IMPORTANT POINT
In an appeal against acquittal, Court would be entitled to reappreciate evidence but interference will not be made unless view of Court acquitting accused was unreasonable or perverse.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302/34-Trial Court convicted respondents accused while acquitting other three and imposed death sentence for committing murder of five members of their family over property dispute-Conviction was based on testimony of two eye witnesses PW4, brother of one of deceased, and his son PW5 aged about 7 years-Respondent-accused armed with kirpan and dah were alleged to have attacked five deceased who were asleep in courtyard in house in mid night-PW4 and PW5 were sleeping on the roof of house on separate cots and saw accused assaulting deceased persons-High Court in appeal set aside conviction of all three convicts-State appeal-Being appeal against acquittal, Court was entitled to reappreciate evidence but not to interfere unless it found that view of Court acquitting accused was unreasonable or perverse-High Court found presence of PW4 and PW5 on spot at the time of occurrence doubtful as they were chance witnesses-Investigating officers in site plan did not show wooden stairs or cots on roof-Absence of these in sketch created doubt-No person was attracted on PW4 and PW5 raising hue and cry after occurrence created doubt-High Court also noticed inconsistencies in evidence of two eye witnesses-View of High Court was reasonable view of evidence and did not deserve to be interfered with. (Paras 11 to 21)

JUDGMENT

B.P. Singh, J.-The State of Punjab has preferred this appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 24th September, 1996 in Criminal Appeal No. 627-DB of 1995 and Murder Reference No. 7 of 1995 whereby the High Court while allowing the appeal of the respondents herein acquitted them of the charges under Sections 148, 302, 302/34 IPC. Accordingly the High Court set aside the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, who by his judgment and order dated 13th November, 1995 in Sessions Case No. 54 of 14.12.1190 had found the respondents guilty of offences under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to death. Three other accused persons who were tried alongwith the respondents herein were, however, acquitted by the trial court.

2. The occurrence giving rise to the instant appeal occurred on the night intervening 26th and 27th July, 1990. The case of the prosecution is that in the said occurrence five persons were murdered by the respondents and their three accomplices, since acquitted. We may notice at the threshold that all the respondents herein are brothers. Of the three accused acquitted by the trial court two are their brothers while the third is said to be their friend. The deceased include the mother of the respondents namely Surjit Kaur, their maternal grand mother Jangir Kaur, their sister Sujan Kaur, her husband Mohinder Singh and their six years old daughter Kirna. The motive alleged by the prosecution was that their maternal grand father Jeon Singh who had executed a will in favour of the respondents and their brother Teja Singh in respondent of 8 killas of land, had since changed the Will and bequeathed the property in favour of his wife Jangir Kaur and daughter Surjit Kaur. The respondents and their brothers, therefore, apprehended that their mother and maternal grand mother may ultimately give the land to their sister Sujan Kaur and this is what prompted them to commit the murders.

3. The factual backgrounds in which the occurrence took place may be briefly noticed.

4. Jeon Singh was married to Jangir Kaur and lived in Village Adamke where the occurrence is said to have taken place. They had only one issue namely Surjit Kaur @ Seeto who was married to Mukhtiar Singh of village Singhpura. They had five sons namely Teja Singh, Mohinder Singh, Ajaib Singh, Balwinder Singh and Joginder Singh. They had also three daughters including Sujan Kaur (deceased). It is not in dispute that at some stage Surjit Kaur @ Seeto deserted her husband Mukhtiar Singh and started living with Bogha Singh of Village Jhunir. Sujan Kaur, the daughter of Surjit Kaur was married to Mohinder Singh of Chudhuwala. They had two children - a son Gurcharan Singh (PW-5) aged about 8 years and a daughter Kirna aged about 6 years. They resided in village Chudhuwala.

5. It is not in dispute that two sons of Surjit Kaur namely- Ajaib Singh and Joginder Singh (respondents herein) were married and lived with their families at village Adamke with their maternal grand father Jeon Singh. It also appears from the record that PW-5 Gurcharan Singh (son of Sujan Kaur deceased) lived with his maternal grand mother Surjit Kaur at village Jhunir and was studying at Fatta Maluka. His education expenses were borne by Bogha Singh with whom his maternal grand mother Surjit Kaur was living.

6. The case of the prosecution is that Jeon Singh (not examined) and his brother Amar Singh owned 16 killas of land in equal share. The land of Amar Singh was recorded in the name of Jangir Singh and the said land came in ownership of Joginder Singh, respondent, since Jangir Kaur suffered a decree in respect of the said land in favour of the aforesaid Joginder Singh. Remaining 8 killas of land was held by Jeon Singh and he had executed a will bequeathing 2 killas of land each in favour of his remaining 4 grand sons namely - Teja Singh, Ajaib Singh, Mohinder Singh and Balwinder Singh. It appears th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 467

IMPORTANT POINTIn an appeal against acquittal, Court would be entitled to reappreciate evidence but interference will not be made unless view of Court acquitting accused was unreasonable or perverse.

IMPORTANT POINT
In an appeal against acquittal, Court would be entitled to reappreciate evidence but interference will not be made unless view of Court acquitting accused was unreasonable or perverse.