Case: State of Rajasthan Vs. Laxman Singh

evidence available on record leads to the reasonable conclusion and the only conclusion of guilt of the accused persons under section 302 IPC. The learned counsel pointed out from the evidence of the doctor that the injuries found on the parietal region of the body of Bachhu Singh were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death of the person. (7) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents strenuously urged that the judgment of the High Court is based on independent assessment of the evidence on record which the appellate court was entitled to do. On such assessment the High Court did not accept the part of the prosecution case leading to the charge under section 302 IPC. Absence of any explanation on the part of the accused persons, according to the learned counsel, is not relevant since the prosecution failed to establish that Bachhu Singh was in custody of the accused persons throughout the period after he was taken from the place of occurrence till the dead body was found lying on the highway. (8) On the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties the question that arises for consideration is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court was right in interfering with the part of the judgment of the trial court convicting accused respondents of the charge under section 302 IPC. As noted earlier, this part of the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence only. The main circumstances which are patent from the evidence on record are; (1) the accused persons had caught hold of Bachhu Singh, assaulted him with iron rod and tyre lever and removed him in a truck driven by one of the accused Machhar Singh declaring that they will kill him; (2) the dead body was recovered lying on the public highway within a short time the incident took place at about 10.00 p.m. and information of death of Bachhu Singh was received by the police at about 11.15 p.m.; (3) Dr. Suresh Bansal clearly and categorically stated that the death took place on account of shock due to the incised wounds on the parietal region and such injuries could be inflicted by blunt weapons like iron rod and tyre lever. There is no other evidence from which it can be reasonably inferred that the doctors evidence to this effect is not acceptable. (4) total absence of any explanation on the part of the accused persons as to what they did to Bachhu Singh after they kidnapped him and till recovery of the dead body. In this case, it has been concurrently held by the courts below that the accused persons kidnapped Bachhu Singh in the manner discussed earlier. The learned counsel for the respondents fairly and, in our view rightly, did not challenge the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. In that view of the matter, there is little scope for doubt that the circumstances leading to the death of Bachhu Singh point towards the culpability of the accused respondents in whose custody he was seen last. Coupled with it is the medical evidence that the antemortem injuries found on the parietal region of Bachhu Singh could be caused by the weapons like iron rod, tyre lever which were recovered in pursuance of the statements made by some of the accused persons from the truck and such injuries were sufficient to cause death of a person in ordinary course.(9) From the discussion in the judgment of the High Court, it appears that the court based its finding of acquittal of the charge under section 302 IPC mainly on the assumption that the external injuries found on the parietal region of the Bachhu Singh could not have been caused by blunt weapons like iron rod and tyre lever. No reason has been given by the High Court for not accepting the evidence of the doctor. Dr. Bansal stated in his evidence that his opinion was based on the authority of Modis medical jurisprudence that incised wounds may also be caused by blunt weapons. This view has also been accepted by this Court in the case of Suresh v. State of U.P. : 1981 (2) SCC 569 "There is one more argument which requires to be dealt with, namely, that two different weapons and the same two weapons were used against both Geeta and the appellant. We are not quite sure whether Geeta had received any incised injury because, the injuries which were found on her forehead can give the appearance of incised injuries, if caused by an iron rod. The skin just above a hard surface can break by a severe blow and give the appearance of an incised injury. But even assuming that the same two weapons were used on Geeta as also the appellant, it does not militate against the commission of the crime by the appellant himself. It is clear from the evidence of Dr. Guha and Dr Sharma that all the injuries on the person of both Geeta and the appellant were on the front portions of their respective bodies. It is also clear that the injury which resulted in the death of Geeta as also her son Anil was caused by the iron rod. We are inclined to the view that the weapons with which Geeta was defending herself at different stage of her life-saving fight with the appellant were snatched by the appellant and he hit her with those weapons. That is how similar injuries were found on the person of both." Further, it is stated in the judgment of the High Court that its findings are based on independent assessment of the evidence on record, but the court has not discussed the circumstantial evidence on record nor made any observations relating to them. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the judgment of the High Court allowing the appeal in part and acquitting the accused respondents of the charge under section 302 IPC is unsustainable.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 1

Reasoning from the judgment:
1[ds]In this case, it has been concurrently held by the courts below that the accused persons kidnapped Bachhu Singh in the manner discussed earlier. The learned counsel for the respondents fairly and, in our view rightly, did not challenge the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. In that view of the matter, there is little scope for doubt that the circumstances leading to the death of Bachhu Singh point towards the culpability of the accused respondents in whose custody he was seen last. Coupled with it is the medical evidence that the antemortem injuries found on the parietal region of Bachhu Singh could be caused by the weapons like iron rod, tyre lever which were recovered in pursuance of the statements made by some of the accused persons from the truck and such injuries were sufficient to cause death of a person in ordinary course.(9) From the discussion in the judgment of the High Court, it appears that the court based its finding of acquittal of the charge under section 302 IPC mainly on the assumption that the external injuries found on the parietal region of the Bachhu Singh could not have been caused by blunt weapons like iron rod and tyre lever. No reason has been given by the High Court for not accepting the evidence of the doctor. Dr. Bansal stated in his evidence that his opinion was based on the authority of Modis medical jurisprudence that incised wounds may also be caused by bluntit is stated in the judgment of the High Court that its findings are based on independent assessment of the evidence on record, but the court has not discussed the circumstantial evidence on record nor made any observations relating to them. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the judgment of the High Court allowing the appeal in part and acquitting the accused respondents of the charge under section 302 IPC is unsustainable.