

accused  were  brought  to  trial  on  the  completion  of  the  

investigation.   In  the  course  of  her  evidence,  P.W.  7,  

Mohini modified her statement and stated that it was Hakam  

Ali who had fired the shot which had killed her son.  The  

trail court relying on the evidence of P.W. 2  and P.W. 7  

as also the medical evidence convicted the accused (except  

Birju who was acquitted) for offences under Sections 302,  

149, 148 etc. and sentenced them to imprisonment for life  

and to other terms of imprisonment  as well.  An appeal was  

thereafter taken to the High Court and during the pendency  

of the appeal, Hakam Ali who was attributed the main role,  

passed away.  The High Court re-examined the matter and

CRL.A. No. 184 of 2004 3

observed that the fact that the FIR had apparently been  

lodged about 36 to 48 hours after the incident as it is  

said to have recorded at 4:20p.m. on 9th December, 1994, but  

as the special report had been delivered the next evening  

to the Magistrate at his residence, it appeared that the  

FIR had been brought into existence much later and then  

ante-timed.   The  High  Court  also  held  that  the  only  

prosecution  witness  produced  was  P.W.  7  Mohini  and  her  

statement  under  Section  161  of  the  Cr.P.C.  had  been  

recorded for the first time about 2 or 3 days after the  

incident  and  as  the  vegetable  vendor  had  not  even  been  

cited as a witness, there was no corroborating circumstance  

to the presence of P.W. 7 and she being a chance witness,  

her presence was doubtful.  The Statement of P.W. 2 was  

also rejected for the simple reason that he was not an eye  

witness and he had come to the spot after the accused had  

run away.  The High Court  also noted that no effort had  

been made by the prosecution to collect any evidence from  

the place of occurrence which was a busy market place.  The  

High Court, accordingly, acquitted the accused.  The matter  

is before us at the instance of the complainant, Rawat Ram,  

the father of the deceased.   

2. We have gone through the judgment of the High Court  

very carefully  with the assistance of the learned counsel

CRL.A. No. 184 of 2004 4

for the parties.  We find that the High Court was fully  

justified in recording its judgment and the reasons given  

are clearly relevant to the case.  Admittedly, P.W. 7 –  

Mohini was the only witness and in the light of the fact  

that she was not the author of the FIR and her statement  

had been recorded after three days of the incident and the  

FIR had been recorded at the instance of P.W. 2, the father  

of the deceased about 36 to 48 hours after the murder, no  

sanctity  could  be  attached  to  it.    We  also  see  that  

several persons who had been present had been interrogated  

by the Investigating Officer but they were not even cited  

as witnesses during the trial.  In the light of the fact  

that the incident happened at a distance of 1/4th k.m. from  

where PW-2 was working, it is obvious that PW 2 and PW 7  

were chance witnesses, whose presence was doubtful.  On the  

contrary,  the  vegetable  vendor  has  come  as  a  defence  

witness   to disown the story projected by the prosecution.  

On a perusal of the judgment of the High Court, we are of  

the opinion that it cannot be said to be erroneous in any  

manner.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has, however,  

argued  that  a  knife  had  been  recovered  from  Raju  Singh  

respondent herein and at least he should be hauled up for  

the incident.  We see that the two witnesses of recovery

CRL.A. No. 184 of 2004 5

are Rawat Ram P.W.2 and Surya Ram P.W. 9.  P.W. 9 was a  

resident  of  Vijay  Nagar,  a  place  about  150  miles  from  

Bikaner, and was also a colleague of Rawat Ram as they were  

working in the same place.  In this view of the matter, we  

find  that  the  High  Court  was  absolutely  justified  in  

holding  that  the  recovery  of  the  weapons  including  the  

knife allegedly used by Raju Singh could not be foisted on  

the accused.

4. We  thus  find  no  merit  in  the  appeal  which  is,  

accordingly,  dismissed.

                   .......................J.          (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

                   .......................J.

                                (DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA) New Delhi,

   September 29, 2010.