February 15, 2019:

On Friday, the Bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi of Hon'ble Supreme Court, observes that once a fact is established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, any partial statement, which is doubted cannot be used by the appellant as a defence to shake the prosecution case

Brief Facts:

The ocular witness that is, Sunil Kumar Goyal, is the complainant/ informant in the present case. He deposed that on 28th July, 2001, at about 6.30 p.m., he along with his brothers Paras Mal and Yashwant(deceased) were returning back on the motor cycle from their agricultural farm.

While returning, they met Kripal Singh(appellant) with three other persons namely, Ram Lal, Arjun Singh and Sultan Singh. The accused/appellant was having axe in his hand and he hit on the head of deceased and also on the shoulder of Paras Mal.

The alleged weapon of offence i.e the axe and motor cycle of the deceased were recovered by the police. The injury sustained by the deceased was supported by Doctors who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased.

Court Observations:

The Bench observes that, Sunil Kumar Goyal, the complainant, reiterated to what he had stated in the first information report while deposing as a witness before the court.

"The prosecution has proved the case against the present accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt that the injury on the head of the deceased which was attributed to the accused appellant could in itself be sufficient to cause death and this is what has been considered by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the High Court in appeal and we too are of the view that the prosecution has believed the case against the appellant and the possibility of over-implication of co-­accused Ram Lal, Arjun Singh and Sultan Singh would not in any manner rule out the case of the present appellant and the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt holding him guilty."

"....It would have been unreasonable on our part if we could have mechanically rejected such evidence available on record on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard­ and ­fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be  appreciated but what is required is that judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct."

"The submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that recovery has not been proved by any independent witness is of no substance for the reason that in the absence of independent witness to support the recovery in substance cannot be ignored unless proved to the contrary.

There is no such legal proposition that the evidence of police officials unless supported by independent witness is unworthy of acceptance or the evidence of police officials can be outrightly disregarded."

Verdict:

The Bench while dismissing the present appeal holds that once a fact is predicated beyond reasonable doubt, the partial statement, which has been doubted could not be used by the appellant as a defence to shake the prosecution case.

Read Judgment @ LatestLaws.com

KRIPAL SINGH Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN _15-Feb-2019(Downloadable PDF)

Share this Document :

Picture Source :