2002 Supreme(SC) 224

2002(1) Supreme 629
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
R.P. Sethi and K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.
State of Punjab -Appellant
versus
Jugraj Singh & Ors. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 287 of 1997
With
Criminal Appeal No. 288 of 1997
Decided on 14-2-2002
Result : Appeal allowed. Acquittal reversed.
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant in Crl.A.No. 287/97 : Inderbir Singh Alag, Satinder Singh Bawa, Rajeev Sharma, R.S. Suri, Advocates.
For the Appellant in Crl.A.No. 288/97 : Atul Sharma, Ms. Gitanjali Kapoor, Rajiv K. Garg and A.D.N. Rao, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Krishna Ballabh Sinha, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Kawaljit Kochar, S.C. Paul, C.L. Bashal and J.D. Jain, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Where the conclusions arrived at by the High Court in acquitting the accused are stated to be based on surmises and conjectures and the prosecution is stated to have proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts, the Supreme Court upon review of the judgment set aside the impugned judgment of acquittal and convicted the accused under Sections 302/34 IPC and Sections 25 and 30 Arms Act.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302/34-Arms Act, 1925-Sections 25 and 30-Conviction-Murder by gun shot injuries-Enmity-Eye witnesses-Prompt FIR containing names of accused-Deceased and witnesses had gone to work in their fields when accused armed with deadly weapons raised Lalkara and shot from double barred gun and killed them-Both eye witnesses ran away from place of occurrence-Their evidence corroborated by medical evidence-Blood stained earth, turban, pair of shoes, towl etc. of deceased seized from place of occurrence-Seizure of weapons of offence on disclosure statement of accused-High Court wrongly ignored evidence of eye witnesses and expert opinion while acquitting accused-Impugned judgment of acquittal set aside-Accused convicted of offences under Section 302/34 IPC and Sections 25 and 30 Arms Act.

       Held : We have critically perused the statements of the aforesaid two eye-witnesses and the statement of Dr. Tirath Singh (PW 1) and did not find any inconsistency in their depositions. We are further satisfied that the statements of the eye-witnesses stand corroborated by the medical evidence. We have no doubt in our mind that the accused-persons are responsible for causing the death of the deceased persons. The prompt lodging of the FIR and its despatch to the Magistrate has further strengthened our belief that there was no possibility of either wrong person being impleaded as accused or persons who have not seen the occurrence produced as eye-witnesses. The finding of the High Court, being contrary to the legal evidence, is perverse and cannot be sustained. (Para 14)

       The impugned judgment is based upon conjectures and hypothesis and the High Court has wrongly ignored the evidence of eye-witnesses, the conclusions arrived by it are erroneous both on facts and on law. We find it a fit case in which, upon review of the judgment and in the light of legal position, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. Accordingly the appeals are allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and upholding the judgment of the trial court by which respondents were convicted and sentenced for the commission of offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and Sections 25 and 30 of the Arms Act. (Paras 18 and 19)

       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302/34-Arms Act, 1925-Sections 25 and 30-Killing by gun shots-Defect of not sending weapon of offence, guns, to ballistic expert for examination for his expert opinion-Whether creditworthiness of the case is demolished entitling accused benefit of acquittal-Held, no-Investigation Officer categorically stated that guns seized were not in a working condition-Evidence of eye witnesses being convincing evidence-Non examination of expert in this case not, in any way, affected creditworthiness of prosecution case. (Paras 16 and 17)

       (iii) Evidence Act, 1872-Section 45-Medical evidence-Murder-No obligation on doctor to describe origin or cause of injuries in post mortem report as he stated in his deposition in Court-Doctor had not made a mention of gun shot injuries in post mortem report-His later deposition before police regarding nature of injuries-Whether acceptable?-(Yes). (Para 15)

       (iv) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302/34-Arms Act, 1925-Sections 25 and 30-Murder-Expert opinion that injuries found on person of deceased were gun shot injuries and injuries caused by sharp edged and blunt weapon-Whether High Court was justified to substitute its own opinion for opinion of expert?-(No). (Para 11)

       (v) Constitution of India-Article 136-Appeal by special leave-Power to review evidence.

       Held : It is now well established that this Court does not, by special leave, convert itself into a court to review evidence for a third time. However, where the High Court is shown to have failed in appreciating the true effect and material change in the version given by the witnesses, in such a situation it would not be right for this Court to affirm such a decision when it occasions a failure of justice. The power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is, no doubt, extraordinary in amplitude and this Court goes into action only to avert miscarriage of justice if the existence of perversity is shown in the impugned judgment. Unless some serious infirmity or grave failure of justice is shown, this Court normally refrains from reappreciating the matter on appeal by special leave. The findings of the High Court have to be judged by the yardstick of reason to ascertain whether such findings were erroneous, perverse and resulted in miscarriage of justice. If the conclusions of the courts below can be supported by acceptable evidence, the Supreme Court will not exercise its overriding powers to interfere with such a decision. (Para 5)