Supreme Court of India
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESHversusRAKESH KUMAR
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 725
- Decided
- 6 May 2009
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's acquittal was unjustified and the conviction under Section 302 IPC stands.
Summary
The State of Himachal Pradesh charged Rakesh Kumar with murder under Section 302 IPC for stabbing the deceased, Sanjiv Sen, in the chest during a party at Yash Pal's house. The trial court convicted Kumar based on the testimony of three natural witnesses present in the room and the recovery of a blood‑stained knife from his residence. The Himachal Pradesh High Court acquitted him, citing alleged discrepancies in witness statements and questioning the absence of blood on the floor. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the credibility of the natural witnesses, the relevance of the blood‑stained knife, the propriety of the victim being taken to a hospital before reporting to police, and the lack of merit in Kumar's alibi plea. The Court held that the witnesses' accounts were consistent, the forensic evidence linked the accused to the crime, and the procedural actions of the witnesses were natural. Consequently, the High Court's acquittal was set aside and the trial court's conviction and sentence were restored.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused despite the testimony of natural witnesses.
- Whether the absence of blood on the floor undermines the prosecution's case.
- Whether the recovery of a blood‑stained knife from the accused's house establishes his involvement.
- Whether the accused's alibi plea is sustainable in view of the evidence.
- Whether the failure to examine the three‑wheeler driver and the deceased's brother warrants setting aside the acquittal.
Legislation cited
Subjects
murderSection 302 IPCnatural witnessesdying declarationblood‑stained knifealibiacquittalconvictioncriminal appeal
Judgment
[2009) 8 S.C.R. 264
A STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
V.
RAKESH KUMAR
(Criminal Appeal No. 1494 of 2003)
MAY 6, 20::19
B
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]
,•
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Fatal blow to deceased -
Conviction uls. 302 by trial court - However, acquittal by High
c Court - On appeal held: Incident was witnessed by persons
present in the house of deceased when incident occurred,
thus witnesses were natural witnesses - Two hours before the
incident, accused had abused the deceased - On basis of
disclosure statement by accused blood stained knife was
~
D recovered - Also, plea of alibi cannot be accepted - Thus,
from all the evidence it is established that accused stabbed
the deceased in his chest, resulting in his death - Order of
acquittal being bad is set aside and that of trial court is
restored.
E
The question which arose for consideration in this
appeal was whether the High Court was· justified in
acquitting the respondent-accused, by setting aside the f
order ·of conviction uls. 302 IPC and sentence of rigorous
F imprisonment for life with fine passed by the trial court.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 .The presence of GK-PW 1, SR-PW-2 and
YP-PW 3 in the room was natural and that they could see
G that the deceased was stabbed in his chest immediately
after he opened the door upon which he came back and
told them about the incident. He was put on the cot and
the place of the wound was pressed with cottons. In that
H 264
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. RAKESH 265
KUMAR
....,
view of the matter it would be natural that no blood was A
found on the floor but the same was found on the cot and
in the clothe that the deceased was wearing on that day.
Therefore, acquittal of the respondent on the said ground,
was not justified. [Para 10] [272-D-F]
B
1.2. PW-3 was the tenant of the room where PW-1,
PW-2 and PW-3 were present at the time of occurrence
·. along with the deceased. It has come in evidence that
'
about two hours before the incident the accused came
to the place and abused the deceased upon which he c
was sent back. After two hours of that incident the
deceased received the said injury on his chest when he
was going out of the room by opening the door.
Immediately after receiving the said injury he came back
,.. to the room and told all present including PW-1, PW-2 and D
PW-3 that he was stabbed by the accused. Immediately
thereafter he was given first aid and after arranging for a
three wheeler he was taken to hospital where he could
not be given any treatment and, therefore, he was taken
to another hospital where he died. It is also established E
from the record that immediately thereafter, the incident
was reported to the police. [Para 11] [272-F-H; 273-A-C]
..f 1.3. Respondent submitted that PW-1 first went to the
hospital instead of going to the police station even F
though the police station is located in between the
I hospital and the place of occurrence and the said
'
conduct was not natural. There is no merit in such
contention for the reason that when a person receives an
injury and is still alive it is the natural conduct of the G
... person accompanying him to see that his life could be
saved. Therefore, the first endeavour is always to take
the person to the hospital immediately so as to provide
him medical treatment and only thereafter report the
H
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.
A incident to the police. Every minute was precious and,
.
therefore, it is natural that the witnesses accompanying
the deceased first tried to take him to the hospital so as
to enable him to get immediate medical trea.tment. Such
action was definitely in accordance with normal human
B conduct and psychology. Hhen their efforts failed and
the deceased died they immediately reported the incident
to the police. In fact, it was a case of quick reporting to
the police. [Para 12] [273-C-G]
.
c 1.4. The accused also took up a plea of alibi. The trial
court disbelieved the plea of alibi for which reasons are
given in the judgment of the trial court. The said plea of
alibi is without any merit as the presence of the
respondent on the date of the incident at the place of
D occurrence is conclusively proved as PW 1 to 3
categorically stated in their evidence that the respondent
had gone to the room where they were having a party at
about 10.30 p.m. Therefore, the said plea of alibi has no
basis at all. [Para 13] [273-H; 274-A-El]
E
1.5. As regard the submission that the order of
acquittal should not be interfered with as the driver of the
three-wheeler and also the brother of ttie deceased who .
had gone to the hospital were not examined, there is no '"
F reason as to why and how the evidence of the said two
persons was relevant. The brother of the deceased went
to the hospital where the deceased was being given
medical treatment and, therefore, whatever he heard of
the occurrence was from a third party and was hearsay.
G So far as the driver of the three-wheeler is concerned, he
only carried the deceased to the hospital and, therefore,
his evidence was also not material. [Para 14] [274-8-E]
1.6. PW-1 to 3 are the natural witnesses who
deposed about the involvement of the accused in the
H
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. RAKESH 267
_..,, KUMAR
incident. The blood stained knife was also recovered at A
the ihstahce of the accused from his house on the basis
of the disclosure statement made by the accused-
respohdent. When all the evidence that stand nut and
when they are co-related it is established that the
accused-respondent had stabbed the deceased in his B
.' chest when he was going out of the room after opening
the door to urinate. As a result of the said injury received
at the end of the accused, the deceased died in the
hospital. Thus, the order of acquittal passed by the High
Court is bad and illegal and is set aside. The order of the c
trial court is restored. [Para 15 and 16] [274-E-G; 275-A]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
.. No. 1494 of 2003 .
D
From the Judgment & Order dated 08.08.2003 of the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal No.
647 of 2001.
Naresh K. Sharma for the Appellant.
E
Triveni Prasad Mishra (AC.) for the Respondent.
-,
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
"
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. This is an appeal
against the judgment and order of acquittal of the accused- F
respondent by the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh
High Court whereby the High Court acquitted the accused-
respondent after he was found guilty under Section 302 of the
, __
Indian Penal Code (for short the 'IPC') by the Trial Court,
G
Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of
conviction the trial court sentenced the respondent to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.
5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six
months.
H
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 8 S.C.R.
A 2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction
and sentence, the respondent filed an appeal from jail before
the Himachal Pradesh High Court which was heard and at the
end, the aforesaid order of acquittal was passed which is under
challenge in this appeal.
B
3. Before we deal with the contentions raised by the
counsel appearing for the parties, it would be necessary to
notice the facts which are the basis of the aforesaid criminal
case.
c Yash Pal (PW-3) was working as Chowkidar in Income Tax
Office at Mandi. Sanjiv Rana (PW-2) was working as Clerk in
Agriculture Land Development Bank, Mandi. Both of them were
related to each other and also hail from the same village.
Gagnesh Kaushal (PW-1) was one of their friends and was
D running his painter's shop at Paddal. On 13.1.2000, which was
.
a Lohri day, the deceased Sanjiv Sen arranged for a party in
the house of Yash Pal (PW-3) and invited Gagnesh Kaushal,
Sanjiv Rana and Sharwan Kumar to the said party. While they
E were sitting in the room of Yash Pal, both Yash Pal and his wife
had gone for dinner at Mohalla Paddal from where they returned
at about 9.30 p.m. It has come out in evidence that before return
of the couple, all the aforesaid persons had consumed a bottle
of liquor. Music was also being played at a low pitch. Wife of
F Yash Pal (PW-3) had gone to bed after having dinner as she
was not well. It is also disclosed from the evidence on record
that on the same day i.e. on 13.1.2000 when the aforesaid party
I
was on, and around 10.30 p.m. the accused knocked at the
door of the aforesaid room upon which it was opened by
G ·Sharwan. The respondent entered the room and asked as to
who had called his name. Being so asked Gagnesh Kaushal
(PW-1) stated that nobody had called him and the respondent
was asked to leave the room. While going out of the room, the
respondent further told Gagnesh Kaushal (PW-1) to make the
H deceased understand otherwise his head would be smashed.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. RAKESH 269
..._,/ KUMAR [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
Saying so, the respondent left the room. Gagnesh Kaushal A-
(PW-1) claimed to have bolted the room from inside and they
were dancing in the said room when around 12 to 12.30 p.m.
in the midnight of 13th and 14th January, 2000, the deceased
Sanjiv Sain opened the door and went out for urination. It is
alleged that at that time and as soon as he opened the door B
and was in the process of going out, he was stabbed by the
"; respondent with a sharp-edged weapon in chest. According to
Gagnesh Kaushal (PW-1), an attempt was made by him i.e.
PW-1 and others to nab the culprit immediately after the victim
was stabbed but the respondent fled away from the spot. c
Gagnesh Kaushal (PW-1) at that stage asked Sharwan to
press the chest of the deceased so as to control the bleeding.
He also brought cotton from the nearby house and gave first ·
... aid to the deceased. He also rushed out to arrange a three
wheeler. When the deceased was taken to Sanjivan Hospital, D
Mandi by him, and Sharwan, others were sent to inform the
villagers. As no doctor was available at the aforesaid private
hospital, the deceased was taken to Zonal Hospital, Mandi.
They reached the hospital at about 1.20 a.m. and as soon as
they reached the hospital, the deceased was given treatment E
by the doctor but he died around 1.30 a.m.
~
4. In view of the aforesaid situation, Gagnesh Kaushal
(PW-1) the informant went to th~ police station and lodged the
first information report which is marked as Annexure P-1/A. F
After receipt of the aforesaid first information report, the police
started investigation during the course of which a post-mortem
examination was done on the body of the deceased. The post-
morterm report was exhibited in the trial court and marked as
.... Exhibit P-8/A. After completion of the investigation, the police G
submitted charge-sheet against the respondent and charge
was framed against the respondent. During the course of the
trial, a number of prosecution witnesses were examined.
However, the defence examined none. The respondent was
H
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 8 S.C.R.
·~
A examined under Section 313 of Cr.PC and after completion of
the trial, the trial court found the petitioner guilty of the offence
alleged against him. After passing an order of conviction, the
Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the respondent to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of
B IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of
payment of the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a
further period of six months. "
i
5. The trial court, while rendering the judgement of
c conviction and sentence, examined the statements of all the
prosecution witnesses. In the light of the submissions made by
the defence counsel before him, the trial court, however, found
that there was no major discrepancy in the statements of any
of the witnesses so as to cast a shadow of doubt in coming to
D the conclusion that any of the three witnesses namely Gagnesh
Kaushal (PW-1), Sanjiv Rana (PW-2) and Yash Pal (PW-3) is
not trustworthy. The trial court found that the statements given
by all the three witnesses corroborate each other on material
particulars and that the flow of their version appears to be quite
E natural. Prosecution witnesses Gagnesh Kaushal (PW-1),
Sanjiv Rana (PW-2) and Yash Pal (PW-3) had stated in their
statements that they had seen the accused causing blow in the
chest of the deceased.
F 6. The aforesaid version of Gagnesh Kaushal (PW-1),
Sanjiv Rana (PW-2) and Yash Pal (PW-3) was challenged by
the defence counsel and in that view of the matter their
deposition was critically analysed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge. He, however, found that it was apparently clear
G that all the aforesaid three prosecution witnesses were present
in the house of Yash Pal (PW-3). They were, therefore, natural
witnesses. The deceased Sanjiv Sain after opening the door
was stepping out to urinate when he was immediately given a
blow on his chest. At that stage the deceased came running
H
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. RAKESH 271
KUMAR [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
~.-
inside and he named the accused for stabbing him in his chest. A
Gagnesh Kaushal (PW-1) has also stated that he along with
Sanjiv Rana (PW-2) and Yash Pal (PW-3) tried to chase the
accused but he ran away from the spot. The aforesaid
statement of the deceased which was relied upon by Gagnesh
Kaushal (PW-1), Sanjiv Rana (PW-2) and Yash Pal (PW-3) was B
in the nature of a dying declaration made to them. There is no
v reason why the said statement cannot be taken into
'
consideration as a relevant fact. There is also no reason as to
why the deceased would falsely implic~te the accused to save
the real assailant. The trial court also relied upon the discovery c
of the knife containing human blood at the instance of the
accused from his house. After detailed appreciation of the
evidence on record, the trial court came to the conclusion that
accused had committed the offence under Section 302 of IPC
"'· and he was sentenced accordingly. D
'
7. The accused-respondent preferred the appeal as
against his order of conviction and sentence. The aforesaid
appeal was taken up by the Division Bench of the Himachal
Pradesh High Court. The High Court, on appreciation of the E
evidence on record, held that there are a number of
discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses
namely Gagnesh Kaushal (PW-1), Sanjiv Rana (PW-2) and
Yash Pal (PW-3) and that no order of conviction and sentence
could be passed on the basis of such vital discrepancies in the F
statements. Therefore, the High Court by its judgment and order
dated 08.08.2003 allowed the appeal filed by the respondent
and set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi and directed that
... the respondent shall be set at liberty forthwith . G
8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of acquittal of
accused-respondent, the present appeal is filed by the State
of Himachal Pradesh.
H
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 8 S.C.R.
A 9. Mr. J.S. Attri, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, during the course of his submission before us,
minutely took us through the evidence on record and pointed
out that the discrepancies on which the High Court had relied
upon cannot be stated to be very vital. He submitted that there
B was no reason as to why the aforesaid witnesses as also the
deceased would rope in the accused-respondent as no enmity
is proved between them. It was also submitted by him that the
High Court was not justified in putting undue reliance on
"'.
absence of blood on the floor, as stated by Inspector Ram
c Swaroop Sharma, Investigating Officer (PW-13), as according
to the witnesses namely Gagnesh Kaushal (PW-1), Sanjiv Rana
(PW-2) and Yash Pal (PW-3), the deceased immediately after
being stabled came back to the room where he was put on the
cot.
-1'
D
10. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the
presence of- Gagnesh Kaushal (PW-1 ), Sanjiv Rana (PW-2)
and Yash Pal (PW-3) in the room was natural and that they
could see that the deceased was stabbed in his chest
E immediately after he opened the door upon which he came
back and told them about the incident. He was put on the cot
and the place of the wound was pressed with cottons. In that
view of the matter it would be natural that no blood was found J
on the floor but the same was found on the cot and in the clothe
F that the deceased was wearing on that day. Therefore, acquittal
of the accused-respondent on the said ground, in our
considered opinion, was not justified.
11. Yash Pal (PW-3) was the tenant of the room where
G Gagnesh Kaushal (PW-1), Sanjiv Rana (PW-2) and Yash Pal
(PW-3) were present at the time of occurrence along with the
deceased. It has come in evidence that about two hours before
the incident the accused came to the place and abused the
deceased upon which he was sent back at 10.30 p.m. i.e. after
H two hours of that incident the deceased received the aforesaid
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. RAKESH 273
KUMAR [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
injury on his chest when he was going out of the room by A
opening the door. Immediately after receiving the ·said injury he
came back to the room and told all present including Gagnesh
Kaushal (PW-1), Sanjiv Rana (PW-2) and Yash Pal (PW-3) that
he has been stabbed by the accused. Immediately thereafter
he was given first aid and after arranging for a three wheeler B
he was taken to the hospital where he could not be given any
.,, treatment and, therefore, he was taken to the Zonal Hospital,
' Mandi where he died. It is also established from the record that
immediately thereafter, the incident was reported to the police.
c
12. One of the contentions which was raised by the
respondent was about Gagnesh Kaushal (PW-1) first going to
the hospital instead of going to the police station. According
to him, the said conduct was not natural in as much as the
police station is located in between the hospital and the place D
of occurrence. The aforesaid stand of the accused-respondent
also found favour with the High Court. We, however, find no
merit in such contention for the reason that when a person
receives an injury and is still alive it is the natural conduct of
the person accompanying him to see that his life could be E
saved. Therefore, the first endeavour is always to take the
person to the hospital immediately so as to provide him
• medical treatment and only thereafter report the incident to the
"" police. Every minute was precious and, therefore, it is natural
that the witnesses accompanying the deceased first tried. to F
take him to the hospital so as to enable him to get immediate
medical treatment. Such action was definitely in accordance
with normal human conduct and psychology. When their efforts
failed and the deceased died they immediately reported the
incident to the police. In fact, it was a case of quick reporting G
.._
to the police.
13. The accused also took up a plea of alibi. The trial court
disbelieved the said plea of alibi for which reasons are given
H
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.
A in the judgment of the trial court. According to us, the aforesaid
plea of alibi is without any merit as the presence of the
respondent on the date of the incident at the place of
occurrence is conclusively proved as Gagnesh Kaushal (PW-
1), Sanjiv Rana (PW-2) and Yash Pal (PW-3) have categorically
B stated in their evidence that the accused-respondent had gone
to the room where they were having a party at about 10.30 p.m.
Therefore, the aforesaid plea of alibi has no basis at all. '/
'
14. There is another submission of the counsel appearing
c for the respondent who submitted before us that the order of
acquittal should not be interfered with as no independent
witness was examined. It was submitted by him that the driver
of the three-wheeler and also the brother of the deceased who
had gone to the hospital were not examined. We find no reason
D as to why and how the evidence of the aforesaid two persons
was relevant. The brother of the deceased went to the hospital
where the deceased was being given medical treatment and,
therefore, whatever he has heard of the occurrence was from
a third party and was, therefore, hearsay. So far as the driver
E of the three-wheeler is concerned, he only carried the deceased
to the hospital and, therefore, his evidence was also not
material.
15. Gagnesh Kaushal (PW-1), Sanjiv Rana (PW-2) and
J
F Yash Pal (PW-3) are the natural witnesses who have
categorically deposed about the involvement of the accused in
the incident. The blood stained knife was also recovered at the
instance of the accused from his house on the b,asis of the
disclosure statement made by the accused-resportdent. When
G we consider all the evidence that stand out and when they are
co-related it is established that the accused-respondent had
stabbed the deceased in his chest when he was going out of
the room after opening the door to urinate. As a result of the
said injury received at the end of the accused, the deceased
H died in the hospital.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. RAKESH 275
KUMAR [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
16. Consequently, the order of acquittal passed by the A
High Court is bad and illegal. We hereby set aside the said
order of acquittal and restore the order of the trial court. We
pass an order of conviction and sentence against the
respondent in terms of the order passed by the trial court. The
bail bond of the respondent is hereby cancelled. The accused- B
respondent shall surrender immediately to serve out the
remaining term of sentence.
17. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
N.J. Appeal partly allowed. c
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search