IMPORTANT POINT
Conviction of appellants cannot be sustained as the evidence of eye witnesses is not reliable, investigation was tainted and recoveries made are suspect.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302/149, 148, 325/149, 324/149, 323/149 and 326-Arms Act-Section 27-Offences under-8 persons tried-One was declared absconder-Three acquitted-Four convicted -Only 3 appealed to Supreme Court-Conviction based on three eye witnesses PW14, PW15 and PW17-Supreme Court found testimony of PW14 (informant) and PW15 was not wholly reliable (see Paras 11 to 13)-Testimony of PW17 was found wholly unreliable (see Paras 14 and 15)-Investigation of case was tainted-It was neither fair nor impartial (Paras 25 to 36)-Recoveries and seizures made are suspect (see Paras 37 and 38)-Result -Appeals allowed (Para 39)-(Cr.P.C. 1973-Sections 161 and 154-Evidence Act, 1872-Section 27).
       Held : That the failure of the prosecution to explain the injuries on Paramjit Singh leads to the inference that the prosecution has not disclosed the true genesis and the manner of occurrence. (Para 35)
       It is not in dispute that no test identification parade was held to identify the assailants and this also is a serious lacuna in the case of the prosecution. (Para 36)
       Held consequently : In view of our findings that eye witnesses, PW.14 and PW.15 are not wholly reliable and the third witness PW.17 is wholly unreliable, that the investigation of the case is tainted and not fair and impartial, that the recoveries and seizures made are suspect, that the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries on Paramjit Singh which it was bound to explain in the facts and circumstances of the case, and lastly that no test identification parade was held even though informant and eye witness PW.14 did not know the names of the assailants on the date of occurrence, coupled with the fact that the High Court disbelieving the eye witnesses accepted the plea of alibi of Ranjit Singh and did not believe the eye witnesses with regard to the participation of Gurmit Singh and Kulwant Singh, this appeal must succeed. It is accordingly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants are set aside. The appellants shall be released forthwith unless required in connection with any other case. (Para 39)

JUDGMENT

B.P. Singh, J.-The three appellants in this appeal, namely - Constables Lakhwinder Singh, Pargat Singh and Paramjit Singh have challenged their conviction and sentence passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 423-DB of 1999 whereby they have been sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment under section 148 IPC; life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- under section 302/149 IPC; two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- under sections 325/149 IPC; one year rigorous imprisonment under section 324/149 IPC; six months rigorous imprisonment under section 323/149 IPC; three months rigorous imprisonment under section 336 IPC and seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- under section 27 of the Arms Act. The High Court disposed of three appeals before it arising out of the same judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana dated 20th July, 1999 in Sessions Case No. 13/56 of 6/6/97 /16/3/1999. It allowed Criminal Appeal No. 344-DB of 1999 preferred by Ranjit Singh accepting his plea of alibi. It partly allowed Criminal Appeal No. 376-DB of 1999 inasmuch as it acquitted Kulwant Singh and Gurmit Singh of all the charges levelled against them on a finding that there was no acceptable evidence of their participation in the offence. The appeal preferred by the third appellant in that appeal, namely - Jit Singh @ Parmi was rejected. It appears that Jit Singh @ Parmi has not preferred an appeal to this Court.

2. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 24th December, 1996 at 8.00 p.m. at village Talwandi Rai within the jurisdiction of P.S. Raikot. In that incident, it is alleged, the appellant, and four others variously armed committed the murder of Chamkaur Singh and caused injuries to Darshan Singh, PW.14 (informant); Sohail Singh, PW.15 and Maghar Singh (since deceased). It also appears from the record that Kuldip Singh, who was also charged of having committed the offence alongwith the appellants and others absconded during trial and was, therefore, declared a proclaimed offender. In this appeal, therefore, we are only concerned with the three appellants before us.

3. The case of the prosecution is that after the occurrence took place at about 8.00 p.m., Darshan Singh, PW.14, proceeded to P.S. Raikot to lodge a report but he met Inspector Gur Tejinder Singh, S.H.O., Raikot at the bus stand, Raikot and lodged his report there at about 10.00 p.m. In his report he stated that he was a resident of village Pabbian but resided with his maternal grand father in village Talwandi Rai where he was employed as a Munshi. At about 8.00 p.m., on hearing a commotion he rushed towards the path way near the village pond where he saw Jit Singh @ Parmi, Gurmit Singh and Kulwant Singh (both since acquitted) quarrelling with Sohail Singh, PW.15, Maghar Singh (since deceased) and Chamkaur Singh, who was killed in the incident. Brick bats were being hurled. In the meantime Ranjit Singh (since acquitted) alongwith his gunmen and the gunmen of his father Joginder Singh came there. He exhorted Jit Singh @ Parmi to kill as many persons as he liked and he would take responsibility for it. On his exhortation, Jit Singh @ Parmi snached the rifle of one of the gunmen and fired a shot at Chamkaur Singh injuring him on his neck. Chamkaur Singh fell down and died soon thereafter. The others assaulted Sohail Singh, PW.15 and Maghar Singh (since deceased) with dangs and sticks. One of the gunmen gave him a blow on his head with the butt of his rifle causing an injury. All of them raised alarm, whereafter Ranjit Singh alongwith his gunmen; Gurmit Singh and Kulwant Singh fled towards the village firing from their weapons. The motive for the occurrence disclosed in the report is that Gurmit Singh, Kulwant Singh and Parmi were preventing Sohail Singh, Hardev Singh and others from using the path way in the shamelat land near the village pond.

4. The informant further reported that Sohail Si

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 1237

IMPORTANT POINTConviction of appellants cannot be sustained as the evidence of eye witnesses is not reliable, investigation was tainted and recoveries made are suspect.

IMPORTANT POINT
Conviction of appellants cannot be sustained as the evidence of eye witnesses is not reliable, investigation was tainted and recoveries made are suspect.