IMPORTANT POINT
If holes can be picked in the defence that doesn t lead to the prosecution story being automatically proved as the prosecution has to stand on its own legs and can derive no advantage from the weakness of the defence.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Arms Act-Section 27-Conviction for offences under-Appeal-Appellant, a Constable in Punjab Police-Deceased was his neighbour-Dead body found lying in house of appellant-Eye witnesses being uncles of deceased-Their presence at scene of occurrence found doubtful-Time of occurrence and manner of occurrence also doubtful-No one from neighbourhood came forward to support prosecution case-If holes can be picked in the defence that doesn t lead to prosecution story being automatically proved-Impugned judgment of High Court as also that of Sessions Court set aside-Appellant acquitted of all charges.
       Held; on the totality of circumstances we have come to entertain the doubt that neither of the two supposed eye-witnesses were present at the scene of the occurrence, nor have they witnessed the same. We have also entertained the doubt about the time of the occurrence and the manner in which the prosecution would have us believe that it took place. It could well be that it had taken place as suggested by the defence. The dress of the deceased and the contents of his abdomen suggest that he was murdered much before 2.00 PM, the time positively asserted by the prosecution. (Para 13)
       The time of the occurrence is seriously in dispute. According to the prosecution the occurrence took place at 2.00 PM and according to the defence it took place at about 8.00 AM in the morning. (Para 9)
       The appellant in his defence examined 13 official witnesses of the Punjab Police of the Wireless Department to suggest that since the occurrence had taken place at about 8.00 A.M. in the morning, there had been frantic telephonic and wireless messages by Rajpura Police to contact S.I. Gurbachan Singh, father of the deceased who was then posted at Malerkotla. This effort was to dislodge the time of occurrence as projected by the prosecution and hence the story by itself. (Para 7)
       The prosecution has not advanced any cogent reason as to why the presence of these witnesses be not doubted, especially when the time of occurrence is shrouded in doubt. In addition thereto is the defence evidence suggesting that both police stations i.e. at Malerkotla and Sunam where the father and uncle of the deceased lived respectively were frantically being attempted to be contacted on police station to police station connection. All these facts lend credence to the defence version that the PWs had come to know of the crime because the matter had been reported at the police station in the first instance by PW 6 followed by the appellant. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT

Punchhi, J.-This appeal has arisen from an appellate Judgment and Order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court passed on October 19, 1987 in Criminal Appeal No. 427/DB of 1986.

2. The appellant was employed as a Constable in the Punjab Police and at the relevant time was assigned duty as the Personal Guard of one Brij Lal Goel, Ex-MLA, Rajpura, District Patiala. Smt. Pushpa, PW was his wife. The couple had a handful of children. They had a single room house to live in a locality at Rajpura. In the neighbourhood, Narinder Singh deceased was living having constructed a house, quite close to the house of Daulat Ram. Narinder Singh was an educated unmarried young man of 25 having done his MA. He was contemplating to start some business at Rajpura. He was staying alone in his house. His father, Sub-Inspector Gurbachan Singh had at one time been posted at Rajpura, but at the relevant time was posted in the CIA Staff at Malerkotla, a town about 53 miles away from Rajpura. His father s brother, Gurnam Singh, PW lived at Sunam, at a distance of about 55 miles from Rajpura. Both the towns were in different directions.

3. The case of prosecution is that Gurnam Singh, PW, father s brother of the deceased had visited Rajpura on a number of occasions and had developed a feeling that the deceased was carrying on with Pushpa, PW Gurnam Singh, PW wanted to disrupt the relationship. Thus on July 23, 1985, sometime after 1.00 PM, he came to Rajpura accompanied by Hardial Singh, PW in order to take the deceased with him to his native place Sunam. Half an hour later, at about 1.45 PM, Gurnam Singh, Hardial Singh, PWs and the deceased set out from the latter s house for going to Sunam. While so, the deceased told Gurnam Singh and Hardial Singh, PWs that he had a message to deliver at the house of Daulat Ram. Saying so he went and entered the house of Daulat Ram followed by Gurnam Singh and Hardial Singh PWs. They saw him talking to Pushpa PW. In the meantime, Daulat Ram, appellant arrived. Daulat Ram shouted that he was going to teach a lesson to the deceased for having entered his house and saying so, he fired five shots in quick succession towards the deceased from his service revolver. On receipt of injuries the deceased fell on a cot, which lay in the sole room. The appellant then further assaulted the deceased with a knife on his face. Then Pushpa PW intervened. She too was given some injuries by the appellant. The appellant thereafter left the place of occurrence carrying his revolver with him. Gurnam Singh and Hardial Singh, eye-witnesses went near the deceased and found him dead.

4. The prosecution case further is that Gurnam Singh leaving behind Hardial Singh near the dead body went to the local Police Station, Rajpura and lodged the FIR at 2.45 PM. The investigative machinery was set in motion. SI, Harsajjan Singh PW12 came to the spot and prepared the inquest report. He had shown therein the dead body lying on the cot in position. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Vinod Kumar PW1 at 5.35 PM. He was also required to examine the injuries of Pushpa PW at 7.00 PM the same day. He found on her three injuries, two of whom were as a result of a blunt weapon assault and one by a sharp-edged weapon. The post-mortem report of the deceased revealed that the death was instantaneous and that the time between death and post mortem was within six hours. At the trial however he amended his statement to say that the probable duration between death and post mortem could also be eight hours. The blood-stained clothes of the deceased which were a T-shirt and pyjamas, were removed and given to the police as case property.

5. After completion of investigation, the appellant was tried by the Sessions Judge, Patiala under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. He was convicted for both the offences and sentenced to life imprisonment and payment of fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(SC) 763

IMPORTANT POINTIf holes can be picked in the defence that doesn t lead to the prosecution story being automatically proved as the prosecution has to stand on its own legs and can derive no advantage from the weakness of the defence.

IMPORTANT POINT
If holes can be picked in the defence that doesn t lead to the prosecution story being automatically proved as the prosecution has to stand on its own legs and can derive no advantage from the weakness of the defence.