Case title:
Radhey Shyam & Ors. vs State of Rajasthan
Date of Order:
12th April 2023
Bench:
Justice Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal
Parties:
Petitioner: Radhey Shyam & Ors
Defendant: State of Rajasthan
Facts:
- Accused Nos. 9, 2, and 1 respectively, who were found guilty of crimes covered by Sections 148 and 302 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), have filed an appeal. There were 29 identified defendants in the charge sheet; the Sessions Court found defendants nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 15, 17 and 20 guilty, while the other 21 defendants were declared innocent. The High Court upheld the appellants' conviction in the contested decision.
- The family of the late Raghunath Singh and a few of the accused, who are members of the Ahir clan and have founded a party called the Azad party, have a history of political enmity. The incident happened on April 16, 1976. The first Information Report (FIR) was filed by PW6 Shiv Raj Singh, the deceased Raghunath Singh's brother. The dead were attacked by a bunch of Ahirs. The prosecution claims that PWs 2, 3, and 4 were the actual witnesses. The Trial Court disregarded PW2's testimony but accepted PW3 Krishna, the deceased's minor daughter, and PW4 Kanwarbai, the deceased's mother, as credible witnesses.
- The knowledgeable attorney representing the appellants claimed that PW3 is a kid witness whose testimony needs to be scrutinised extremely carefully. She drew our attention to PW3 Krishna's testimony and, in particular, her cross-examination, arguing that her testimony cannot be trusted, especially given the witness's highly dubious identification of the defendant in court.
- Furthermore, PW4 was unable to name a single accused in the Court, making it risky to rely on her testimony. She further emphasized that the FIR was sent to the knowledgeable Magistrate with a 3-day delay. Political competition existed between the deceased person's family and the accused's political party, therefore during the course of these three days, the accused must have been falsely implicated.
- The State's knowledgeable senior counsel argued that reading the child witness's (PW3) responses to the opening questions demonstrates the witness's high level of understanding and intellect. He claimed that although she accurately recognized the first accused as the son of Ramchander, she accidentally mentioned Modu (the accused who was found not guilty), who was also the son of Ramchander.
- He claimed that this is a small difference that does not invalidate the version of PW3 as a whole. He claimed that PW4 Kanwarbai listed five people as the defendants. He said that PW4 was unable to recognize the defendants by their names. He asserted that the passage of time makes it simple for this to occur. In light of the appellants' guilt, he would contend that the judgements rendered by the High Court and the Sessions Court cannot be criticized.
Arguments:
- We discover that the prosecution's case is solely supported by PW3 Krishna and PW4 Kanwarbai's testimony. At the time her testimony was recorded, PW3 was 12 years old. PW3's testimony cannot be disregarded solely because she was 12 years old. Although a young witness can always be easily tutored, her testimony needs to be evaluated extremely carefully and with extra caution because of this. We have therefore carefully examined her version.
- Bhavana is the son of Kana Ahir and accused No. 9, as can be observed from the names of the accused. Kana Ahir also has a son named Radhey Shyam. A very odd process was utilized to identify the defendants who were present in the dock. The accused, whose names were recorded by PW3, were instructed to remain outside the dock while the others were instructed to stay inside.
- The witness was instructed to stay outside of the Court Hall as the five accused were carried out of the dock. This process was unjust to the accused because it was designed to make it simple for the young witness to recognize the five accused. A process like that is unfair to the accused.
- She properly recognized the suspects Bhavana, a Kana and Nathu son, Modu, a Nathu son, and Chaturbhuj, an Onkar son. She said that the first accused, Raghunath Modu, was Ramchander's son. In response to a question from the Court during the cross-examination asking her to explain why she recognized Modu as Raghunath, the witness said she had forgotten due to the passage of time. She said that Radhey Shyam was a brahmin and was not a suspect in response to a question about who he was.
- She agreed that her grandmother had told her that the Ahirs, who had founded the Azad party, and their family had a dispute. She also acknowledged that her grandmother had given her information about the party's members, Modu, Bhavan, Chaturbhuj, and Raghunath. She said that she had told the police, as she was giving a statement, that her father was being abused by 3035 members of the Azad party. Given how the young witness recognized the defendant, it would be dangerous to find the defendant guilty only on the basis of her testimony.
- We now move on to PW4 Kanwarbai's deposition, which is the mother of the deceased. Her account states that PW3 Krishna approached her while sobbing and informed her that 3035 people were torturing her father.
- She quickly arrived at the scene and discovered her son Raghunath sobbing in agony. She claimed that Gopal, the 17th accused, struck the deceased's ear while she was present. She claimed that defendant No. 20 struck her son in the left arm and armpit with a lathi. She said that in addition to accused No. 1 Raghunath, accused No. 7 Pratap, and accused No. 5 who struck her son with a lathi.
- When asked if she could recognize 3035 accused people by name, she said that she was able to since she was familiar with their names as well as the names of their fathers. She then uttered a number of names.
- When she was asked to name the defendants, she was unable to name any of them using their names. In the deposition, the learned Judge noticed that PW4 was unable to name any of the defendants.
- PW4 was then asked whether among the people in attendance the accuser was. All of them, she claimed, were present, but it was difficult to make out their faces.
- Thus, while claiming to be an eyewitness, PW4 was unable to name any of the defendants in court, even though she claimed to be able to recognize them by name and by the name of their respective father.
- PW3, the unimportant witness, provided testimony that has previously been covered. Her evidence reveals that she struggled to name at least two defendants, despite the fact that the five defendants she supposedly mentioned were ordered to stand apart from the other defendants. Regarding the accused's identity, PW3 Krishna's version does not arouse confidence.
- We therefore believe that there is still some room for doubt regarding whether the identity of the listed accused as the assailants of the dead has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court. The evidence of the purported retrieval of the assault rifles at the accuser's request is then all that is left. The reported recovery cannot be the only justification for the conviction.
Analysis:
- In this case, an appeal was filled in the Apex Court with respect to Death case of Mr. Raghunath.
- There were various defendants in the case and close family of the deceased as the witness.
- When the deceased’s mother was called for giving the witnessed incident during the death of Mr. Raghunath, she was unable to identify the accused while claiming that she the accused's names along with the names of their father.
- Therefore, the court was in dilemma and various questions remained unsolved. The judgement was not passed in favor of appellants.
Conclusion:
In the present case, it was concluded by the court that the eyewitnesses submitted before the court were not satisfactory. As a result, the appellants' conviction pursuant to the contested judgements and orders is now overturned, and they are exonerated of the accusation brought against them. Appellants are free on bail. Their bail is no longer valid.
