The Veracity of Testimonies: Guman Singh vs. State of Rajasthan

In a significant legal ruling, the Supreme Court of India has overturned the conviction of Guman Singh in a case against the State of Rajasthan. The judgment revolves around scrutinizing the truthfulness of witness accounts, specifically those of Tara Singh and Varun Singh. Explore this case to understand the complexities of criminal trials and the importance of reliable evidence in law.

Facts

The conviction in this case arose from FIR No 464/2009 registered on 30.08.2009 at 8.20 p.m. at Police Station Hindaun City, District- Karauli, Rajasthan.
The charge-sheet was filed against Guman Singh, Jagdish Singh, Satvir Singh, and Shyam Singh.
Jagdish Singh was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun City, Karauli, Rajasthan on 07.06.2013.
Shyam Singh and Satvir Singh were acquitted in the impugned judgment of the High Court.
The primary issue before the court was the veracity and truthfulness of the testimonies of Tara Singh (PW-1) and Varun Singh (PW-4), son and nephew of the deceased Shiv Charan.
Guman Singh appealed the conviction under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Shiv Charan and under Section 307 IPC for the attempt to murder Babu Singh in the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur.
The Division Bench of the High Court confirmed Guman Singh’s conviction and sentenced him to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC with a fine, and 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC with a fine.
Jagdish Singh, Shyam Singh, and Satvir Singh had different legal outcomes – Jagdish Singh was acquitted by the trial court, while Shyam Singh and Satvir Singh were acquitted by the Division Bench of the High Court.
The deceased Shiv Charan and Babu Singh were taken to the hospital on the directions of Gulam Navi (PW-7).
Guman Singh, Satvir Singh, and Shyam Singh fired shots at Tara Singh (PW-1) and Varun Singh (PW-4) who managed to escape.
Tara Singh (PW-1) and Varun Singh (PW-4) were on a motorcycle following Shiv Charan and Babu Singh who were on another motorcycle.
The presence of Tara Singh (PW-1) and Varun Singh (PW-4) at the spot is doubtful as per the testimonies of Gulam Navi (PW-7) and Babulal Bhaskar (PW-10).
Statements of Tara Singh (PW-1) and Varun Singh (PW-4) were recorded three days after the occurrence.
The eye-witness account of Tara Singh (PW-1) and Varun Singh (PW-4) was questioned due to inconsistencies.
The first meeting between Tara Singh (PW-1) and Varun Singh (PW-4) with Gulam Navi (PW-7) was at the hospital almost 3 hours after the occurrence.
Guman Singh fired at the chest of Shiv Charan according to the testimony.
The presence of Tara Singh (PW-1) and Varun Singh (PW-4) as eye-witnesses is in doubt based on the Investigating Officer’s testimony.

Also Read: Supreme Court Judgment: Upholding High Court’s Decision on Retiral Dues Calculation

Analysis

Contradiction between testimonies of witnesses Babu Singh, Gulam Navi, and Tara Singh, Varun Singh.
Babu Singh did not mention the presence of the appellant or identify any assailants.
Bullets recovered from deceased were not sent for ballistic examination.
Opinion on hole in the shirt and bullet as weak evidence for implicating the present appellant.
Delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate is noted, raising questions about its authenticity.
FSL report did not definitively link the bullet to the country-made pistol.
Allegations of backdating the FIR and lack of proper documentation highlighted.
Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2003) 11 SCC 367 had categorized witnesses into wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, and neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
In the current case, Tara Singh (PW-1) and Varun Singh (PW-4) fall under the wholly unreliable category.
Even if their testimonies are considered as neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, corroboration by reliable evidence would still be required for the prosecution to succeed.
Charge-sheet was filed against Guman Singh, Jagdish Singh, Shyam Singh, and Satvir Singh.
The present appellant is Guman Singh.
The charge-sheet was in relation to the present case.