Holding

A conviction can be upheld against an accused even if co‑accused are acquitted, provided the evidence against that accused is cogent, credible and truthful, and the relationship of witnesses to the victim does not per se invalidate their testimony.

Summary

Dinesh Kumar and four others were charged with murder, attempted murder and related offences under Sections 302, 307, 324, 148, 452, 323 read with 149 of the IPC. The trial court convicted all five, but the Rajasthan High Court acquitted four co‑accused while upholding Dinesh Kumar's conviction. The appellant argued that the conviction should be set aside because the other accused were acquitted and the key witnesses were relatives of the deceased. The Supreme Court held that the acquittal of co‑accused does not preclude conviction of another accused if the evidence against him is cogent, credible and truthful. It further ruled that the relationship of witnesses to the victim is not a ground for discarding their testimony when their evidence is reliable. The Court found the injured and eye‑witness testimonies, as well as forensic evidence of the sword, to be clear and convincing, and therefore dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction.

Issues considered

Whether a conviction of an accused can be sustained when co‑accused have been acquitted on the ground of alleged exaggeration of evidence.
Whether testimony of witnesses related to the deceased is inadmissible or can be relied upon if found credible.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313, s. 315
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 307, s. 323, s. 324, s. 452

Subjects

murdercognizable offencesco‑accused acquittalrelated witnessesevidence credibilityIndian Penal Codecriminal law

Judgment

[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 co-
accused, 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 dis-
card 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 co-
gent 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 weap- G
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 sue-
cumbed to his injuries in the hospital. The other accused
843 H
r
I
844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 11 S.C.R.

"-(
,...
A also were stated to have caused severe injuries to the vie-
tims. The trial court convicted all the five accused of the
offences charged. The High Court acquitted four of the
f
~
accused but dismissed the appeal as regards the appel-
lant.
.B
In the instant appeal filed by the convict, it was con-
tended 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 co-
gent, credible and truthful in respect of another accused. ...
,..:
[para 6] [847-G] "(

2.1 The mere fact that the witnesses were related to
the deceased cannot be a ground to discard their evi-
E
dence. 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
to be interested and inimically deposed towards the ac-
F cused, 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 evi-
d~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- --r-
card 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
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.
D
Appeal No. 176 of 2002

- ,., Vijay Singh Charak (A.C.) for the Appellant.
Aruneshwar Gupta, Naveen Kumar Singh and Shashwat
Gupta for the Respondent.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.
2. Leave granted. F
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 G
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). In all, five per-
sons faced trial. The appeal filed by four others was allowed
- y- 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 appel- 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 re-
port (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 be-
c 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
@ Sunil and Smt. Nirmla W/o Shri Dinesh armed with deadly
D
weapons entered into his house. Chittar Lal, father of the infor-
mant (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
finish them. Dinesh with the sword which he was carrying pierced.
E abdomen of Chittar Lal. Babu L.al Nai inflicted injury on the ab-
domen 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
Satyanarayan inflicted knife injury to Uma Shankar and Vinod;
F 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 Sec- A
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 appel-
lant and other co-accused who denied the charges and claimed
trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined 18 wit-
nesses. 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 hirn-
self 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, as-
saulted by the complainant party had also suffered injuries and
had lodged a cross case.
Learned Trial Judge on hearing final submissions con-
victed 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, dis-
missed the appeal so far as the appellant is concerned. E

5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appel-
lant 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.

. ,i
Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the other hand,
supported the judgment of the High Court.
F

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 re- G
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 evi- '
dence, 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 de-
ceased in his abdomen and he fell on the ground. The High
D
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 de- r
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 ap-
peal, which is, accordingly dismissed.
G
R.P. Appeal dismissed.
,_r-
..., _,-,

L