2. Out of the ten accused persons before the Court of Sessions, six were convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 201/149 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code1 and separate punishment for each of the offences was prescribed, the maximum being imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further imprisonment of six Hereinafter referred to as “IPC” Page 2 of 7 months under Section 302/149 IPC. The said conviction and sentence has been set aside by the High Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 20.11.2008.
3. Aggrieved by the acquittal of all the six accused, the appellant/complainant Chhote Lal has preferred this appeal.
Consideration of findings of two courts
8. We have considered the findings of the two courts below and have also gone through the ocular testimony of PW-9 i.e. the sole eyewitness (complainant). His testimony reveals that on 05.11.2000 at about 2 pm when they reached ‘Pahar’ with the investigation team, they found a dead body burning which had almost perished. The fire was extinguished and from there one copper ring and the buckle of a belt were recovered which were identified to be that of Kishan Sarup (victim).
Sole-eye witness is not the actual eye-witness
9. The appellant/complainant (PW-9) happened to be the sole eyewitness but he had neither seen anyone killing his son Kishan Sarup nor he had deposed that he had seen anyone burning the victim Kishan Sarup. Therefore, he is not actually an eyewitness either to the killing or to the burning of the deceased Kishan Sarup though he may be an eyewitness to the incident which took place on 04.11.2000 at 7 pm wherein a car had chased their motorcycle, pushed them towards the Page 5 of 7 roadside making them fall in the bushes, thereupon assaulting the deceased Kishan Sarup and then taking him away in an injured position in the car.
Conduct of the father towards son being assaulted and kidnapped is not believable
10. It may be noted that he has not deposed anything as to why he had not tried to intervene and save his son from assault or stop the accused persons from taking him away in the car. He himself had not received any injuries. The statement that he could not do so on account of the threats extended by the accused persons appears to be a bald statement as no one in a situation where his son is being assaulted and carried away would remain a mere spectator.
Death of deceased as fir is with knife but the postmortem suggest firing from close range
11. The appellant/complainant (PW-9) stated in the FIR that the accused assaulted his son with a knife and iron rod. He didn’t mention about the use of a pistol by the accused. However, the police have recovered empty cartridge. Cause of death as per postmortem is also firing from close range.
Presence of eye-witness doubtful
12. In view of the above situation and the other evidence on record, the very presence of the appellant/complainant even during the incident of 04.11.2000 appears to be doubtful. He Page 6 of 7 appears to have met Kishan Sarup on the scooter stand per chance whereupon he took lift from Kishan Sarup to travel towards the village.
Complainant is most interested witness having long enmity with the accused persons.
13. It may not be out of context to mention that the appellant/complainant, a sole eyewitness, happens to be the most interested witness being the father of the deceased and having long enmity with the group to which the accused persons belong, therefore, his testimony was to be examined with great caution and the High Court was justified in doing so and in doubting it so as to uphold the conviction on his solitary evidence.
Appeal dismissed – acquittal confirmed.
CHHOTE LAL …APPELLANT VERSUS ROHTASH & ORS. …RESPONDENTS – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2490 OF 2014 – DECEMBER 14, 2023 – 2023 INSC 1072
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2011/19514/19514_2011_8_1502_49074_Judgement_14-Dec-2023.pdf
Chhote lal vs. Rohtash – 19514_2011_8_1502_49074_Judgement_14-Dec-2023
Further study on the acquittal on technical point
(cases pertaining to accused not connected with the crime)
Acquittal by using procedures available in Cr.P.C and Evidence Act to disprove the prosecution case.
Murder case acquittal: Alcohol presence is in the body and chance of fell from a grown high tree
Murder case acquittal: Strangulation established, but failed to connect the accused with the crime
