Nachhattar Singh vs State Of Punjab

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1998 Supreme(SC) 301

1998(3) Supreme 4
Supreme Court of India
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
G.T. Nanavati & V.N. Khare, JJ.
Nachattar Singh -Appellant
versus
State of Punjab -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 689 of 1990
Decided on 3-3-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : N.D. Garg, Advocate.
For the Respondent : R.S. Sodhi, Advocate.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Conviction for offence under-Conviction based on evidence of two eye-witnesses being sons of deceased who were present in house at time of incident of assault-Contention of appellant that eye-witnesses could not have been in house at time when incident took place-Presence of eye-witnesses in their house in late evening after returning from shop is natural and probable-Appellant rightly convicted on basis of evidence of two eye-witnesses.
Held : The High Court has held that both Daya Singh and Kulwant Singh were present in the house at the time of the incident. Their presence in their own house at that time was quite natural. If they were present in their house then obviously they could have seen the assault on their mother by the appellant. Both the courts below have thought it proper to accept their evidence and we see no reason to differ from the finding recorded in that behalf. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant was that the witnesses could not have been in their house at the time when the incident took place. It was late evening time and therefore their returning to the house from their shop at that time cannot be regarded as unnatural or improbable. As we are of the view that the High Court was right in confirming the conviction of the appellant on the basis of the evidence of the two eye witnesses this appeal has to be dismissed. (Paras 3, 4)

Judgment

Nanavati, J.-This appeal is filed by the convicted accused against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 1988 dismissing his appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Court, Bhatinda in Sessions Case No. 108 of 1986.

2. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC for causing death of Balwant Kaur. The incident happened in the house of Balwant Kaur. To prove the case, the prosecution had examined her two sons Daya Singh and Kulwant Singh who have stated that the appellant along with another Nachhattar Singh had killed their mother by giving blows with kulhari and gandasa. The trial Court believed the evidence of both those witnesses and convicted both the accused. On appeal the High Court, though believed the presence of two eye witnesses at the time of the incident gave benefit of doubt to the second accused on the ground that he had no reason or motive to kill Balwant Kaur. It is difficult to appreciate the reasoning of the High Court in this behalf but as he was been acquitted and there is no appeal by the State, it is not necessary to point out how that finding is not correct.

3. The High Court has held that both Daya Singh and Kulwant Singh were present in the house at the time of the incident. Their presence in their own house at that time was quite natural. If they were present in their house then obviously they could have seen the assault on their mother by the appellant. Both the courts below have thought it proper to accept their evidence and we see no reason to differ from the finding recorded in that behalf.

4. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant was that the witnesses could not have been in their house at the time when the incident took place. It was late evening time and therefore their returning to the house from their shop at that time cannot be regarded as unnatural or improbable. As we are of the view that the High Court was right in confirming the conviction of the appellant on the basis of the evidence of the two eye witnesses this appeal has to be dismissed.

5. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. During the pendency of the appeal the appellant was released on bail. His bail is cancelled and he is ordered to surrender to custody to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.

(H.K.) Appeal dismissed.

*************

Click Here to Read the rest of this document