Case: State of Rajasthan Vs. Laxman Singh

(2) The incident took place on 20.8.94 at about 10.00 p.m. when the three respondents came in trucks, caught hold of Bachhu Singh (deceased), assaulted him with iron rod and tyre lever and took him away in the truck declaring that they would kill him. The enmity of the respondents against Bachhu Singh was on account of his alleged intimacy with wife of the accused Lakhan Singh. Mohan Singh, brother of Bachhu Singh rushed to the police station at Sewar and lodged a report about kidnapping of his brother Bachhu Singh. When he was still at the police station a wireless message was received at the police station at about 11.15 p.m. that a dead body was lying on the roadWhen the police officer accompanied by the informant reached the spot the latter identified the body to be that of his brother Bachhu Singh. The body had several external injuries (incised wounds) on the parietal region. There were also marks on the body indicating that the deceased had been crushed under a truck on account of which internal organs like spleen and liver etc. were crushed. The police officer sent the body for postmortem examination, held investigation in the matter, seized blood stained earth from the spot and on completion of the investigation filedunder sections 364 and 302 IPC against the respondents.(3) The respondents denied their involvement in the incident and claimed to be tried.(4) The prosecution examined twelve witnesses, including eye witnesses to the occurrence PWs 1,2,3 and 6 relating to kidnapping of Bachhu Singh. and Dr. Suresh Bansal PW7 who conducted autopsy on the body. However, there was no direct evidence regarding the charge of murder, the prosecution depended on circumstantial evidence to establish the charge.(5) The learned trial judge on appreciation of the evidence on record accepted the prosecution case and held the accused guilty of both the charges and convicted and sentenced them, as noted earlier. The High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused persons to the extent noted above. Hence, the appeal by the state.

Reasoning: 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.