Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
4th November, 1955
BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR AND SINHA, JJ.
Pritam Singh and another, Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 1955.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. Jai Gopal Sethi, Senior Advocate (Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, with him), for Appellants, Mr. Gopal Singh and Mr. P. G. Gokhale, Advocates, for Respondent.
Held: Where the witnesses on a certain point are, after due consideration of the circumstances and the criticisms levelled against their evidence, believed by both the Courts below, the Supreme Court will not re-weigh or re-appreciate their evidence. On special leave, the Supreme Court should not ordinarily interfere with the appreciation of the evidence by the Courts below, unless there are some compelling reasons to act to the contrary. - Sections 342, 539B, 367, 403-Examination of accused Magistrates personal observations-Evidentiary value of.
Held: (1) A Magistrate is not entitled to allow his view or observation to take the place of evidence because such view or observation of his -cannot be tested by cross-examination and the accused would certainly not be in a position to furnish any explanation in regard to the same. In the absence of such test having been applied and an explanation sought from the accused in regard to the same under S. 342, it is not open to the Judge to incorporate these observations of his in the judgment and base his .conclusion on the same.
(2) The maxim ‘res judicata pro veritate accipitur’ is no less applicable to criminal than to civil proceedings. The effect of a verdict of acquittal pronounced by a competent court on a lawful charge and after lawful trial is not completely stated by saying that the person acquitted cannot be tried again for the same offence. To that it must be added that the verdict is binding and conclusive in all subsequent proceedings between the parties to the adjudication. Thus an acquittal of an accused in a trial under S. 19(f), Arms Act, is tantamount to a finding that the prosecution had failed to establish the possession of certain revolver by the accused as alleged. The possession of that revolver was a fact in issue which had to be established by the prosecution before he could be convicted of the offence under S. 19(f). The fact was found against the prosecution and could not be proved against the accused in the subsequent proceedings between the Crown and him under a charge of murder. The evidence against him in the latter proceedings would have to be considered regardless of the evidence of recovery of the revolver from him. - Sections 9, 45-Identification by track evidence-Value of trackers evidence.
Held: The 8cience of identification of footprints is no doubt rudimentary science and much reliance cannot be placed on the result of such identification. The track evidence, however pan be relied upon as circumstance which along with other circumstances, would point to the identity of the culprit though by itself it would not be enough to Garry conviction in the minds of the ,Court.
Judgement
BHAGWATI, J. : This is an appeal with special leave by Pritam Singh, son of Surain Singh, hereinafter called Pritam Singh Fatchpuri, and Pritam Singh, son of Ladha Singh, hereinafter called Pritam Singh Lohara, against their conviction and the sentence of death passed upon them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, and confirmed by the High Court of Punjab at Simla.
2. Both the appellants were charged that they, along with Kartar Singh alias Mal and Gurdial Singh alias Karnail Singh absconding, on 2-5-1953, in furtherance of the common intention of them all committed the murders of Chanan Singh Orara and Sardul Singh by shooting them with firearms.
3. The story unfolded in the evidence led by the prosecution was that, at about 6 p. m. on 2-5-1953. Pritam Singh Lohara and Kartar Singh got into Lorry No. P. N. A. - 2404 at the bus stand at Amritsar. Chanan Singh Orara and his nephew Sardul Singh also traveled in this lorry.
Pritam Singh Fatchpuri and Gurdial Singh got into the lorry on the way and seated themselves with Pritam Singh Lohara and Kartar Singh in the seats which had been already reserved for them by the latter. When the lorry neared the village Bohoru, the driver stopped the lorry on being asked to do so and the two Pritam Singh s and both the absconders got down form the lorry.
Pritam Singh Fatchpuri and Gurdial Singh stood on the right flank of the lorry nearest to the seat on which Chanan Singh was sitting on the front-row of seats just behind the driver while Pritam Singh Lohara and Kartar Singh went over the left flank next to Sardual Singh. All the four whipped out small firearms.
Pritam Singh Fatchpuri and Gurdial Singh fired at Chanan Singh while Pritam Singh Lohara and Kartar Singh fired at Sardual Singh with their respective firearms and both the victims died on the spot. Sardual Singh had a rifle, Ex. P-14 with him which was a licenced one and belonged to Chanan Singh Orara who had given it over to Sardual Singh for carrying it on the journey.
Pritam Singh Fatchpuri caught hold of this rifle, Chanan Singh Orara had a licenced revolver Ex. P-56 hung round his neck and Pritam Singh Lohara removed this revolver. All the four culprits then ran away towards the canal side. They met four cyclists on the way and relieved them of their cycles in order to hasten their retreat form the spot. The culprits subsequently abandoned these cycles at odd places and made themselves scarce.
4. The driver of the lorry was Pritam Singh, son of Madsudan Singh. He went to the police station Saddar Amritsar and made the report at 7-45 p. m. that day. Shri Om Prakash the S. H. O., reached the spot at 8.30 p. m. and entered upon he investigation of the offence and recorded the statements of various passengers in the lorry who were on the spot.
Amongst the passengers so examined was a police constable, one Thakar Singh, who gave the clue to the identity of one of the culprits. 8 foot-prints were found in a field near the spot and the moulds of these foot-prints were taken on 3-5-1953. On the same day moulds of 5 foot-prints in a field near the canal bank at some distance from the spot were also taken.
The identity of Pritam Singh Fatchpuri became known at about noon on 3-5-1993 and his house in Kaulsar in Amritsar City was raided at about 3.30 p. m. that day. Pritam Singh Fatchpuri was not there and his house was locked. The lock was broke open and a search of his house was made in the presence of witnesses. A bush-shirt, Ex. P-34, was found hanging on a peg in the house while a pair of shoes, Ex. P-29, was found lying on the floor. The bush-shirt was blood-stained.
Pritam Singh Fatchpuri could not be found in spite of search at all likely places and proceedings under Ss. 87/88, Criminal P. C. were taken against him. On 26-5-1953, Shri Om Prakash received information about the whereabouts of Pritam Singh Fatchpuri and picketed a place on the Ganda Nala in the village area of gumanapura on the night between the 26th an
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
