- (1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment by the Rajasthan High Court affirming the conviction of the accused under S. 302, Indian Penal Code. The accused was sentenced to imprisonment for life.
(2.) The prosecution case is as follows:- On June 6, 1970, just before sunset, Govindram (deceased) and his brother, Patram (PW 1) were returning from the 'guwar' (open space) of Bass Pema in the village Dabli Bass Chena. The lane by which they were coming from the 'guwar' goes straight towards the north and it passes on the backside of several houses including the house of one Rajaram and the house of the accused, Badri. These houses are on the right side as one proceeds from the 'guwar' towards the north. The house of one Gangaram is the first house on the left side of the lane. After passing his house, there is a lane which branches off from the main lane from the 'guwar' and that by-lane is towards the west. All these are shown in the site plan (Ex. P3). When the two brothers reached near the house of Gangaram, Govindram asked Patram to go ahead to his house saying he would reach home after taking a pair of shoes from the house of one Jagmal Chamar which is shown in the plan as the last house on the left of the main lane. Govindram thus parting company with Patram proceeded towards the north on the main lane and Patram proceeded by the by-lane towards the west leading to their houses. Patram had hardly moved a pavanda (about 5 1/2 feet) when he heard the voice of accused Badri. He stopped and saw Badri coming out of the 'nohra' (courtyard) of Rajaram. Badri was armed with a gun of singh barrel. Badri abused Govindram and held out a threat that he would not let him go alive. Badri had by then moved 4 or 5 pavandas behind the house of Rajaram towards the north. While threatening as above, Badri also fired at him. Patram ran away to save his life. When Patram had gone about 7 or 8 pavandas, he heard another report of gun-fire. He went to his house and then to the house of his brother, PW 3 Gopal, residing in the adjoining house. Patram told Gopal that Badri had killed his brother Govindram by gun-fire. Patram and Gopal then went to the house of their uncle, PW 6 Bhadar, and all three of them went to the place of occurrence and found Govindram lying dead in a pool of blood. They then sent Gopal to the Sarpanch of Pakka Saharana to lodge report to the police. They did not approach Harisingh Sarpanch of the village as he was related to the accused. Gopal went on foot to Pakka Saharana, about six miles from his house, and took the Sarpanch with him and they went in a jeep to the Police Station, Hanumangarh. The first information report was lodged at the Thana at 11.00 P. M. and the name of the accused was mentioned therein.
(3.) The prosecution produced Patram, the solitary eye-witness of the incident. Another witness, Lachhiram (PW 5) was also examined to prove that he saw the accused armed with a gun running towards 10 Chak at about sunset five months back. He was examined in the court on November 6, 1970. The trial court accepted the evidence of Patram. The trial court also relied upon the corroborating evidence of Lachhiram even though his name was not mentioned in the first information report. We may note, however, that the trial court observed that Patram "falsely introduced the second gun-fire report" and "had definitely wrongly given this range of fire" (namely 27 1/2 feet). The trial court further held as follows:- "The witness (Patram) may not be wholly true, but substantially true and simply because the witness has falsely spoken to (sic) as to one or two facts under compelling circumstances, it could not be said that he was only partly true. In my opinion, it would be better to label him as substantially reliable. In the F.I.R., the incident was correctly stated as that of one gun-fire. In the morning, when the investigation began and when the doctor erroneously thought that the entry wound was in the chest and the injuries Nos. 2, 3 and 5 were also gun-shot injuries, the witness Patram was compelled to change his version a little, probably under the advice of the S.H.O. (the Police Officer). The witness was compelled and tempted to say something which he did not see". X X X X X X "If because of such compelling circumstances, Patram tried to embellish his statement for the second gun-fire report and the range, it cannot be said that he was an unreliable witness".;