# STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BABLU @ OM PRAKASH

- **Citation:** [2021] 7 S.C.R. 450
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2021-11-24
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No.1475 of 2021
- **Bench:** Uday Umesh Lalit, Ajay Rastogi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-rajasthan-v-bablu-om-prakash-35085
- **Pages:** 29

## Headnote

Appeal against acquittal: Interference with - Prosecution case
that 13 accused along with 10-12 persons armed with weapons,
forcibly entered the house of the informant and hurled abuses,
inflicted informant's brother with injuries who later succumbed to
his injuries - Informant also suffered injuries when he tried to
intervene - Conviction of 13 accused in respect of offences
punishable u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 450 or 450/149, 452 or 452/149,
302 or 302 rw ss. 149, 307 or 307 rw 149 IPC on basis of the eye
witness account - High Court upheld the conviction and sentence
against A2 and A3, however, acquitted the remaining 11 accused -
On appeal, held: Even if the testimony of single witness is found
reliable by the Court, it can be the foundation of the order of
conviction - On facts, evidence of the informant-brother of the
deceased itself would normally be sufficient who received injuries
in the transaction and his presence could not be doubted -
Furthermore, on entirety, consistent and cogent eyewitness account
- Presence of the prosecution witnesses who were examined as
eyewitnesses to the occurrence, cannot be discredited - Five
eyewitnesses testified to the presence and participation of the
accused - Thus, in the face of such clear, consistent and cogent
evidence on record, the High Court not justified in not relying on
the evidence of the eyewitnesses without giving any valid reasons -
Order of acquittal manifestly erroneous and perverse - Accused
A1, A6, A7, A8, A10 and A13 were attributed certain overt acts not
only by PWs 1 and 27 but at least by one more witness, thus, their
acquittal is set aside and order of conviction and sentence is restored
whereas rest of the accused are given benefit of doubt and their
acquittal is confirmed - Penal Code, 1860 - ss 147, 148, 149, 450
or 450/149, 452 or 452/149, 302 or 302 read with ss. 149, 307 or
307 rw 149 - Evidence - Eye-witnesses - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - s. 378.
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 450
450
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
451
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 With regard to the presence of the prosecution
witnesses who were examined as eyewitnesses to the occurrence,
nothing was brought on record to discredit them except the
submission that the presence of PW6-was not spoken to or
adverted by PW24. The fact that one of these witnesses had
suffered injuries in the transaction and the rest of them had taken
the deceased as well as the injured to medical center immediately
after the occurrence lends credibility to the case of the prosecution
unfolded through these eyewitnesses. Nothing has been brought
on record in their cross-examinations to dislodge the credibility
of these witnesses. Even then, this Court may avoid the testimony
of PW6 as his presence was not adverted to by PW24. That leaves
with 5 eyewitnesses who had testified to the presence and
participation of the accused-respondents. [Para 17][437-D-F]
1.2 Even the version of a single witness, if his testimony is
found reliable by the Court, can be the foundation of the order of
conviction. In the instant case, the evidence of PW1-, the brother
of the deceased itself would normally be sufficient. Said witness
had received injuries in the transaction and his presence could
not even be doubted. Additionally, there were four witnesses viz.
PW2, PW24, PW25 and PW27. The chart tabulated shows the
role ascribed to each of the accused. [Para 20][476-F-G]
1.3 In the face of such clear, consistent and cogent evidence
on record, the High Court was not justified in proceeding on the
basis that the eyewitnesses had not named other accused in
specific terms or entertaining any doubt and then recording order
of acquittal. The approach of the High Court was completely
against the settled principles of law and no valid reasons were
given by the High Court as to why the evidence of all the
eyewitnesses could not be relied upon in so far as the role played
by the acquitted accused was concerned. The order of acquittal
recorded by t

## Text

_Characters 0–39,880 of 52,960. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39880 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
450
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
v.
BABLU @ OM PRAKASH
(Criminal Appeal No.1475 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 24, 2021
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Appeal against acquittal: Interference with - Prosecution case
that 13 accused along with 10-12 persons armed with weapons,
forcibly entered the house of the informant and hurled abuses,
inflicted informant's brother with injuries who later succumbed to
his injuries - Informant also suffered injuries when he tried to
intervene - Conviction of 13 accused in respect of offences
punishable u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 450 or 450/149, 452 or 452/149,
302 or 302 rw ss. 149, 307 or 307 rw 149 IPC on basis of the eye
witness account - High Court upheld the conviction and sentence
against A2 and A3, however, acquitted the remaining 11 accused -
On appeal, held: Even if the testimony of single witness is found
reliable by the Court, it can be the foundation of the order of
conviction - On facts, evidence of the informant-brother of the
deceased itself would normally be sufficient who received injuries
in the transaction and his presence could not be doubted -
Furthermore, on entirety, consistent and cogent eyewitness account
- Presence of the prosecution witnesses who were examined as
eyewitnesses to the occurrence, cannot be discredited - Five
eyewitnesses testified to the presence and participation of the
accused - Thus, in the face of such clear, consistent and cogent
evidence on record, the High Court not justified in not relying on
the evidence of the eyewitnesses without giving any valid reasons -
Order of acquittal manifestly erroneous and perverse - Accused
A1, A6, A7, A8, A10 and A13 were attributed certain overt acts not
only by PWs 1 and 27 but at least by one more witness, thus, their
acquittal is set aside and order of conviction and sentence is restored
whereas rest of the accused are given benefit of doubt and their
acquittal is confirmed - Penal Code, 1860 - ss 147, 148, 149, 450
or 450/149, 452 or 452/149, 302 or 302 read with ss. 149, 307 or
307 rw 149 - Evidence - Eye-witnesses - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - s. 378.
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 450
450
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
451
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 With regard to the presence of the prosecution
witnesses who were examined as eyewitnesses to the occurrence,
nothing was brought on record to discredit them except the
submission that the presence of PW6-was not spoken to or
adverted by PW24. The fact that one of these witnesses had
suffered injuries in the transaction and the rest of them had taken
the deceased as well as the injured to medical center immediately
after the occurrence lends credibility to the case of the prosecution
unfolded through these eyewitnesses. Nothing has been brought
on record in their cross-examinations to dislodge the credibility
of these witnesses. Even then, this Court may avoid the testimony
of PW6 as his presence was not adverted to by PW24. That leaves
with 5 eyewitnesses who had testified to the presence and
participation of the accused-respondents. [Para 17][437-D-F]
1.2 Even the version of a single witness, if his testimony is
found reliable by the Court, can be the foundation of the order of
conviction. In the instant case, the evidence of PW1-, the brother
of the deceased itself would normally be sufficient. Said witness
had received injuries in the transaction and his presence could
not even be doubted. Additionally, there were four witnesses viz.
PW2, PW24, PW25 and PW27. The chart tabulated shows the
role ascribed to each of the accused. [Para 20][476-F-G]
1.3 In the face of such clear, consistent and cogent evidence
on record, the High Court was not justified in proceeding on the
basis that the eyewitnesses had not named other accused in
specific terms or entertaining any doubt and then recording order
of acquittal. The approach of the High Court was completely
against the settled principles of law and no valid reasons were
given by the High Court as to why the evidence of all the
eyewitnesses could not be relied upon in so far as the role played
by the acquitted accused was concerned. The order of acquittal
recorded by the High Court is found to be completely unjust and
its conclusion is totally against the record. In these appeals against
acquittal, therefore, this Court is not persuaded to go by the order
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BABLU @ OM PRAKASH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
452
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
of acquittal passed by the High Court as the same, was manifestly
erroneous and perverse. [Para 21][476-H; 477-A-C]
1.4 Considering the entirety of the material on record,
emerges the consistent and cogent eyewitness account on record
through PWs 1 and 27, which was well supported by PWs 2, 24
and 25. The evidence of PW6 has not been taken into account.
[Para 22][477-C-D]
1.5 As there was an earlier incident just four days prior to
the occurrence in question, in order to lend complete assurance
and as a matter of prudence, a criteria may be adopted where, if
any of the eyewitnesses (other than PW6), apart from and in
addition to PWs 1 and 27 had adverted to and attributed overt
acts to any of the accused, the role of such accused can be taken
to have been established beyond any doubt. The principle in
Masalti's case would get attracted where apart from attribution
of presence, nothing more was attributed by way of any overt act.
However, in the facts of the instant case; and to rule out any
possibility of over-implication, this criteria is adopted, more
particularly because the matter in appeals against acquittal. Thus,
accused A1, A6, A7, A8, A10 and A13 are those who were
attributed certain overt acts not only by PWs 1 and 27 but at
least by one more witness, whereas, the role attributed to the
rest of them was only by PWs 1 and 27 without any other
eyewitnesses apart from PW6, deposing about the role played by
them. In the circumstances, these appeals are allowed against
original accused A1, A6, A7, A8, A10 and A13 while rest of the
accused-respondents are given benefit of doubt and their
acquittal, as recorded by the High Court is confirmed. The order
of conviction and sentence recorded against original accused A1,
A6, A7, A8, A10 and A13 by the Trial Court is thus restored.
[Paras 23, 24][477-F-H; 478-A-B]
Masalti v. State of U.P. [1964] 8 SCR 133; State of
Maharashtra v. Ramlal Devappa Rathod and Others
(2015) 15 SCC 77 : [2015] 11 SCR 357 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1964] 8 SCR 133
referred to
Para 18, 23
[2015] 11 SCR 357
referred to
Para 19
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
453
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1475 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.12.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Criminal Appeal
No.1191 of 2017.
With
Criminal Appeal Nos.1476-1481, 1482, 1484, 1485, 1486 and 1483
of 2021.
Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Vishal Meghwal, Milind Kumar, Ms.
Archana Pathak Dave, Kumar Prashant, Parmod Kumar Vishnoi, Advs.
for the Appellant.
Aditya Kr. Choudhary, Deepak Chauhan, Gurmehar Vaan Singh,
Vivek, Vaibhav Prasad Deo, Babu Malayil, Rajesh Singh Chauhan,
Randhir Kumar Ojha, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are preferred by:
i) State of Rajasthan (appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition
(Crl.) Nos.8676 of 2019, 9003 of 2019, 9004 of 2019, 9124 of 2019,
D.No.32279 of 2019 and D.No.31873 of 2019); and
ii) Sunil S/o. Govindram, the original informant (appeals arising
out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)Nos.8677-8682 of 2019):-
challenging the acquittal of 11 accused persons namely Radhey
Shyam alias Golu (A1), Ramu alias Ram Singh (A4), Bablu alias Om
Prakash (A5), Jeetu alias Jeetmal (A6), Ghan Shyam alias Pintu (A7),
Rajendra (A8), Ram Gopal (A9), Sattu alias Satya Narain (A10), Kaptan
(A11), Bhuria alias Dhara Singh (A12) and Ranjeet (A13) by the High
Court1 vide its judgment and final order dated 04.12.2018 in D.B. Criminal
Appeal Nos.179 of 2018, 832 of 2017, 946 of 2017, 993 of 2017, 1123 of
2017, 1191 of 2017, 1475 of 2017 and 26 of 2018.
1 High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BABLU @ OM PRAKASH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
454
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
3. 13 persons, i.e. aforementioned 11 acquitted accused and 2
convicted accused [Rajendra alias Tanti (A2) and Janak Singh (A3)]
were tried in Sessions Case No.80 of 2013 on the file of the Trial Court2
in respect of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 450 or
450/149, 452 or 452/149, 302 or 302 read with Sections 149, 307 or 307
read with 149 of the IPC3.
4. The gist4 of the First Information Report(FIR No.75 of 2012) in
respect of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323
and 307 IPC, lodged at the instance of Sunil S/o. Govindram (later
examined as PW1) registered with Police Station Kaithun on 08.03.2012
was to the following effect:-
"An FIR was registered on a written report made by complainant
Sunil on 8.3.2012. It was stated that apart from him, Dhanpal,
Madanpal, Narayan, Tulsi, Kalu Meena and Roop Singh Pahalwan
were sitting at his residence on the festival of Holi. At that time,
the accused Rajendra, Janak, Ramu @ Ramsingh, Vijendra, Pintu,
Golu, Mukat, Tanti @ Rajendra, Ramgopal, Atar, Dinesh, Bhuria
@ Dharasingh residents of Ganeshpura and Sukhpal resident of
Ummedganj and Kashiram along with 10-12 persons came
equipped with the weapons. They entered into complainant's house
and attacked Dhanpal. Accused Rajendra and Pritam caused a
blow by a sword, whereas, Janak has been assigned Gandasi and
caused injury to Dhanpal. Other accused Ramgopal, Tanti,
Satyanarayan, Bablu, Golu, Pintu, Dinesh and Sukhpal also caused
injuries to Dhanpal. Accused Mukut, Bhuria @ Dharasingh, Atar,
Hansraj, Vijendra, bablu and Satyanarayan caused head injury to
complainant."
5. The initial medical attention to said Dhanpal was given by PW19
Dr. Krishna Hari Sharma.However, Dhanpal died during the course of
treatment whereafter the offence under Section 302 IPC was added.
Informant PW1 Sunil was medically examined and treated by
PW17 Dr. P.P. Bansal.
2 Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Act, Kota, Rajasthan
3 The Indian Penal Code, 1860
4 As recorded by the High Court in the judgment under appeal.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
455
6. The post-mortem on the body of Dhanpalwas conducted by
PW30Dr. Rakesh Sharma on 09.03.2012 who found following ante
mortem injuries over the body of the deceased:
"Injury No.1:- Stitched wound sized 9 Cms long present on the
left side of head.
Injury No.2:- 03 stitched wounds sized respectively 7 Cms, 6 Cms
and 4 Cms long present on the rear part of the head.
Injury No.3:- Stitched wound sized 1 Cms long present on the
right side of the head.
Injury No.4:- Thin abrasion mark sized 1 Cms long present on the
right side of neck.
Injury No.5:- Abrasion 1 X 1 Cms present on the right shoulder.
Injury No.6:- Abrasion sized 2 X 1 Cms present on the right elbow.
Injury No.7:- Abrasion sized 1 X 3 Cms present on the spine.
Injury No.8:- Abrasion sized 1 X 1/2Cms present on the left elbow.
Injury No.9:- Abrasion sized 1 X 1 Cms present on the left forearm.
Injury No.10:- Abrasion sized 1 X 1 Cms present on both knees.
Injury No.11 :- Abrasion sized 1 X 1/2Cms present on the right
leg.
Injury No.12:- Abrasion sized 1 X 1 Cms present on the left leg.
Injury No.13:- Scalp Hematoma was found present on both sides
of head and found hematoma present on the rear part of the head.
Injury No.14:- Left parietal bone was found fractured.
Injury No.15:- Subdural Hematoma was found present on the left
parietal part of the brain.
Injury No.16:- The brain matter had turned reddish and was
swollen."
According to the medical opinion, the death ofDhanpal was due
to coma caused by the injuries caused upon him immediately prior
to his death.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BABLU @ OM PRAKASH
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
456
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
7. During the course of investigation, following recoveries were
made pursuant to disclosure statements of some of the accused:-
PWs
Name of Witness
Recovery
At whose
instance
PW7
DevkrishanGurjar
Iron Pipe
A1

Stick
A7
Iron Rod
A6
PW8
Jagdish Gurjar
Iron Pipe
A1

Stick
A7
PW9
Pawan
Iron Pipe and
Motor Cycle
A2
Gandasi
and
Motor Cycle
A3
PW10
Radheshyam
Iron Pipe and
Motor Cycle
A2
Gandasi
and
Motor Cycle
A3
PW11
Rafiq
Iron Pipe
A10
PW12
Naresh
Iron Pipe
A10
PW14
Suresh
Iron Rod
A6
PW15
Devilal
Iron Rod
A4
Iron Rod
A12
PW16
Deewansingh
Iron Rod
A4
Iron Rod
A12
PW20
Hiralal
Iron Rod
A5
PW21
Harisingh
Iron Rod
A5
PW22
Bharat
Iron Rod
A5
PW23
Dharamsingh
Iron Pipe
A5
8. After completion of investigation and committal of the case to
the Court of Sessions, charges were framed against 13 accusedpersons
named earlier, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 147,
148, 149, 450 (alternatively under Section 450 read with Section 149),
452 (alternatively under Section 452 read with Section 149), Section 302
(alternatively under Section 302 read with Section 149) and 307
(alternatively under Section 307 read with Section 149) IPC.
9. The prosecution examined 40 witnesses in support of its case
and produced 77 documents while the defense examined one witness
and produced nine documents in support of its case.
10. PW-1 Sunil son of Govind Ram, the brother of the deceased
stated about the incident as under:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
457
"Incident pertains to dated 08.03.2012 time at 1:30-2:00 PM in
the afternoon when it was the festival of Dhulandi and me and
my brother Dhanpal, Madan Pal, Jai Narain, Tulsi Ram, Kalu
Meena, Roop Singh Pehalwan were sitting in the house and were
talking to each other when just at that time people form
Ganeshpura&Prehladpura wherein Rajendra, Janak, Ramualias
Ram singh, Vijendra, Pritam son of Rajendra, cousin brother Jeetu,
Golu, Mukut, Rajendra alias Tanti, Ram Gopal, Satya Narain,
BhuriaaliasDhara Singh, Atar, Dinesh, Sukhpal, Ranjeet, Kaptan
along with 10-12 other persons conspiringly loaded with weapons
forcefully entered inside the house and with the intention to kill
attacked with sword and gandasa upon the head of my brother
Dhanpal. Rajendra attacked with the sword and Janak attacked
with the gandasa, Pritam with the gandasa and persons named
Ram Gopal, Tanti alisa Rajendra, Satya Narain, Bablu, Jeetu, Golu,
Ranjeet, Dinesh, Sukhpal also assaulted Dhanpal by wielding with
the blows of rod and pipe. Thereafter they dragged my brother to
the Gurudwara from there and where also the said persons assaulted
my brother. When I, went there for intervening upon which Mukut,
Bhuria, Atar, Hansraj, Jitendra, Kaptan assaulted me also with
the rod and pipe and Bablu and Satya Narain with the sword upon
me. Thereafter which on hearing the noise of quarrel we were
saved by my brother and other persons present on the spot. The
said persons ran away towards Ganeshpura after committing
assault."
The witness was crossexamined by six different counsel who
appeared for the accused. When questioned about the injuries suffered
by him and the medical attention given to him, PW-1 stated:
"This incident was of one and half - two o'clock in the day. It is
incorrect to say that we may have directly gone to Sudha Hospital
from there. Himself said firstly we had gone to M.B.S. Thereafter
we had gone to Sudha Hospital. He stated himself that from there
he was referred to Sudha Hospital. There were three injuries on
my head, for this reason I was referred. There were other injuries
on my hands and legs, injuries were there on my back also. My
treatment continued for two hours in M.B.S. Hospital, thereafter
I was referred to Sudha Hospital. All the three injuries on my
head were of sword. The injuries on my head were caused when
I had come to save my brother. I was inside the house itself. It is
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BABLU @ OM PRAKASH
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
458
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
correct that I had come out to save my brother from inside. It is
correct that no injury was caused to me inside the house. The
place where the beating had taken place, that place is about 40
feet open space. Himself said that the beating had taken place in
the chowk. It is correct that on the day of Dhaulandi festival I
was sitting inside my room, my brother was walking in the chowk.
In the near about of my house there is the house of Panna Lal
Ghansi on the other side. There are 3 rooms, kitchen, latrine,
bathroom, 80 feet garden and 12 feet wide gallery in my house. It
is correct that there is rasta in front of our house, wherein there is
a tiraha (three way joint), and there is the house of Prabhu Dayal
nearby. All the three injuries were sustained at one place in my
house. The injuries by sword were hit on my head by Satya
Narayan and Bablu."
11. Apart from PW1-Sunil Kumar, who was injured in the
transaction, Madanpal (PW2), Narain alias Jainarayan (PW6) Prakash
alias Kalu (PW24), Roop Singh (PW25) and Tulsi Ram (PW27) were
examined by the prosecution as eye-witnesses to the occurrence.
Evidence of these eye witnesses was completely consistent with
that of PW1 Sunil except for certain minor variations.
A. PW2-Madanpal stated:-
"On coming they shouted abuses at the house of Sunil then
Dharmapal said that I will come on advising them you sit inside.
No sooner Dharmapal went outside then these persons started
beating Dharmapal and from there dragging Dharmapal took
him to Gurudwara which is in front. Janak, Tanti, Ranjit,
Rajendra, Pritam, Govind, Pintu, Bablu, Jeetu, Ram Singh,
Dhara Singh who were part of those persons started giving
beating to Dharmapal. Janak hit injury on the head of
Dharmapal with Gandasi. Tanti hit on the head of Dharmapal
with iron rod, then Rajendra and Pritam hit on the head of
Dharmapal with swords and Golu also hit injury on the head of
Dhanpal, the rest of the accused persons had iron rods and
woods with them with which they did beating with Dhanpal
and these very persons also did beating with Sunil also. Lot of
blood was bleeding out from the head of both of them. Thinking
Dharmapal to have died the accused persons ran away on
their motor cycles. Then we putting Sunil and Dhanpal in the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
459
vehicle of Sunil brought them to Kaithun Hospital, where after
seeing Dharmapal doctors referred him to other Hospital and
did not admit him in Kaithun Hospital. After that we took
Dharmapal directly to M.B.S.H., Kota, after this on treatment
not being given we took Dharmapal to Sudha Hospital, where
got Dharmapal admitted and got the treatment done. After that
in the morning at 5.00 on 9/3/12 the doctors declared him
dead...."
B. PW6-Narayan @ Jai Narayan deposed:-
"On 8/03/2012 Rajendra Singh, Janak, Tanti @ Rajendra Singh,
RadheyShyam, Ghanshyam, Gopal, Sattu, Dharasingh, Jeetu
20-25 persons of the same family, all these persons had come
to Charan Chowki, Motipura, where there is house of my
brother Sunil, and started hurling abuses on the date, entered
the house and started doing beating and dragged my brother
Dharampal to outside. All started beating Dharmapal and Sunil.
They attacked with speed and treating Sunil and Dharmapal to
have died left them. ..."
C. The version given by PW24-Prakash alias Kalu was:
"...all these persons, out of whom Rajendra Singh, who was
identified by the witness in Court, Janak, Rajendra, Tanti,
Kaptan, Kallu @ Satya Narayan, Jetu and many other persons
were there, whom I know by face, do not know their names,
entered the house of Sunil and did beating with Sunil Bhai Sahab
and carried him dragging towards the Gurudwara. In the
meantime I, Sunil, Madanpal, Tulsi, Roop Singh Pahalwan we
all came out. When Sunil had gone to intervene then they did
beating with Sunil, Rajendra with sword, Janak with gandasi,
Rajendra @ Tanti with iron pipe and all other persons did rapid
beating with them. Those persons assuming Dhanpal bhai
sahab to be dead ran away taking motor cycle, then taking
Dhanpal Bhai sahab and Sunil we had gone to Kaithun Hospital.
There because of the doctor not being available we took them
to M.B.S. Hospital, Kota, where also because of delay in the
treatment we took him to private Hospital Sudha Hospital.
Where death of Dhanpal Bhai Sahab took place in the night.
The treatment of Sunil was going on. There were several
injuries on the head of Sunil and on the head and body of
Dhanpal..."
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BABLU @ OM PRAKASH
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
460
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
D. PW25-Roop Singh deposed:-
"...As soon as Dhanpal reached near the gate, all these persons
took him taking out of the house and giving beating upto the
road. They had pipe, sword, Gandasis with them, with which
they had attacked Dhanpal. Sword was in the hand of
Rajendra, Gandasi was in the hand of Janak and pipe was with
Tanti @ Rajendra, we all together had protected Dhanpal.
These persons treating Dhanpal and Sunil to have died ran
away. We also had gone to Kaithun Hospital taking Dhanpal
and Sunil in injured condition, Narayan, Tulsi, Kalu had taken
them to Hospital. ..."
E. PW27-Tulsiram in his examination stated:-
"I, Narayan, Sunil, Madanpal, Roopsingh, Prakas @ Kalu were
sitting at the house of Sunil and were eating pakodis, and were
applying gulal to one another. At about one and half - two
o'clock residents of Prahladpura and Ganehpura Rajendra,
Rajendra @ Tanti, Janak, Ram Gopal, Sattu, Ram Singh @
Ramu, Dhara Singh @ Bhuria, Satya Narayan @ Sattu, Ranjit,
Golu @ RadheyShyam, Pintu @ Ghanshyam, Bablu, Jeetmal
@ Jeetu, all these persons came to the house of Sunil. All of
them were armed with arms. Janak had Gandasi, Rajendra @
Tanti has iron pipe, Rajendra had sword, Ramgopal had iron
rod with him, Golu had iron pipe, Pinto had wood and otherx
also had woods with them and had iron pipes also. They started
hurling abuses from outside the house of Sunil and said come
out today we will play holi of blood. Dhanpal told us you stop I
will satisfy them. Just at that time these persons came inside
the house and all of them started beating Dhanpal. Janak hit
with Gandasi on the head of Dhanpal. Rajendra hit with sword
on the head of Dhanpal, Tanti had hit with iron pipe, Ram Gopal
also attacked on the head of Dhanpal with iron pipe and dragging
they took Dhanpal near the Gurudwara. When Sunil came to
intervene then these persons also started attacking on them.
Taking Dhanpal to have died these persons went from there
then we took Dhanpal and Sunil to the hospital. From M.B.S.
we took these persons to Sudha Hospital. There during the
course of treatment the death of Dhanpal occurred."
12. The involvement of every accused as deposed by the
eyewitnesses and the role ascribed to each of the accused can be
tabulated as under:-
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
461
Accused

Role Ascribed
Witness
A1
RADHEY
SHAM alias
GOLU
Entered the house
PW1
Hurled abuses.
Hit
on
Dhanpal's
head,
dragged
Dhanpal
till
Gurudwara which was
100 steps away from the
house, took PW1 to the
Gurudwara.
PW2
Came to the house, Hurled
Abuses, Hit on Dhanpal's
head, dragged Dhanpal from
the house to Gurudwara
which was 100 steps
away, hit PW1.
PW6
Entered the house armed
with Iron Pipe, hiton the
heads of PW1
and Dhanpal.
PW27
A2
RAJENDRA
Entered
the
house,
carrying
iron
pipe,
assaulted
Dhanpal,
inflicted blows of rod on
the hands, legs, knees
and body of Dhanpal,
dragged Dhanpal from
the house to Gurudwara
which was 100 steps
away, assaulted PW1
inside the house as well
as outside the house.
PW1
Hurled abuses. Hit on
Dhanpal's
head,
dragged Dhanpal till
Gurudwara which was
100 steps away from the
house, took PW1 to the
Gurudwara.
PW2
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BABLU @ OM PRAKASH
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
462
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
Came to the house,
Hurled
Abuses,
hit
Dhanpal on head with
Iron Rod, hit PW1,
dragged Dhanpal from
house to Gurudwara, ran
towards PW6 to hit him.
PW6
Entered PW1's house
and did beating with
Dhanpal with fists and
legs and carried him to
Gurudwara, hit PW1
with iron pipe, hit
Dharampal with iron
pipe.
PW24
Hurled
abuses
at
Dhanpal, Came to gate
and hit Dhanpal inside
the house, hit Dhanpal
PW25
Entered
the
house
armed with Iron Pipe
and hit on Dhanpal's
head, hit on the heads of
PW1 and Dhanpal.
PW27
A3
SINGH
Entered
the
house,
attacked Dhanpal with
gandassa,
dragged
Dhanpal from the house
to Gurudwara which
was 100 steps away.
PW1
Hurled abuses. Hit on
Dhanpal's
head,
dragged Dhanpal till
Gurudwara which was
100 steps away from the
house, took PW1 to the
Gurudwara.
PW2
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
463
Came to the house,
Hurled
Abuses,
hit
Dhanpal on head with
Gandasi,
hit
PW1,
dragged Dhanpal from
house to Gurudwara, ran
towards PW6 to hit him.
PW6
Entered PW1's house
and did beating with
Dhanpal with fists and
legs and carried him to
Gurudwara, hit PW1
with
gandasi,
hit
Dharampal with iron
pipe.
PW24
Hurled
abuses
at
Dhanpal, Came to gate
and hit Dhanpal inside
the house, hit Dhanpal
with gandasi, hit on
Dhanpal's head.
PW25
Entered
the
house
armed with gandasi and
hit on the head of
Dhanpal, hit on the
heads of
PW1
and
Dhanpal.
PW27
A4
RAMU alias
RAM
SINGH
Entered
the
house,
dragged Dhanpal from
the house to Gurudwara
which was 100 steps
away.
PW1
Entered
the
house
armed
with
iron
pipe/wood stick, hit on
the heads of PW1 and
Dhanpal
PW27
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BABLU @ OM PRAKASH
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
464
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
A5
BABLU
aliasOM
PRAKASH
Assaulted
Dhanpal,
attacked PW1 when he
intervened,
dragged
Dhanpal from the house
to Gurudwara which are
100 steps away, caused
injuries on front side
PW1's head
PW1
Entered
the
house
armed
with
iron
pipe/wood stick, hit on
the heads of PW1 and
Dhanpal.
PW27
A6
JEETMAL
Entered
the
house,
assaulted
Dhanpal,
dragged Dhanpal from
the house to Gurudwara
which was 100 steps
away.
PW1
Came to the house,
Hurled Abuses,hit PW1
PW6
Entered PW1's house
and did beating with
Dhanpal with fists and
legs and carried him to
Gurudwara, attacked
Dhanpal and PW1
PW24
Entered
the
house
armed
with
iron
pipe/wood stick, hit on
the heads of PW1 and
Dhanpal
PW27
A7
GHAN
alias PINTU
Entered
the
house,
dragged Dhanpal from
the house to Gurudwara
which was 100 steps
away
PW1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
465
Hurled abuses. Hit on Dhanpal's

head,
dragged
Dhanpal till Gurudwara which was
100 steps away from the house, took
PW1 to the Gurudwara.
PW2
Came to the house, Hurled
Abuses,gave
beating to Dhanpal, hit PW1
PW6
Entered the house armed with wood
stick, hit on
the heads of PW1 and Dhanpal
PW27
A8
RAJENDRA Entered
the
house,
Attacked
Dhanpal on head with
sword,
caused injury with swordon the
backside of Dhanpal's
head,
dragged Dhanpal from the house to
Gurudwara
which was 100 steps away
PW1
Gave Dhanpal one blow on the head
PW2
Hurled Abuses, hit Dhanpal on head
with swords, hit PW1
PW6
Entered PW1's house and did
beating with Dhanpal with fists and
legs and carried him to Gurudwara,
hit PW1 with sword, hit
Dharampal with sword
PW24
Hurled abuses at Dhanpal, Came to
gate and hit Dhanpal inside the
house, hit Dhanpal
with sword, hit on Dhanpal's head
PW25
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BABLU @ OM PRAKASH
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
466
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
Entered the
house armed
with sword and hit on
Dhanpal's
head, inflicted
injuries on PW1 with sword,
hit on the heads of PW1
and
Dhanpal
PW27
A9
RAM

Entered the house, assaulted
Dhanpal, dragged Dhanpal
from
the house to Gurudwara
which
was
100
steps
away
PW1
Came
to
the
house,
Hurled Abuses, hit PW1
PW6
Entered the
house armed
with iron rod and hit on
Dhanpal's head,
hit on the heads of PW1 and
Dhanpal
PW27
A10
SATYA
NARAIN
Entered the house, assaulted
Dhanpal,
attacked
PW1
when
he
intervened,
dragged Dhanpal from the
house to Gurudwara which
was 100 steps away,
caused injuries on PW1's
head
PW1
Came to the house, Hurled
Abuses,hit PW1
PW6
Entered PW1's house and
attacked Dhanpal and carried
him to
Gurudwara, attacked PW1
and Dhanpal
PW24
Entered the
house armed
with iron pipe/wood stick,
hit on the heads of PW1
and
Dhanpal
PW27
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
467
A11
KAPTAN
Entered the house, attacked
PW1 when he intervened,
ragged Dhanpal from the
house to Gurudwara which
was 100 steps away
PW1

Entered PW1's house and
did beating with Dhanpal
with fists and legs and
carried him to
Gurudwara, attacked PW1
and Dhanpal
PW24
A12
BHURIA
alias
SINGH
Entered the house, attacked
PW1 when he intervened
PW1

Came to the house, Hurled
Abuses,hit PW1
PW6

Entered the
house armed
with iron pipe/wood stick,
hit on
the heads of PW1 and
Dhanpal
PW27
A13
RANJEET
Entered the house,
assaulted Dhanpal
PW1

Hurled
abuses.
Hit
on
Dhanpal's
head,
dragged
Dhanpal
till
Gurudwara
which was 100 steps away
from the house, took PW1 to
the Gurudwara.
PW2

Hurled
Abuses,
gave
beating
to
Dhanpal, hit
PW1,
dragged
Dhanpal
from house
to
Gurudwara,
ran
towards PW6 tohit him
PW6

Entered the
house armed
with iron pipe/wood stick,
caught Dhanpal, hit on the
heads of PW1 and Dhanpal
PW27
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BABLU @ OM PRAKASH
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
468
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
13. The medical evidence on record was unfolded byi) PW17Dr. P.P. Bansal who had treated PW1 Sunil, ii) PW19-Dr. Krishna Hari
Sharma who had initially treated Dhanpal and iii) PW30-Dr. Rakesh
Sharma who had conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased
Dhanpal.
PW36-Dr.Vivek Goel was also examined in respect of injuries
suffered by Accused Nos.1,2 and 7.
14. The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 19.04.2017
passed order of conviction against all 13 accused as under:-
"Therefore in overall view of aforesaid analysis and in view of
the citations the prosecution has completely succeeded in proving
far from reasonable doubts the offences u/s 147, 148, 149, 450 or
450/149, 302 or 302 r/w sections 149, 307 or 307 r/w section 149
IPC against the accused persons RadheyShyam alias Golu,
Rajendra alias Tanti, Janak Singh, Ramu alias Ram Singh, Bablu,
Jeetu alias Jeetmal, GhanShyam alias Pintu, Rajendra, Ram Gopal,
Sattu alias Satya Narain, Kaptan, Bhuria alias Dhara Singh and
Ranjeet. Accordingly, it appears justified for holding the aforesaid
accused persons guilty of the charges for the commission of
aforesaid offences and also it appears justified for acquitting the
aforesaid accused persons of the charges for the offences u/s
452 or 452/149 IPC."
By the order of sentence passed on the same day, the Trial Court
sentenced all 13 accused persons as under:-
"(1)
Aforesaid accused persons are held convicted for the
chargeu/s 147 IPC and are sentenced with 2 years of
rigorous imprisonment.
(2)
Aforesaid accused persons are held convicted for the
chargeu/s 148 IPC and are sentenced with 2 years of
rigorous imprisonment and each accused is punished with
a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of failure to deposit the
fine each accused to undergo an additional simple
imprisonment of one month.
(3)
Aforesaid accused persons are held convicted for the
charge u/s 450 or 450/149 IPC and are sentenced with 7
years of rigorous imprisonment and each accused is
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
469
punished with a fine of Rs.10000/- and in default of failure
to deposit the fine each accused to undergo an additional
simple imprisonment of two months.
(4)
Aforesaid accused persons are held convicted for the
charge u/s 302 IPC and are sentenced with a life
imprisonment and each accused is punished with a fine of
Rs.30000/-and in default of failure to deposit the fine each
accused to undergo an additional simple imprisonment of
six months.
(5)
Aforesaid accused persons are held convicted for the
charge u/s 307 IPC and are sentenced with 7 years of
rigorous imprisonment and each accused is punished with
a fine of Rs.10000/- and in default of failure to deposit the
fine each accused to undergo an additional simple
imprisonment of two months.
All the sentences of the accused persons to run concurrently.
The duration of custody already undergone by the accused persons
in police custody/judicial custody to be adjusted in their duration
of final sentence. Warrant of sentence of the accused persons to
be accordingly prepared."
14.1 The evidence led by the prosecution through the eyewitnesses
account of PW1-Sunil Kumar, PW2-Madanpal, PW6-Narain alias
Jainarayan, PW24-Prakash alias Kalu, PW25-Roop Singh and PW27Tulsiram was found by the Trial Court to be trustworthy. The submission
advanced on behalf of the accused with regard to PW6-Narain alias
Jainarayan was dealt with by the Trial Court as under:-
"In the sequence of the said witness it was contended by the
Counsel during the arguments that the said witness is not the
witness of crime scene and has been planted and his presence is
not corroborated by PW-24 Prakash alias Kalu and he arrived at
the crime scene after the occurrence of incident and in the said
relation PW-29 Chhagan Singh, Investigation Officer, has also
disclosed that during his investigation he did not find the said
witness as the eyewitness. In the said sequence, the facts and the
contentions rendered by the Investigation Officer and the Counsels
are not found appropriate. On perusing the testimonies rendered
by other witnesses in relation to the said fact wherein the
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BABLU @ OM PRAKASH
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
470
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
examination-in-chief of PW-1 Sunil itself he has disclosed the
presence of Jai Narain inside his house. In the report Exhibit P1 also he has disclosed the presence of Jai Narain inside his house
at the time of occurrence of incident and the said fact has also
been corroborated during his deposition before the Court and which
has not been contradicted in any manner. Similarly has
corroborated the presence of Jai Narain during his crossexamination and had brought him to the hospital after lifting him.
......"
15. All 13 convicted accused, being aggrieved, filed aforesaid D.B.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 179 of 2018, 832 of 2017, 946 of 2017, 993 of
2017, 1123 of 2017, 1191 of 2017, 1475 of 2017 and 26 of 2018 in the
High Court. The High Court by its Judgment, presently under challenge,
affirmed the conviction and sentence recorded against Rajendra alias
Tanti (A2) and Janak Singh (A3) but acquitted all other 11 accused
persons of the charges levelled against them. It was observed by the
High Court:-
"The argument of learned counsel for the appellants is about over
implication and false implication of other accused, who have not
been assigned any specific injury to the injured and deceased even
by eyewitnesses. It is true that when the FIR was registered,
names of nineteen accused were given apart from involvement
of 10-12 other persons. The police did not file charge-sheet against
seven accused out of nineteen, though charge-sheet against
Ranjeet, who was not named in the FIR, was filed. It is after
making investigation of the case. On the strength of the aforesaid,
we need to find out a case of over-implication, rather, for that, to
look into the evidence led by the prosecution.
...
...
 ...
We find that the prosecution even produced independent witnesses
PW/25 Roopsingh, who has supported the prosecution case and,
accordingly, corroborated the statement of PW/1 Sunil Kumar.
In view of the above, the prosecution could lead evidence to prove
participation of Janak Singh, Pritam and Rajendra @ Tanti in the
occurrence and to cause head injury to deceased.
The prosecution, however, did not file charge-sheet against Pritam
and even no application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
471
during the course of trial thus despite specific allegation against
Pritam to cause one head injury to deceased, he has not been
prosecuted.
In view of the above, there remains two accused against whom
specific allegation remains for causing head injury to deceased
Dhanpal, namely Janak Singh and Rajendra @ Tanti. We find
that eye-witnesses and injured witnesses have not named other
accused in specific terms with assignment of weapon and injury,
either to injured or to deceased. They have been convicted with
the aid of Section 149 IPC.
To appreciate the argument of learned counsel for the appellant,
we have considered the case to find out as to whether a case for
conviction with the aid of Section 149 IPC is made out. As per the
prosecution, the appellants had a motive to cause the occurrence
and, therefore, they came with common object. The accused were
equipped with the weapons thus not only case of unlawful assembly
was proved but their participation with common object also gets
proved in reference to the incident took place four days ago when
complainant party attacked on the accused party. It is only to
settle the score that accused came and caused occurrence on
8.3.2012.
We find that four days prior to the date of incident in the present
case, complainant said to have attacked on the accused party. In
view of the above, there was a motive with the accused to cause
occurrence. Once motive was there, common object to cause
occurrence can also be inferred, however, conviction cannot be
based on inferences but facts proved by evidence.
...
...
 ...
The injured and deceased did not receive injury by sharp edged
weapon but it all depends whether Gandasi was sharp enough to
cause such an injury. In view of the above, we are not inclined to
accept the argument of learned counsel for the appellant Janak
Singh with reference to the nature of injury to the deceased when
specific allegation has been made by the injured as well as eyewitnesses for causing head injury to him.
So far as Rajendra @ Tanti is concerned, a blunt object has been
recovered from him. Against him also specific allegation for
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. BABLU @ OM PRAKASH
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
472
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
causing head injury to the deceased has been made. The recovery
of weapon at his disclosure is corroborated by the statement of
eye-witnesses thus, we find case against him also.
So far as Rajendra S/o. Kashi/Dharam Singh is concerned, initially,
the charge-sheet was not filed against him. He has otherwise
taken a defence of "alibi" in his statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C. It is by stating that four days prior to the date of occurrence
in this case, he sustained injuries on head, thus was at his residence.
He has denied his participation in the occurrence, rather, his
presence therein. The statement of said accused namely Rajendra
S/o Kashi/Dharam Singh has been corroborated by PW/37
Ramendra Singh. It is stated that on the festival of Holi, he visited
Rajendra S/o Kashi/Dharam Singh at his residence. He was having
head injury covered with a bandage. The said witness has
supported the statement of Rajendra S/o Kashi/Dharam Singh. It
is also a fact that no weapon has been recovered from him and,
initially, when the FIR was lodged, name of only one Rajendra
was given for head injury. It was subsequently named by the
witness as Rajendra Singh @ Tanti. In view of the above, we find
a case in favour of Rajendra S/o Kashi/Dharam Singh. It is not
only by accepting his plea of alibi but taking into consideration the
evidence to corroborate it.
So far as other accused are concerned, since we have not
accepted the case of the prosecution for conviction with the aid
of Section 149 IPC and as specific allegation for causing injury
with the assignment of weapon has not been made, we find a
case in their favour also. We have already recorded the finding
about previous enmity between the two groups and, at times, it
results in over-implication, which is even established from the fact
that after investigation, charge-sheet was not filed against all the
accused.