Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1946 of 2009

Yogendra @ Yogesh & Ors.             …Appellants

Versus

State of Rajasthan          …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment  

and order dated 3.12.2007, passed by the High Court  of  Rajasthan  

(Jaipur Bench), in Criminal Appeal No.583 of 2003, by way of which  

the High Court has affirmed the judgment and order dated 8.4.2003,  

passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions (Fast Track)  

Judge No.1, Bharatpur, so far as the appellants are concerned. The  

Trial Court therein, had convicted 9 accused, including the present 5  

appellants as under:-

Page 2

Sita Ram and Ramveer, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal  

Code,  1860  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  ‘IPC’).   Yogendra  @  

Yogesh, Rattan Singh, Kalwa, Ranveer, Ghambhir Singh, Paras Ram  

and Balla under Section 302/149 IPC. They have been awarded the  

sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each has been  

imposed on them.  In default of payment of such fine, they have been  

directed  to  suffer  further  Simple  Imprisonment  for  a  period  of  2  

months.  All of them have further been convicted under Section 148  

IPC, and punishments of 7 years’ RI, alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/-  

each,  has  been  imposed  on  them,  and  in  default,  they  have  been  

directed to suffer further SI for 1 month under Section 307/149 IPC.  

The appellants Sita Ram, Ranveer and Yogendra have further been  

convicted under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959, and have been  

awarded the sentence of 3 years’ RI, alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/-  

each, and in default of payment of such fine, they must further suffer  

SI for a period of 1 month.  However, the substantive sentences were  

ordered to run concurrently.

2. The High Court has modified the judgment and order of the  

Trial  Court,  dismissing  the  appeal  of  some  of  the  appellants  and  

convicting Sita  Ram,  Ranveer,  Yogendra,  Ramveer  and Balla.  Sita  

2

Page 3

Ram and Ramveer have been convicted under Section 302/149 IPC,  

instead of Section 302 IPC, and the sentences awarded to them have  

remained the same.  Their conviction under Section 307/149 IPC and  

under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act have remained intact.  Conviction  

and sentence of Yogendra, Ranveer and Balla under Section 302/149  

IPC and 307/149 IPC, and of Ranveer and Yogendra under Section  

3/25  Arms  Act  have  remained  intact.  However,  they  have  been  

acquitted of the charge under Section 148 IPC. The appeals of the  

other accused persons, namely, Ratan Singh, Kalwa, Ghambhir Singh  

and Paras Ram were allowed.

3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:-

A. That Karan Singh and Kewal  Singh of  the same village had  

purchased some land in village Ajan from Shodan Singh and Raghubir  

Singh in the year 1979.  Since then they have been cultivating the said  

land. On 18.10.1999, a written report Ex.P-1 was lodged by Shodan  

Singh (PW.1), at the Police Station Udyog Nagar, Bharatpur, alleging  

that 7-8 days prior to the incident, Karan Singh and others had sown  

some mustard on the said land.  On 18.10.1999 at about 12 noon, the  

complainant party was informed by Shiv Singh, that the mustard that  

had  been  sown  by  them  was  being  removed  by  the  appellants  

3

Page 4

alongwith others, with the help of a tractor.  On receiving the said  

information, the complainant party, i.e.  Karan Singh, Kewal Singh,  

Badan Singh, and a few other family members had proceeded to the  

place of incident. They had seen the accused persons destroying the  

mustard that had been sown by them.  The accused persons had been  

fully  armed  with  lathis,  kattas,  and  farsas.  One  of  them had  been  

armed with a gun.  When the complainant party had tried to stop the  

accused,  Ratan  Singh  had  instigated  the  other  accused  persons  to  

assault the complainant party, and thus, the assault began.  On hearing  

the hue and cry raised as a result of the same, Vijay Pal and few others  

had  reached  the  place  of  occurrence.  Shodan  Singh  (PW.1),  

informant,  had also witnessed the incident,  as he had been coming  

back  from his  fields  at  the  relevant  time.   Some people  from the  

complainant’s side had received firearm injuries.  Some of them had  

also received injuries from lathis and farsas.  The accused had then  

fled away from the scene after injuring 15 people. The injured persons  

had been taken to the hospital.  Veer Pal and Satyendra had suffered  

grievous injuries.  They had been referred to Jaipur, and a case was  

registered against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341,  

447 and 307 IPC, and investigation commenced in this respect.

4

Page 5

B. During the course of the investigation, Veer Pal succumbed to  

his injuries and therefore, Section 302 IPC was also added. His dead  

body was subjected to an autopsy,  and necessary memos had been  

prepared.   Statements  of  witnesses  were  recorded.   The  accused  

persons  were  arrested,  and  on  completion  of  the  investigation,  a  

chargesheet had been filed.  Upon conclusion of the trial, the Trial  

Court had convicted the appellants alongwith several others, as has  

been mentioned hereinabove, vide judgment and order dated 8.4.2003.

C. Aggrieved,  they preferred Criminal  Appeal  No.  583 of  2003  

which  was  disposed  of  vide  impugned  judgment  dated  3.12.2007,  

which acquitted a few people,  but  the conviction of  the appellants  

with  certain  modifications  was  upheld,  as  has  been  referred  to  

hereinabove.

Hence, this appeal.

4. Shri Altaf Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the appellants  

has submitted, that the Trial Court had convicted 9 persons, out of  

which, 4 have been acquitted by the High Court, though they had also  

earlier been convicted on the basis of the same evidence.  Hence, in  

light  of  the same,  the conviction of  the appellants  can also not  be  

sustained,  owing to the fact  that  if  the High Court  has disbelieved  

5

Page 6

certain evidence with respect to 4 of the acquitted accused, the same  

could not  have been relied upon by it,  so far  as  the appellants are  

concerned.  There are material discrepancies and contradictions in the  

evidence of the witnesses.  The same should not therefore, have been  

relied upon.  The judgments of the courts below are liable to be set  

aside.

5. Per contra,  Shri  Ram Naresh  Yadav,  learned counsel  for  the  

State has opposed the appeal, contending that the High Court has re-

appreciated the entire evidence on record, and has thereafter come to  

the conclusion that  the present  appellants  had been responsible  for  

causing the death of one person, and for causing grievous injuries to  

fourteen  others.  Most  of  the  injured  persons  have  appeared  as  

witnesses,  and their  presence  cannot be doubted.   There may be a  

possibility of false implication of some of the accused in the present  

case,  but  the  evidence  of  the  injured  witnesses  deserves  to  be  

accepted.  It is not possible that such injured persons, in a case where  

there has been loss of life, would spare the real culprit, and falsely  

implicate anyone.  Thus, the appeal  lacks merit  and is liable to be  

dismissed.

6

Page 7

6. We  have  considered  the  rival  submissions  made  by  learned  

counsel for the parties, and perused the record.

7. The  Trial  Court  has  examined  the  evidence  on  record  very  

intricately, and after properly appreciating the same, has convicted all  

9 accused.   The High Court,  after  re-appreciating the evidence has  

given 4 accused persons the benefit of doubt, in view of the fact that  

they had not been in possession of any arms.  Both the courts below  

have rejected the theory of self-defence, and have held the appellants  

to  be  aggressors.   The  courts  have  found that  the  presence  of  the  

present appellants at the place of occurrence stands fully established  

beyond any reasonable doubt.  They had in fact been present at the  

place of the incident, and had been armed with a gun and kattas.  The  

complainant party had in contrast,  been entirely unarmed, and they  

had  remained outside the land in dispute and had simply requested  

the appellants and others to not destroy the mustard crops that had  

been sown by them.  Even otherwise, the absence of any injury made  

on the part of any of the assailants except Ghambhir Singh (acquitted  

accused), renders false, the defence’s version. There was no question  

raised regarding how so many injuries could have been caused to so  

many persons.  In the instant case, complainant Shodan Singh (PW.1),  

7

Page 8

and all other injured witnesses have deposed consistently, as regards  

the involvement of the present appellants.  They have also deposed  

that  the appellants  had been heavily armed with weapons,  and had  

caused injuries to the deceased, as well as to the witnesses.

8. The post-mortem on the body of Veer Pal, had been conducted  

on  19.10.1999,  and  the  following  ante-mortem  injuries  had  been  

found on his body:-

(i) Multiple punctured lacerated wound ¼ x ¼ cm oval to round  

shape on (Rt) side lower neck to shoulder and upper part of  

anterior and frontal medial (Rt) side of chest.  

(ii) Punctured lacerated wound has entered (Rt.) side peritoneum to  

(Rt.) liver lobe.  

In  the  opinion of  the  Doctor,  the  cause  of  death  was  shock  

hemorrhage, caused as a result of ante-mortem injuries to the lung and  

liver, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of  

nature.   Duration  of  injuries  was  fresh  before  death,  by  projectile  

firearm weapon gun shot injury.

So far as the other injured persons are concerned, it is evident  

from the record and the evidence provided by the doctors, that Padam  

Singh had two injuries on his person. Satish Kumar also had various  

8

Page 9

wounds  caused  by  trampling.  Radhey  Shyam  had  suffered  two  

injuries.  Maharaj  Singh had on his person,  four injuries which had  

been caused by a fire arm. Injury Nos. 1 & 4 were found to have been  

caused  by a  blunt  weapon.  Chander  Hans  had two injuries  on  his  

person. Bachcho Singh also had two injuries. Similarly, Raj Kumar  

had two injuries, and Vijaypal also had two injuries. Kewal Singh had  

suffered  two injuries  by  a  fire  arm.  Pushpender  had  also  suffered  

grievous injuries caused by a fire arm. Karan Singh had four injuries  

on his person, out of which two injuries were found to be grievous.  

Satyendra had only one injury on his person. The said injuries have all  

been proved by doctor  B.L.  Meena  (PW.18),  and it  has  also  been  

deposed by various doctors,  that  such injuries  were caused by fire  

arm, lathis, sticks and farsas, thus collaborating the deposition of Dr.  

Suman Dutta (PW.24).  

9. The argument advanced by Shri Altaf Hussain, learned counsel  

for  the  appellants,  stating  that  the  evidence  which  has  been  

disbelieved in respect of certain accused, cannot be enough to convict  

the present appellants, has no force.

This  Court,  in  Ranjit  Singh  &  Ors.  v.  State  of  Madhya  

Pradesh, AIR 2011 SC 255, has dealt with a similar issue.  The Court  

9

Page 10

herein, considered its earlier judgments in  Balaka Singh v. State of  

Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1962; Ugar Ahir & Ors., v. State of Bihar,  

AIR 1965 SC 277;  and  Nathu Singh Yadav v.  State of  Madhya  

Pradesh, AIR 2003 SC 4451, and has referred to the doctrine, "falsus  

in uno, falsus in omnibus" and held, that the same has no application  

in India. The court must assess the extent to which the deposition of a  

witness can be relied upon. The court must  make every attempt to  

separate falsehoods from the truth, and it must only be in exceptional  

circumstances,  when  it  is  entirely  impossible  to  separate  the  grain  

from the chaff, for the same are so inextricably entertwined, that the  

entire evidence of such a witness must be discarded.       

10. The  courts  below  have  examined  the  evidence  and  have  

appreciated  the  same in  correct  perspective.  The Trial  Court,  after  

appreciating the medical evidence and the injuries etc. on the persons  

of the injured witnesses, has come to the following conclusions:  

“In  this  case  there  are  a  total  14  injured  persons  of   whom Veerpal has died due to injuries and the injured   Padma  could  not  be  examined  due  to  his  death  and   Kewal  could  not  be  examined  due  to  his  mental   incapacity.  In  the  remaining  injured  persons  PW.1   Shodan  (complainant),  PW.5  Satish,  PW.7  Maharaj   Singh,  PW.10  Bachcho  Singh,  PW.12  Radhey  Shyam,   PW.15 Pushpender, PW.16 Satyendra  and PW.19 Karan   Singh have received injuries due to fire arm and PW.2   

10

Page 11

Raj Kumar, PW.4 Chander Hans and PW.11 Vijay Pal   have  received injuries  by the impact  of  blunt  weapon.   Padma  and  Kewal  who  respectively  expired  and  lost   mental  balance  could  not  be  examined  and  they  have   received fire arm injury.  In the head of injured Karan   Singh and in the finger of his hand grievous injury has   been caused by the impact of a blunt weapon. From the   statement of Karan Singh it is clear that Paras Ram gave   lathi blow on his head and Ghambhir gave farsa blow on   his head and caused injuries thereon and one blow of the   farsa is stated to have landed on his finger also. Both the   injuries in the head and the hand are grievous. Firstly   the medical  examination of Karan Singh was conducted   by Dr. B.L. Meena (PW.18) and found 4 injuries on his   person but after that Karan Singh was treated in the SMS   Hospital  and  from  the  statement  of  PW.35  Dr.   Vivekanand Goswami  it  is  clear  that  on the person of   Karan Singh there were six injuries instead of four and   he  had grievous  injury  on  his  head and there  was a   punctured wound on the middle finger of his left hand.   This injury was also found to be grievous. On the right   hand of Karan Singh there were three trampling wounds   of fire arms.”  

11. The High Court has re-appreciated the evidence on record  and  

considered the case taking into account the gravity of the injuries,  as  

well as the death of Veerpal, and has come to a conclusion as under:  

“From the evidence of Shodan Singh (PW.1), Raj Kumar   (PW.2),  Chandra  Hans  (PW.4),  Satish  Chand  (PW.5),   Shiv Singh (PW.6), Maharaj Singh (PW.7), Foren Singh   (PW.8),  Bachcho  Singh  (PW.10),  Vijay  Pal  (PW.11),   Radhey Shyam (PW.12), Pushpendra (PW.15), Satyendra   Singh  (PW.16)  and  Karan  Singh  (PW.19),  the  fact   situation that emerges may be summarized thus:

11

Page 12

i) As per site plan (Ex.P-9) mustard crop, standing   on  the  land  in  dispute  was  destroyed  by  the   tractor.

ii) As many as 14 member of the complainant party   sustained  injuries.  Veerpal  died  as  a  result  of   injuries received by him.  

iii) Member of complainant party had gone to the land   in question unarmed and asked the accused party   not to disturb mustard crop whereas accused party   had gone with lethal weapons.  

iv) There  is  chequered  history  of  litigation  between   the complainant party and the accused party.

v) Accused Sita Ram and Ranveer had guns whereas   accused Ranveer, Yogendra and Balla had kattas   (country  made pistols)  and they  indiscriminately   opened fire at the members of complainant party.

vi) According  to  Prahlad  Singh  I.O.  (PW.29)  cross   case bearing FIR No.254/99 under sections 447,   323, 341, 147 and 148 IPC was registered against   the  members  of  accused  party.  Ghambhir  Singh   (appellant)  sustained  simple  injuries  that  were   incorporated in injury report (Ex.D.15).”  

 12. The High Court, after re-appreciating the evidence on record,  

has rightly rejected the contention of self-defence that had been  

raised,  and  acquitted  some  of  the  convicted  accused,  giving  

them the benefit of doubt. In light of such a fact-situation, we  

do not see any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned  

judgment.  The  present  appeal  thus  lacks  merit,  and  is  

12

Page 13

accordingly dismissed.  The appellants  are on bail.  Their  bail  

bonds are cancelled, and they are directed to surrender within a  

period  of  four  weeks  from today,  failing  which  the  learned  

Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,  Bharatpur  shall  take  them  into  

custody, and send them to jail to serve out the remaining part of  

their  sentence.   A  copy  of  this  order  be  sent  to  the  CJM,  

Bharatpur by the registry for information and compliance.  

                                                           ……….………………………J.                                                             (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

                                                            ………………………………J.                                                              (DIPAK MISRA)

New Delhi, May 21, 2013  

13