STATE OF RAJASTHANversusMOHAN LAL AND ORS.

                        [2009] 6 S.C.R. 142


A                    STATE OF RAJASTHAN
                                 v.
                     MOHAN LAL AND ORS.
                (Criminal Appeal No. 822 of 2003)
                          APRIL 15, 2009
B
           [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
                        GANGULY, JJ.]

       Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 - Appeal against acquittal by
C High Court - High Court directing acquittal on the ground that
  evidence of eyewitnesses was not credible - On appeal, held:
  View of High Court was plausible, hence no interference
  called for - Conduct of eyewitnesses was unnatural - Their
  presence at the spot was also doubtful - Also there was
o variation in their statement made during investigation and
  made in the court.
      The respondents were convicted under s.302 r.w. ·
  s.34 IPC. High Court found that the evidence of
  eyewitnesses was not credible and ordered acquittal.
E Hence the appeal.
       Dismissing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: The conduct of the so-called eye-witness was
  absolutely unnatural. Through in all cases the conduct
F of persons would not be determinative, it would depend
  on several factors. The four persons who claimed to have
  witnessed the occurrence did not make any effort to save
  the deceased from the assaults made by the accused
  persons. PW1 was the son of the deceased. The High
G Court noticed that the presence of so-called eye
  witnesses was practically not acceptable because of the
  various variations in the statement made during
  investigation and made in the court. The High court
  found that the conduct was not only unnatural but also
H                              142
     STATE OF RAJASTHAt:J v. MOHAN LAL AND ORS.                  143


    proved that their presence at the place of occurrence                A
    doubtful. The view taken by the High Court is plausible
    one, and there is no reason to interfere. [Paras 5, 6 and
    7] [144-D-G]
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal                 B
    No.822 of 2003.
        From the Judgment & Order dated 30.07.2002 of the High
    Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B.
    Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 1997.
         Manish Singhvi, MG and Milind Kumar for the Appellant.          C
         S.R. Bajwa, Puneet Jain, Archana Tiwari, Sushi! Kumar
    Jain and Pratibha Jain for the Respondent.
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                         D
•        DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for
    the appellant-State and learned counsel for the respondents.
          2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
     Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench directing
     acquittal of the respondents who faced trial for alleged            E
     commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with
     Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC').
     Originally five persons faced trial and out of them two accused
    persons namely Moti Ram and Ramji Lal were acquitted by
    judgment of learned Sessions Judge, jhunjhunu. By the judgment       F
    which was impugned before the High Court, the present
    respondents were found guilty of offence punishable under
    Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
          3. The prosecution version in a nutshell that on 4.11.1995
    Balusingh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was G
    assaulted by the present respondents and the two acquitted
    accused persons and in the process Balu Singh lost his life.
    Information was lodged by Madan Singh Yadav (PW9) who was
    the son of the deceased. After investigation, charge sheet was
    filed and since the accused persons pleaded innocence, trial . H
       144      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2009) 6 S.C.R.


A was held. As noted above, the present respondents were found
  guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with
  Section 34 IPC. The convicted person preferred an appeal
  before the High Court which as noted above directed their
  acquittal. The High Court found the evidence of so-called eye-
B witness PW1, 2,5 and 9 to be not credible and cogent and
  therefore directed the acquittal.
            4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant
       stated thttt since four eye-witnesses were there, there evidence
       should not have been discarded to direct acquittal. Learned
c      counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the High
       Court submitting that the view taken by the High Court is a
       possible view and has been arrived at after analysing the
       evidence of eye-witness.
             5. It is to be noted that the conduct of the so-called eye-
D
       witness was absolutely unnatural. They did not make any effort
       to either save the deceased when he was being assaulted or
       when the accused persons purportedly took away the dead
       body of the deceased.
...-   6. T:10ugh in all cases the conduct of persons would not
c
  be determinative, it would depend on several factors. In the
  present case undoubtedly four persons who claimed to have
  witnessed the occurrence did not make any effort to save the
  deceased from the assaults made by the accused persons.
F PW1 was the son of the deceased. The High Court noticed that
  the presence of so-called eye witnesses was practically was
  not acceptable because of the various variations in the
  statement made during investigation and made in the court.
             7. The High Court found that the conduct was not only
G unnatural but also proved that their presence at the place of
       occurrence doubtful. The view taken by the High Court is a           •
       plausible one, we find no reason to interfere in this appeal
       which is accordingly dismissed.

H O.G.                                             Appeal Dismissed.