RADHEY SHYAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(SC)-2014-2-49
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: RAJASTHAN)
Decided on
February 25,2014
RADHEY SHYAM
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
RAMESHWAR S O KALYAN SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]PANCHHI NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR WOMEN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RATANSINH DALSUKHBHAI NAYAK VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
SHIVRAM @ BALU KHANDU JAGTAP VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-10-181] [REFERRED TO]NAVIN DHANIRAM BARAIYE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH P S O , P S AJNI, DI [LAWS(BOM)-2018-6-147] [REFERRED TO]
ONKAR TUKARAM VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-3-335] [REFERRED TO]
SRIMAN DEV SARMA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2023-6-69] [REFERRED TO]
SH. LALRAMTHANGA VS. STATE OF MIZORAM [LAWS(GAU)-2022-3-60] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SWAROOP VERMA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-3-45] [REFERRED TO]
UTTAM DAS @ JHANA DAS VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2016-8-26] [REFERRED TO]
PHANI BHUSAN MAITY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2014-9-76] [REFERRED TO]
FABIANUS BECK VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-6-64] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2019-10-243] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY S/O GAHININATH CHAVAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-11-48] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH @ PADDA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-6-70] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH KUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2014-5-558] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMLENDU DEB VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2017-5-12] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH JAGANNATH SADAMATE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-9-244] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF J & K [LAWS(J&K)-2015-8-41] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. SURESH KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2017-9-79] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR GUPTA @ GAUTAM VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-322] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. SHIVANAIK S/O DAKA NAIK [LAWS(KAR)-2018-9-87] [REFERRED TO]
VAKIL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-1-206] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF H.P. VS. AMIT KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2016-5-123] [REFERRED TO]
AKBAR ALI @ MD SENTU, S/O WAHAB ALI VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2016-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
HARI OM @ HERO VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(SC)-2021-1-7] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KUMAR BASNETT VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2016-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
AITHA CHANDRAIAH S/O RAMAIAH VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [LAWS(APH)-2017-12-49] [REFERRED TO]
GOGULA RAMANAIAH VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2017-12-61] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2019-10-173] [REFERRED TO]
KOMALSING VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-7-33] [REFERRED TO]
AMAN VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2015-10-52] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2018-9-165] [REFERRED TO]
LAKHU @ LAKHAN DHARMA GAIKWAD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH JAIL ROAD POLICE STATION [LAWS(BOM)-2019-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. GOPAL NILKANTH JANBANDU [LAWS(BOM)-2020-12-396] [REFERRED TO]
GUNDLA ANJAVVA VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2015-6-118] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH VS. DIGAMBER VAISHNAV [LAWS(CHH)-2015-4-31] [REFERRED]
DAUWA @ VISHWANATH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2017-10-103] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The appellant was convicted by Additional Sessions Judge Kota, Rajasthan for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.
(2.)In short, the case of the prosecution is that on 24/2/1997, the appellant cut the throats of his children Rakesh and Rajkanta with a blade in the house of his in-laws where he was staying for his treatment. He was suffering from tuberculosis. According to the prosecution, this incident was witnessed by Banwari, the brother-in-law of the appellant. Banwari informed about it to his brother Kajod, who had come from the market. Kajod found Rakesh dead. Rajkanta was alive and was in pain. Kajod took her to the doctor and the doctor declared her dead. Kajod lodged FIR. Investigation was started. The appellant was arrested. After completion of the investigation, the appellant came to be charged under Section 302 of the IPC. In support of its case, prosecution examined 14 witnesses. PW-2 Banwari is the eye-witness. He is a child witness. His evidence is material to the prosecution. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. He stated that he was falsely implicated in the case, because his relations with his wife's family were strained.
(3.)Shri Santosh Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the entire case rests on the testimony of a child witness. The child witness's evidence has to be carefully scrutinized and, only if it is found reliable, it can be accepted. He submitted that PW-2 Banwari's evidence does not answer the test laid down by this Court in numerous judgments and, hence, no reliance can be placed on him. In support of this submission, counsel relied on Rameshwar s/o. Kalyan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan, 1952 AIR(SC) 54], Panchhi & Ors. v. State of U.P., 1998 7 SCC 177], Ratansinh Dalsukhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat, 2004 1 SCC 64] and Raj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra, 2009 15 SCC 292]. He submitted that the entire incident appears to be inherently improbable. If throats of two children were cut with a blade, they would have raised loud cries and that would have brought the neighbours to the room. Counsel submitted that there are inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses. The story that PW-2 Banwari saw the incident through the hole of the door is difficult to digest. Counsel submitted that recovery of blade from the possession of the appellant is also not proved. Motive is also not established. In the circumstances benefit of doubt must be given to the appellant, who is in jail for about 19 years.
(2.)In short, the case of the prosecution is that on 24/2/1997, the appellant cut the throats of his children Rakesh and Rajkanta with a blade in the house of his in-laws where he was staying for his treatment. He was suffering from tuberculosis. According to the prosecution, this incident was witnessed by Banwari, the brother-in-law of the appellant. Banwari informed about it to his brother Kajod, who had come from the market. Kajod found Rakesh dead. Rajkanta was alive and was in pain. Kajod took her to the doctor and the doctor declared her dead. Kajod lodged FIR. Investigation was started. The appellant was arrested. After completion of the investigation, the appellant came to be charged under Section 302 of the IPC. In support of its case, prosecution examined 14 witnesses. PW-2 Banwari is the eye-witness. He is a child witness. His evidence is material to the prosecution. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. He stated that he was falsely implicated in the case, because his relations with his wife's family were strained.
(3.)Shri Santosh Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the entire case rests on the testimony of a child witness. The child witness's evidence has to be carefully scrutinized and, only if it is found reliable, it can be accepted. He submitted that PW-2 Banwari's evidence does not answer the test laid down by this Court in numerous judgments and, hence, no reliance can be placed on him. In support of this submission, counsel relied on Rameshwar s/o. Kalyan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan, 1952 AIR(SC) 54], Panchhi & Ors. v. State of U.P., 1998 7 SCC 177], Ratansinh Dalsukhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat, 2004 1 SCC 64] and Raj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra, 2009 15 SCC 292]. He submitted that the entire incident appears to be inherently improbable. If throats of two children were cut with a blade, they would have raised loud cries and that would have brought the neighbours to the room. Counsel submitted that there are inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses. The story that PW-2 Banwari saw the incident through the hole of the door is difficult to digest. Counsel submitted that recovery of blade from the possession of the appellant is also not proved. Motive is also not established. In the circumstances benefit of doubt must be given to the appellant, who is in jail for about 19 years.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.