IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1219-1220 OF 2002

   State of Rajasthan     ...Appellant

Versus

   Sharvan & Anr.        ...Respondents

O  R  D  E  R

These  appeals  are  directed  against  the  judgment  and  order

passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dated 1.11.2001 in Criminal

Appeal Nos. 335 & 305 of 1999 allowing the appeals preferred by the respondents

herein from the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.4.1999 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Hindon City in Sessions Case No.9/1998.

The occurrence took place on 29.9.1997 at about 9 a.m. The first

informant- Yadram (P.W.-4) lodged the First Information Report  as regards murder

of  Sheodan by Kallu  s/o  Harbhan and Sharvan s/o Malua which was recorded at

about  11.45 a.m. on the same day.  The homicidal  nature  of  the death of  the said

Sheodan is not in dispute.  

Yadram- P.W.4 in his first information alleged that when the

deceased had gone to the field to cultivate crop of millet, two-three persons came from

behind and fled away after causing 'cutting injuries' on him. The accused who were

named  in  the  First  Information  Report  were  said  to  have  been  in  possession  of

Daranti(scythe) and  

axe in their hands. Allegedly, he reached the place of occurrence  from his own field

after hearing sound of  

-1-

Sheodan, Kallu and Sarwan. Many other persons working in their fields arrived at

the place of occurrence and by that time the accused persons fled away. It, however,

appears from

the judgment passed by the Courts below that apart from Yadram(P.W.4),Govind

(P.W.5)-nephew of the deceased, Sukhi(P.W.15) wife of the decased and Chandulal

(P.W.16) were eye  

witnesses. Their names, however, were not disclosed in the First Information Report.

Those whose names have been mentioned in the First Information Report,namely,

Babulal,  Chuttan, Vishram, and Sugan who examined themselves as P.W.14,P.W-7

and P.W.13,  admittedly,  did  not  witness  the  actual  assault  by  the accused  on the

deceased.

The statements of the so called eye witnesses were also recorded after a few

days  in  respect  whereof  the  explanation of  the  investigating  officer  had  not  been

accepted by the High Court. The High Court in view of the fact that names of the

none of the so called eye witnesses had been disclosed in the First Information Report,

did not rely upon their statements.  

More  importantly  Chandulal  (P.W.16)  came  out  with  a   story  that

respondent No.1 was caught at the spot . If his deposition and depositions of other

witnesses on the said allegation were to be believed, Sarwan was brought to the house

of  the  deceased  and  kept  tied  there.  Admittedly,  however,  he  was  arrested  on

7.11.1997 i.e. after a period of about 1 1/2 months. The prosecution witnesses further

alleged that the Daranti which was the weapon of assault was kept at the house of the

deceased. A purported recovery of a blood stained Daranti, the  memo whereof was

marked as Exhibit P.13, was shown to have been recovered from the house of the

accused. Similar purported recovery was said to have been made from the respondent

No.2.

The learned Sessions Judge also did not believe the entire prosecution case.

Accused Sarwan was convicted for an  

-2-

offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

life. Accused Kallu was convicted for an offence under Section 324 IPC and he was

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Learned Sessions Judge

in his judgment appears to have laid emphasis on the

fact that respondent No.1 herein, admitted in his statement under Section 313 of the

Code of Criminal  Procedure that  he had in fact been caught by the villagers but

having  been  found  by  them to  be  innocent  he  was  let  off.  Whereas  the  learned

Sessions Judge had relied upon that part of the statement made by the respondent

No.1 in his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. to arrive at a conclusion that the

statement made by Chandulal(P.W.16) that he apprehended respondent No.1  at the

spot stood corroborated, the High Court on the other hand did not agree to the said

findings opining that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that respondent No.1

was caught at the spot.

The  purported  blood  stained  weapons  were  not  sent  for  chemical

examination. No report of the Chemical Examiner was filed in Court. Land dispute

between the parties is accepted. The First Information Report might not have been

lodged after a great delay but the tenor of the same  appears to be that more than two

persons took part in the incident.

Furthermore, the purported apprehension of the respondent No.1 at the

spot would have been a major factor which was expected to be disclosed in the F.R.R.

so as to enable the Investigating Officer to apprehend him at the first instance.

Why despite the fact that the main assailant had been caught at the spot

and was allowed to go away from there by the villagers had not been explained by the

prosecution. Yet again why the statements of so called eye witnesses  Govind

-3-

(P.W.5), Sukhi(P.W.15) and Chandu(16) were not recorded within a reasonable time

by the investigating officer has not been explained by the Investigating Officer.

The  view  of  the  High  Court  is  a  possible  one.  We  in  exercise  of  our

jurisdiction  under  Article  136  of  the  Constitution  of  India   would  not  ordinarily

interfere with the judgment of  acquittal recorded by the High Court when it is found

that both the views of the learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court were possible

views. We, therefore, are  

of the opinion that no case has been made out for interference with the impugned

judgment. The appeals are dismissed.

The  respondents  are  on  bail.  Their  bail  bonds  shall  stand

discharged.

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

     [S.B. SINHA]

......................J.       [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA]

New Delhi, April 30, 2008.

-4-