Santa Singh vs State Of Punjab - 1956 Supreme(SC) 6

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1956 Supreme(SC) 6

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2nd February, 1956
BOSE, JAGANNADHA DAS, SINHA, IMAM AND CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR, JJ.
Santa Singh, Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 1955.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. Madan, Senior Advocate (Mr. S. D. Sekhari, Advocate with him), for Appellant; Mr. N. S. Bindra, Senior Advocate, (Mr. P. G. Gokhale, Advocate, with him), for Respondent.

Advocates:
N.S.BINDRA, P.G.COKHALE, S.D.SEKHRI

Headnote:Section 162-Scope-Map drawn by draftsman-Evidential value-Evidence Act (1872), Section 60.
       Held (per majority): (1) It is not unusual to have a plan drawn up by drafts man and this is not done to evade the provisions of section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. "The draftsmans evidence is that all three (eye-witnesses) pointed out to him the two places and that the marginal notes which he appended to the plan were correct. The distance between the two places is shown as 25 feet, Even if we rule out under S. 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code as inadmissible what the witnesses told the Head Constable and the Sub Inspector, there is no such bar to the evidence given by the draftsman. If the draftsman is asked to prepare a sketch map of the place of the occurrence, and if after ascertaining from the witnesses where exactly the assailant and the victim stood at the time of the commission of the offence and the draftsman measures the distance between the two places thus shown to him and puts it down on the plan, and further, if the witnesses corroborate his statement that they showed him the places, it is somewhat difficult to see how his is not legal evidence and why it is inadmissible....
       " Nor is the evidence hearsay because (1) the eye-witnesses have been called and they say that they showed the different spots to the draftsman and (2) in so far as the distance is concerned the .draftsman himself measured them as he swears in the witness box that the distances shown in the sketch are correct ".
       Per Jagannadhadas and Sinha JJ. (dissenting).
       "On this evidence it appears to us that the only reasonable conclusion is that the pointing out of the distances to the draftsman was in the very presence of the police officer and that it was incidental to the pointing out of the distances to the investigating officer on the spot in the course of the investigation on the l0th itself,
       " In our opinion the evidence of the draftsman taken with what he has noted on the map can only be treated as evidence of prior statements, as to distance, of the eye-witnesses, in the course of investigation by the police and is, therefore, inadmissible in this case either as substantive or all corroborative evidence, amplifying the evidence given by the eye-witnesses." - UNITED STATE OF TRAV. AND COCHIN HIGH COURT ACT
       United State of Travancore and Cochin High Court Act (V of 1125 Ss. 8, 25-Applicability-Travancore High Court Regulation (IV of 1899) Ss. 11, 12-Constitution of India, Art. 214. - Article 136-Interterenee by Supreme Court.
       Held: Ordinarily if there were no special circumstances, the Supreme Court would not interfere with the conviction. - Section 5 Delay it, Investigation and in sending, articles to
       expert for examination-Effect.
       There was inordinate delay in sending the sealed parcels of (a) the empty cartridge case recovered from the scene of occurrence, and (b) rifle recovered from the house of the accused for the opinion, of the ballistic expert. The accused, though actually arrested on the 14th September1954, and brought to the police station of the 21st September 1954 was not interrogated by the, Sub-Inspector till, the 24th, September 1954. The memorandum relating to there co very-Of the empty cartridge case a s not attested by any independent witness.
       Held: The above suspicious features threw doubt on the bona fides Of the investigation. The suspicious delays that had occurred as regards important steps in the course of the investigation rendered it unsafe to hold that the case of the prosecution had been established beyond reasonable doubt.

Judgement

CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR, J. The appellant Santa Singh was convicted of the murder of Labh Singh & sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. The sentence was confirmed by the Punjab High Court. The appellant has come before this Court on Special leave.

2. The prosecution case is that the occurrence took place at about noon on the 10th day of September, 1954. That morning, there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased over the disappearance of the wife of one Buta Singh, as the deceased alleged that the appellant s grandfather was responsible for the abduction.

After this wrangle, the deceased and his brother Uttam Singh (P. W. 16) went to their fields. They returned at about noon and when they reached close to the Gurdwara, they decided to bathe at the well there. Mohinder Singh (P. W. 17) and Khem Singh (P. W. 18) were already bathing at the place. After the baths were over, all the four were proceeding to their houses.

The deceased was at some distance ahead of the rest. After a short while, the appellant met them and there was again an exchange of words between him and the deceased. The appellant, who had a rifle with him, shot at Labh Singh from behind his back as he was attempting to run away. Labh Singh died on the spot. The small intestines were torn up and the left kidney was found smashed.

3. Uttam Singh (P. W. 16) brother of the deceased, Mohinder Singh (P. W. 17) and Khem Singh (P. W. 18) are the eye-witnesses. Their evidence was accepted by the Sessions judge and by the High Court. Ordinarily if there were no special circumstances, this Court would not interfere with the conviction.

4. There are, however, some features in this case which make it unsafe in our opinion to uphold the conclusion of guilt.

5. The circular would of entry at the back of the deceased, 1/4" in diameter, had burnt inverted margins according to the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination.

The ballistic expert, Dr. Goyle, examined as P. W. 11, said that if there were burnt edges of the wound, the distance between the muzzle and the victim would only be a few inches and not more than nine inches. This opinion is in substantial accord with what is found in some of the text books on medical jurisprudence.

For instance, it is started in Taylor s Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, Vol. I, 10th Edition, at page 441, under the heading "Burning of the Wound".

"It is impossible to state rules as to the precise distance from which it is possible to produce marks of burning, for this depends on the quantity & nature of the powder, the method of charging, and the nature of the weapon. It is unusual, however, to get marks of burning beyond a yard or a yard and a half with a shot gun, or at more than half a yard with a revolver".

6. There are two plans in the case, one called the site plan prepared by the Sub-Inspector of Police P. W. 20 and another prepared by the draftsman, P. W. 10 on the 14th September.

All the three eye-witnesses say that they pointed out to Head Constable and the Sub-Inspector the places where the accused was standing when he fired the rifle and where the deceased was standing when he was shot; but when it comes to the draftsman it is only Uttam Singh (P. W. 16) and Khem Singh (P. W. 18) who state that they showed the two places to him.

The draftsman s evidence is that all the three pointed out to him the two places and that the marginal notes which he appended to the plan were correct. The distance between the two places is shown as 25 feet. Even if we rule out under S. 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code as inadmissible what the witnesses told the Head Constable and the Sub-Inspector, there is no such bar to the evidence given by the draftsman.

If the draftsman is asked to prepare a sketch map of the place of the occurrence, and if after ascertaining from the witnesses where exactly the assailant and the victim stood at the time of the commission of the offence and the draftsman measur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document