# _ ')< DINESH KUMAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

- **Citation:** [2008] 11 S.C.R. 843
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2008-08-04
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1215 of 2008
- **Bench:** Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Dr. Mukundakam Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dinesh-kumar-v-state-of-rajasthan-23437
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 302, 307, 324, 148,452,323 rlw s.149 - Conviction of c
accused-appellant affirmed by High Court while acquitting four
others - HELD: Even if acquittal is recorded in respect of coaccused, conviction can be recorded in respect of another
accused if evidence against him is found cogent, credible and
truthful - Conviction upheld - Evidence.
D
"'
Evidence:
Testimony of related witnesses - HELD: Mere fact that
witnesses were related to deceased cannot be a ground to discard their evidence if the same is found to be clear, cogent E
and credible - On facts, High Court analysed the testimony of
injured and other eye witnesses and found the same as cogent and credible - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 307, 324,
148, 452, 323 rlw s. 149.
The appellant along with four others was prosecuted
F
.l
for commission of offences punishable under ss.
302,307,324,148, 452,323 r/w s.149 IPC. The prosecution
case was that there was long standing enmity between
the accused party and the complainants. In the night of
occurrence the accused party armed with deadly weapG
ons entered the house of the victims at about 11.QO P.M.
~·
and attacked them. The accused appellant pierced his
sword in the abdomen of one of the victims who suecumbed to his injuries in the hospital. The other accused
843
H
r
844
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008) 11 S.C.R.
I
"-( ,...
A
also were stated to have caused severe injuries to the vietims. The trial court convicted all the five accused of the
f
offences charged. The High Court acquitted four of the
~
accused but dismissed the appeal as regards the appellant.
.B
In the instant appeal filed by the convict, it was contended for the ap·pellant that since four persons were ac-
"1
quitted by the High Court, it should not have maintained
j_
his conviction more particularly when the witnesses were
-~
related .
.. c
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Law is fairly well settled that even if acquit-
...
tal is recorded in respect of co-accused on the ground
..
that there were exaggerations and embellishments, yet
D conviction can be recorded if the evidence is found cogent, credible and truthful in respect of another accused.
...
[para 6] [847-G]
"(
,..:
2.1 The mere fact that the witnesses were related to
E
the deceased cannot be a ground to discard their evidence. In law testimony of an injured witness is given
importance. In the instant case, PWs 7 and 13 were the
injured witnesses and PW-10 was another eye-witness
and was the informant. When the eye-witnesses are stated
F to be interested and inimically deposed towards the accused, it has. to be noted that it would not be proper to
condude thal they would shield the real culprit and rope
.A
in innocent persons. The truth or otherwise of the evid~n·ce h~_s to be weighed pragmatically. The Court would
b~.-required· to analyse the evidence of related witnesses
.G c;tnd those witnesses who are inimically deposed towards
·the accused. But if after careful analysis and scrutiny of
their ~vidence·, the versjon given by the witness appears
to. be clear, cogent and credible, there is no reason to dis-
--rcard the same. Conviction can be made on the basis of
H such evidence. [para 6] [847 -H 848 A,B,C]
t
I
DINESH KUMAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
845
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
-
""'
2.3 In the instant case, the Trial Court and the High A
- ,.,
....
-
y-
-,
Court have analysed the.testimony of PWs 7, 10 and 13 in
great detail. It is revealed that the appellant had inflicted
the first sword blow to the deceased in his abdomen and
he fell on the ground. The sword used in the offence was
recovered at the instance of the appellant and the same B
was found to be stained with same group of human blood,
as that of the deceased. The High Court, however, found
that the role ascribed to the others was.not fully satisfied.
In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the appeal.
[para 6] [848 C,D,E,D]
c

## Text

[2008] 11 S.C.R. 843
,.,_
')<
DINESH KUMAR
A
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
(Criminal Appeal No. 1215 of 2008)
AUGUST 4, 2008
B
)--
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ]
Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 302, 307, 324, 148,452,323 rlw s.149 - Conviction of c
accused-appellant affirmed by High Court while acquitting four
others - HELD: Even if acquittal is recorded in respect of coaccused, conviction can be recorded in respect of another
accused if evidence against him is found cogent, credible and
truthful - Conviction upheld - Evidence.
D
"'
Evidence:
Testimony of related witnesses - HELD: Mere fact that
witnesses were related to deceased cannot be a ground to discard their evidence if the same is found to be clear, cogent E
and credible - On facts, High Court analysed the testimony of
injured and other eye witnesses and found the same as cogent and credible - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 307, 324,
148, 452, 323 rlw s. 149.
The appellant along with four others was prosecuted
F
.l
for commission of offences punishable under ss.
302,307,324,148, 452,323 r/w s.149 IPC. The prosecution
case was that there was long standing enmity between
the accused party and the complainants. In the night of
occurrence the accused party armed with deadly weapG
ons entered the house of the victims at about 11.QO P.M.
~·
and attacked them. The accused appellant pierced his
sword in the abdomen of one of the victims who suecumbed to his injuries in the hospital. The other accused
843
H
r
844
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008) 11 S.C.R.
I
"-( ,...
A
also were stated to have caused severe injuries to the vietims. The trial court convicted all the five accused of the
f
offences charged. The High Court acquitted four of the
~
accused but dismissed the appeal as regards the appellant.
.B
In the instant appeal filed by the convict, it was contended for the ap·pellant that since four persons were ac-
"1
quitted by the High Court, it should not have maintained
j_
his conviction more particularly when the witnesses were
-~
related .
.. c
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Law is fairly well settled that even if acquit-
...
tal is recorded in respect of co-accused on the ground
..
that there were exaggerations and embellishments, yet
D conviction can be recorded if the evidence is found cogent, credible and truthful in respect of another accused.
...
[para 6] [847-G]
"(
,..:
2.1 The mere fact that the witnesses were related to
E
the deceased cannot be a ground to discard their evidence. In law testimony of an injured witness is given
importance. In the instant case, PWs 7 and 13 were the
injured witnesses and PW-10 was another eye-witness
and was the informant. When the eye-witnesses are stated
F to be interested and inimically deposed towards the accused, it has. to be noted that it would not be proper to
condude thal they would shield the real culprit and rope
.A
in innocent persons. The truth or otherwise of the evid~n·ce h~_s to be weighed pragmatically. The Court would
b~.-required· to analyse the evidence of related witnesses
.G c;tnd those witnesses who are inimically deposed towards
·the accused. But if after careful analysis and scrutiny of
their ~vidence·, the versjon given by the witness appears
to. be clear, cogent and credible, there is no reason to dis-
--rcard the same. Conviction can be made on the basis of
H such evidence. [para 6] [847 -H 848 A,B,C]
t
I
DINESH KUMAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
845
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
-
""'
2.3 In the instant case, the Trial Court and the High A
- ,.,
....
-
y-
-,
Court have analysed the.testimony of PWs 7, 10 and 13 in
great detail. It is revealed that the appellant had inflicted
the first sword blow to the deceased in his abdomen and
he fell on the ground. The sword used in the offence was
recovered at the instance of the appellant and the same B
was found to be stained with same group of human blood,
as that of the deceased. The High Court, however, found
that the role ascribed to the others was.not fully satisfied.
In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the appeal.
[para 6] [848 C,D,E,D]
c
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1215 of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 14.5.2007 of
the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Crl.
Appeal No. 176 of 2002
Vijay Singh Charak (A.C.) for the Appellant.
Aruneshwar Gupta, Naveen Kumar Singh and Shashwat
Gupta for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, upholding
conviction recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2,
Fast Track Court, for offences punishable under Sections 302,
307, 324, 148, 452 and Section 323 read with Section 149 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). In all, five persons faced trial. The appeal filed by four others was allowed
and conviction in respect of each one of them was set aside.
They were convicted in terms of Section 302 read with 149 IPC,
307 read with 149, 324/149, 148/452 and 323 IPC. The appelD
E
F
G
H
846
SUPREME .COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
A
lant was sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine
"(
with default stipulations and to suffer 10 years, 1 year, 2 years
and 6 months imprisonment in respect of other offences.
4. Background facts giving rise to the trial are as follows:
B
lnformant-Suresh Kumar (PW-10) submitted a written report (Ex.P-5) at Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, Kata, on "
8.4.2001 at about 3.00 a.m. stating that his house is situated at
Kes.have Nagar, Kata, and .Babu Lal Nai was also residing in
front of his house. There had been long standing enmity bec tween them and many a times they had altercations in the past.
On 7.4.2001 at about 11 O'clock, while the informant and his
family members were sleeping in the house after bolting the
door from inside, the accused Babu Lal Nai along with his wife
Smt. Geeta, and sons Dinesh, Sattu@Satyanarayan and Sonu
D @ Sunil and Smt. Nirmla W/o Shri Dinesh armed with deadly
weapons entered into his house. Chittar Lal, father of the informant (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') enquired from
'x(
the accused as to why they had entered into the house. On this,
Babu Lal Nai and his wife Smt. Geeta exhorted the accused to
E finish them. Dinesh with the sword which he was carrying pierced.
abdomen of Chittar Lal. Babu L.al Nai inflicted injury on the abdomen of Chittar Lal. Uma Shanker and the informant Suresh
Kumar rushed to rescue Chittar Lal. Satyanarayan inflicted blow
with an iron rod on the head of Chittar Lal. Dinesh and
F
Satyanarayan inflicted knife injury to Uma Shankar and Vinod;
while Nirmala W/o Dinesh and Smt. Geeta W/o Babu Lal and
Sonu @ Sunil inflicted injuries to his father and brother with
,..4.
lathies and iron rod. Chittar Lal and Uma Shankar became u.n-.
conscious on the spot. On hearing hue and cry, neighbours also
gathered there. Injured Uma Shankar and Chittar Lal were taken
G to the hospital. Chittar Lal succumbed to the injurie·s while in~
ju red Uma Shankar was admitted to the hospital. On the basis
of the aforesaid report, a case under Section 147, 148, 149,
302. 307, 452 and 323 IPC was registered and investigation
-( ~
commenced. After investigation, charge sheet was filed. In due
H course, the case came up for trial before the learned Additional
•
DINESH KUMAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
847
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
-
y
Sessions Judge No.2 (Fast Tract), Kota. Charges under SecA
tions 148, 452, 302 or 302/149, 307 or 307/149, 324 or 324/
149 and 323 or 323/149 IPC were framed against the appellant and other co-accused who denied the charges and claimed
trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined 18 witnesses. In their explanation under Section 313 of the Code of B
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') the appellant and
other co-accused claimed innocence. Appellant-Dinesh got hirnself examined as DW-1 under Section 315 Cr.P.C. Before the
Trial Court, the primary stand was that there was long standing
enmity between the parties and, therefore, there was false im- c
plication. It was also submitted that appellant was, in fact, assaulted by the complainant party had also suffered injuries and
had lodged a cross case.
Learned Trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated hereinabove.
D
In appeal, the stand was reiterated. The High Court found
""
that though there was some amount of exaggerations so far as
the others are concerned, the evidence of the eye-witnesses
PWs 7, 10 and 13 was credible and cogent and, therefore, disE
missed the appeal so far as the appellant is concerned.
5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when four persons have been acquitted by
the High Court, the conviction of the appellant should not have
been maintained, more particularly, when they are related.
F
Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the other hand,
..
,i
supported the judgment of the High Court.
6. It is to be noted that PWs 7 and 13 were the injured
witnesses and PW-10 was another eye-witness and was the
informant. Law is fairly well settled that even if acquittal is reG
\
corded in respect of co-accused on the ground that there were
exaggerations and embellishments, yet conviction can be re-
""- ..
corded if the evidence is found cogent, credible and truthful in
respect of another accused. The merefact that the witnesses
were related to the deceased cannot be a ground to discard
H
848
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
..._
r
"(
~
A
their evidence. In law testimony of an injured witness is given
·-
importance. When the eye-witnesses are stated to be interested
.--
I
and inimically deposed towards the accused, it has to be noted
r
that it would not be proper to conclude that they would shield the
real culprit and rope in innocent persons. The truth or otherwise
B of the evidence has to be weighed pragmatically. The Court
would be required to analyse the evidence of related witnesses
-;
'-
and those witnesses who are inimically deposed towards the
'
accused. But if after careful analysis and scrutiny of their evidence, the version given by the witness appears to be clear,
c cogent and credible, there is no reason to discard the same.
Conviction can be made on the basis of such evidence. In the
instant case, the Trial Court and the High Court have analysed
the testimony of PWs 7, 10 and 13 in great detail. It is revealed
that the appellant had inflicted the first sword blow to the deD ceased in his abdomen and he fell on the ground. The High
Court, however, found that the role ascribed to the others was
not fully satisfied. The sword used in the offence was recovered
·~
....}-
at the instance of the appellant and the same was found to be
stained with same group of human blood, as that of the der
ceased, as per the FSL report, Exh. P-28. PW-7 stated that when
~
E
he tried to save his father, the deceased also inflicted blows on
him and he sustained injury by sharp edged weapon i.e. the
sword. According to him, the accused inflicted the blow by the
sword on his neck and he fell down. Though, the appellant stated
that he had suffered injuries at the hands of the deceased and
F his sons, as rightly noted by the Trial Court and the High Court,
they were superficial injuries and as the doctor opined, could
J. ...
be self inflicted.
7. Above being the position, we find no merit in this apG peal, which is, accordingly dismissed.
R.P.
Appeal dismissed.
r-,_
..., _,-,
L