Holding

The High Court erred in acquitting Bada; his conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC read with Section 34 is affirmed, while Sawa’s acquittal is upheld and Nana’s conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC and release are confirmed.

Summary

The State of Rajasthan appealed the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment acquitting accused Bada and Sawa and reducing Nana’s conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The trial court had convicted all three under Section 302 read with Section 34 based on the testimony of injured eye‑witnesses PW‑2, PW‑3 and PW‑9. The High Court set aside Nana’s murder conviction, altered it to Section 304 Part II, and acquitted Bada and Sawa, relying on the inconsistency between PW‑1’s FIR statement and his trial testimony. The Supreme Court held that the inconsistency in PW‑1’s statements does not affect the credibility of the other eye‑witnesses, and therefore Bada’s acquittal was unjustified; he was convicted under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 and sentenced to seven years. The Court affirmed Sawa’s acquittal due to lack of any evidence linking him to the assault, and upheld Nana’s conviction under Section 304 Part II and his release after six years of custody.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting accused Bada despite contradictory statements of PW‑1 in the FIR and at trial
Whether the testimony of other eye‑witnesses (PW‑2, PW‑3, PW‑9) remains credible notwithstanding the inconsistency in PW‑1’s statements
Whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction of accused Sawa
Whether the conviction of accused Nana should be altered to Section 304 Part II IPC and whether his release after six years of custody is appropriate

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 149, s. 302, s. 304(Part II), s. 323, s. 324, s. 325, s. 34

Subjects

murderculpable homicide not amounting to murderSection 34 common intentioncontradictory witness statementsFIR credibilityconviction alterationappellate review

Judgment

STATE OF RAJASTHAN A
,,
NANA AND ORS.

AUGUST 2, 2007

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.) ,B

Penal Code, 1860-s. 304 Part II rlw s. 34-Murder-By three accused
alongwith others-Injured eye-witnesses to the incident-Conviction uls 3021
34 by trial court-High Court acquitting two of the accused on the ground C
that version of eye-witnesses were contradictory to the version in FIR and ,
altering conviction of one of the accused to one uls 304 (part 11)134-0n
appeal, held: Acquittal of accused 'B' not justified-All the eye-witnesses
except the one who had lodged FIR, had categorically stated about the role
played by him-Contradictory version in FIR will have no effect on credibility
of their evidence-Accused 'S' was rightly acquitted-Conviction of accused D
'N' was rightly altered to one uls 304 (part-/1)134.

Evidence-Contradictory evidence-Of witnesses-From the version of
FIR-Effect of contradiction-On the credibility of other witnesses-Held:
Statement in FIR is relevant so far as the malu!r of FIR is concerned-It has
no effect on the credibility of evidence of other witnesses-FIR. E
Respondents-accused 'N', '8' and 'S' were charged for offences
punishable u/ss. 302/34, 302/149, 324/149, 325/149 and 323/149 IPC for
having caused death of one person (deceased) and for having caused injuries
to PWs 1,2,3 and 9.
F
PW 1, in the FIR and in his statement during investigation stated that
accused 'S' and 'N' had assaulted the deceased. But during trial PW-1 as
well as PWs 2 and 3 stated that accused 'B' and 'N' had assaulted the deceased.

Trial Court convicted the respondents-accused for the offences charged·
under, placing reliance on the version of the injured witnesses i.e. PWs t, 1, G
3 and 9. In appeal, High Court in view of the contradiction of the statements
_..1.. of the PWs from the version of FIR, acquitted accused '8' and 'S' ofall the
charges and altered the conviction ofaccused 'N' from 302/34 IPC to 304

771 H
~
r
)'

772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 8 S.C.R.

A (part II) 34 IPC. As the accused 'N' had already been in custody for about six '>-
years, High Court directed his release. ..
~

~
!
Partly allowing the appeal so far as it concerned accused 'B' and
dismissing the appeal so far as it concerned the accused 'S' and 'N', the Court i_

B HELD: 1. The evidence of the eye-witnesses PWs 2, 3 and 9 need to be
accepted so far as assault by accused '8' is concerned. In spite of incisive
cross examination, all these witnesses have in clear terms described the role
"·-
of 'B' and accepted that he had assaulted the deceased. The High Court was + .;

right that in the FIR and during investigation PW 1 had stated that 'N' and 't,.
'S' assaulted the deceased. The statement made in the FIR is a factor which I

c is relevant so far as the statement of the maker of the FIR is concerned. It
does not have any effect on the credibility of evidence of the other witnesses
who have at all stages categorically stated about the role played by the accused r
'B'. Therefore merely because there was some difference in the-version of
PW 1 so far as his statement in the court vis-a-vis statement in the FIR is +-
D concerned that does not in any way affect the credible and cogent evidence of
PWs 2 and 3. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in directing ,- }
acquittal of accused 'B'. Acquittal of accused 'B' is set aside and he is convicted
for offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC read with Section 34.
His custodial sentence shall be seven years.
[Paras 7 and 8) (774-F, G, H; 775-A, B, C]
E
2. So far as the role of accused 'S' is concerned, none of the witnesses
had spoken anything about the role played by him. Thatbeing so, his acquittal
is in oi-der. [Para 7) 1775-A)

3. In the case of accused 'N', High Court has indicated detailed reasons y
F as to why according to it, offence was one punishable under Section 304 Part
II IPC. There is no infirmity in the reasons indicated to warrant interference.
His custody was about six years. High Court had rightly directed his release.
[Paras 7 and 81 [775-B-C)

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Cfiminal Appeal No. 817 of
G
2002.

From the .Judgment & Order 23 .8.200 I of the High Court of Judicature
for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in Criminal Jail Appeal No.469of 1997

Naveen Kumar and Aruneshwar Gupta for the Appellant. ..
H
STATEOFRAJASTHANv. NANA[PASAYAT,J.] 773
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. I. State of Rajasthan is in appeal against the
judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur
directing acquittal ofrespondents Sawa and Bada while altering the conviction
of accused respondent Nana from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(in short the 'IPC') read with Section 34 IPC to Section 304 Part II read with B
Section 34 IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. I, Udaipur, in
Sessions case No.50 of 1995 on convicting each of the respondents for
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. I 00/- each. Respondent
Sawa was also convicted for offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. For C
the first offence he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to
fine of Rs. I 00/-, for the latter offence accused respondent Sawa was sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for one year. Two other co- accused were convicted
under Section 323 IPC and were released on probation.

2. Background facts in a nutshell ar~ as follows: D
On the intervening night of 12th and 13th May, 1995 at about half past
12 the accused respondents and co-accused Sundara and Reshma were roaming
in village fair where they met Deeta (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'),
Gena (PW-2), Narsa (PW-3), Uda (PW-5) and Soma (PW-9). There were other
10-12 persons alongwith the accused respondents. Sawa and Nana were E
armed with knives and the remaining were having stones in their hands. The
accused persons came from the side of Devalchora. As soon as they were
spotted by the complainant party the latter ran towards Merpur road, upon
which Bada, Sundara and Reshma threw stones towards them causing injuries
to Gena and Soma felling them down. Deceased and Narsa PW-3 were caught F
by accused persons. Accused respondents Sawa and Nana inflicted knife
injuries on the back of Deeta causing bleeding. In the meantime Narsa (PW-
3) fled towards the fair and was chased. and injured by Bada and Sundara
causing knife injuries by which he fell down bleeding. In the melee Deeta died
and Narsa fell unconscious.
G
A First Information Report (in short the 'FIR') to the above effect was
lodged at 12.45 A.M. on 13.5.1995 by Dhanna (PW- I). Afterusual investigation
five persons were charged and challaned in the court ~elow for offences
punishable under Sections 302/34, 3021149, 324/149, 325/149, 323/149 IPC.

Upon pleading not guilty and claiming trial the prosecution examined 18 H
774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 8 S.C.R.

A witnesses and' exhibited 28 documents. In statements given under Section 313
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') accused persons
denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against them and pleaded
false implication. No defence evidence was produced. Thereafter the learned
trial court convicted and sentenced the accused respondents as stated above.

B 3. The trial court placing reliance on the injured witnesses PW I to 3
and 9 recorded conviction and sentence as noted above. Accused respondent
preferred appeal before the High Court. The High Court was of the view held,
accepting the plea of the respondents that in the FIR and the statement made
during investigation, PW I had stated that accused Nana and Saw a had
C assaulted the deceased. But during trial he stated that the attack was by Nana
and Bada. To similar effect was the evidtrnce of PWs 2 and 3.

4. Above being the position the prose.cution version was pleaded to be
vulnerable. The High Court accepted this plea, directed acquittal of all the
accused who were in custody but so far as Nana is concerned, his conviction
D and sentence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was set aside
instead he was convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC read with Section 34
IPC. y

5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant-State
submitted that the High Court has clearly overlooked the fact that all the eye
E witnesses PWs. 2, 3 & 9 in addition to PW I have stated that attack on the
back of the deceased was by Nana and Bada. The High Court should not
have directed his acquittal. It is further submitted that there was no infinnity
so far as the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is
concerned, as case under Section 302 IPC was clearly made out.
.F 6. There is no appearance of respondent in spite of service of notice.

7. We find that the evidence of the eye witnesses PWs 2, 3 & 9 need
to be accepted so far as assault by accused Bada is concerned. In spite of
incisive cross examination all these '>'{.itnesses have in clear tenns described
G the role of Bada and accepted that he had assaulted the deceased. The High
Court was right that in the FIR and during investigation PW I had stated that
Nana and Sawa assaulted the deceased. The statement made in the FIR is a
factor which is relevant so far as the statement of the maker of the FIR is
concerned. It does not have any l!ffect on the credibility of evidence of the
other witnesses who have as noted above at all stages have categorically
H stated about the role played by the Bada. Therefore merely because there was
i

STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. NANA [PASA YAT, J.] 775
some difference in the version of PW I so far as his statement in the court A
vis-a-vis Statement in the FIR is concerned that does not in any way affect
the credible and cogent offence of PWs 2 and 3. Therefore, the High Court
was not justified in directing acquittal of Bada. But so far as the role of Sawa
is concerned, none of the witnesses had spoken anything about the role
played by him. That being so, his acquittal is in order. The High Court has B
indicated detailed reasons as to why according to it, offence was one
punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. We find no infirmity in the reasons
.. indicated to warrant interference .

8. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent that the acquittal of
accused Bada is set aside and he is convicted for offence punishable under C
Section 304 Part II IPC read with Section 34 as in the case of Nana. In the
case of accused Nana his custody was about six years. Therefore, High Court
had directed his release. The custodial sentence shall be seven years in case
of accused Bada.

9. The appeal so far as respondent Sawa is concerned, stands dismissed. D
I 0. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

K.K.T. Appeal of Bada partly allowed.
Appeals of Sawa and Nana dismissed.