All the accused ought to be judged equally by the given deposition.

Shubhani Mittal | Vivekananda Global University | 28th December 2019

Jodhraj & Anr. Versus State of Rajasthan CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1779 OF 2019

Facts – 

 On 22.5.2005 at 9.30 P.M, 14 persons namely Jodhraj, Hemraj, Bhanwar Lal, Mathura Lal, Dwarka Lal, Dev Kishan, Om Prakash, Naval Kishore, Birdhi Lal, Badri Lal, Ram Prasad, Prabhu Lal, Ram Dayal and Pooran Mal constituted unlawful assembly in the revenue estate of village Kadiayavan and caused injuries to Hariram due to which he died the intervening night of 22nd May and 23rd May of 2005.

The learned counsel on the behalf of the state examined 18 eye­witnesses in this case . Injury report was also brought forward of the deceased by the learned counsel –

(i) abrasion 1 cm X 1 cm, on the right side of the forehead

(ii) Incised wound, 7 cm X 1cm, on the right side of the neck

(iii) Incised wound, 20cm X 7 cm, intestine coming out on anterior on abdomen and intestine coming which is grievous and dangerous to life

The learned Trial Court upon the submission of the shreds of evidence convicted five people accused of the offences u/s Sections 148, 302/149 and 379 of IPC, who were Jodhraj, Bhanwar Lal, Dwarka Lal, Jagdish Prasad, Pooran Mal and gave the benefit of doubt by acquitting the rest of the accused

The convicted appealed before the High Court and the state appealed against the order of acquittal of the accused.

The high court acquitted Bhanwar Lal giving him benefit of doubt and confirmed the conviction of Jodhraj and Jagdish Prasad relying upon the deposition of PW2 and PW3, where the court disbelieving their statement in the case of Bhanwar Lal.

The learned counsel appearing on the behalf of convicts stated that High court has convicted the accused solely relying on the evidence given by PW2 and PW3 and they were represented beyond the truths. The statements made by these eyewitnesses should not be taken into consideration as Bhanwar Lal and others were acquitted by not believing the deposition of PW2 and PW3, the same should apply to appellants also. In the trial, no other evidence was considered.

Issue –

Whether deposition of eyewitness not relied in the case of one of the accused and acquitting him giving benefit of doubt should be considered the same as the other accused also.

Judgement – 

  The statements made by eyewitnesses pw2and pw3 were recorded after 18 days and due to this time gap, both the witnesses took undue advantage of the delay and gave an exaggerated deposition.

High court acquitted  Bhanwar Lal not relying on the deposition of PW2 and PW3 whereas confirming the conviction of Jodhraj and Jagdish believing the same witnesses.

Therefore, it was held that if the deposition of eyewitnesses is not reliable qua one of the accused, came to be acquitted by giving benefit of doubt, the same benefit ought to have been given to the other accused also, unless there is some further material/evidence against the other accused.

In this case, no other evidence is implicating the accused except relying upon the deposition of PW2 and PW3, thus the appeal preferred by accused Jodhraj and Jadish Prasad is hereby allowed and the appeal of Bhanwar Lal preferred by the state is dismissed.