Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SARKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
Mohinder Singh, Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 1961.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. Gopal Singh, Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. B. K. Khanna, Advocate, and B. R. G. K. Achar, Advocate, for Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate, for Respondent.
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - CONVICTION - EVIDENCE - DISCOVERY OF WEAPON - ACQUITTAL IN COMPANION CASE UNDER ARMS ACT - EFFECT - PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Mohinder Singh, a jat, had an illicit relationship with Mst. Puro, a Mazhbi woman. The Mazhbis resented this relationship and insisted that Mohinder Singh marry Mst. Puro. Mohinder Singh refused, leading to a confrontation between him and the Mazhbis. On April 12, 1960, Mohinder Singh, armed with a pistol, confronted a group of Mazhbis, killing one and injuring several others. He was arrested and charged with murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The Court upheld the conviction of Mohinder Singh for murder, rejecting his arguments that the order of commitment was not based on evidence, that the evidence was discrepant and contradicted itself, and that the discovery of the pistol and the statements leading to it could not be relied upon in view of his acquittal in a companion case under the Arms Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of commitment was based on evidence? 2. Whether the evidence was discrepant and contradicted itself? 3. Whether the discovery of the pistol and the statements leading to it could be relied upon in view of the acquittal in a companion case under the Arms Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The order of commitment was based on evidence, including statements before the police and the examination-in-chief of some witnesses before the committal court. 2. The evidence was not discrepant or contradictory, and the witnesses' change of version was explained by their fear of the accused. 3. The acquittal in the companion case under the Arms Act did not affect the admissibility of the evidence regarding the discovery of the pistol and the statements leading to it, as the acquittal was recorded long after the conclusion of the trial in the Court of Session and the dismissal of the appeal by the High Court.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of Mohinder Singh for murder.
Key Points: - The acquittal in a companion case under the Arms Act does not automatically exclude evidence regarding the discovery of the pistol and statements leading to it in the murder trial (!) (!) (!) . - The order of commitment was based on evidence, including police statements and examination-in-chief, satisfying the requirements under criminal procedure (!) (!) . - Witnesses' changed versions were explained by fear of the accused, and their earlier statements in examination-in-chief were given greater weight (!) (!) . - The discovery of the pistol and cartridges, identified through the accused’s statement, was admissible as it was closely linked to the crime scene and the accused’s knowledge (!) (!) . - The court rejected the accused’s argument that the subsequent acquittal should override the earlier conviction, as it occurred long after the trial and involved inconsistent witness testimony (!) (!) . - The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld based on the evaluation of evidence and legal principles (!) .
Judgment
HIDAYATULLAH, J. :
This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1961 and Murder Reference No. 4 of 1961 decided on February 17, 1961. The appellant Mohinder Singh has been convicted under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. Originally, three others were tried with him but they were acquitted by the Court of Session. Mohinder Singh was sentenced by the Court of Session to death, but on appeal the High Court altered the sentence to one of rigorous imprisonment for life.
2. Mohinder Singh, who is a jat, had contracted illicit intimacy with one Mst. Puro a Mazhbi woman who was abandoned by her husband. He used to visit her at her house and this was resented by the other Mazhbis including some of her relations. These persons did not object to Mohinder Singh as such but only insisted that he should marry Mst. Puro and make the connection legal. This Mohinder Singh was unwilling to do, because he was of a higher status.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on April 12, 1960, in the evening, Mohinder Singh, riding a mare, was on his way to the locality of the Mazhbis and was accompanied by the other three original accused who have since been acquitted. On the precincts of the locality some Mazhbis (Dula Singh, Hazara Singh, Resham Singh, Inder Singh and Khushia) accosted him. Mohinder Singh challenged them to stop him and drawing a country made pistol fired at Dula Singh who dropped down dead. He fired a second shot at the others, this time wounding Khushia, Inder Singh and Resham Singh. Mohinder Singh then fired a third shot and wounded two others Sulakhan Singh and Narain Singh who were not with the first party of the Mazhbis but were immediately behind them. Thereafter, Mohinder Singh and his companions ran away.
4. The incident took place at about 7 P. M. and a report was made to the police the next morning at 6 A.M. Mohinder Singh was arrested on April 17, 1960 but his three companions were arrested a day earlier. On April 26, 1960, Mohinder Singh made a statement to the police as follows:
"I having put my country made 12 bore pistol and two cartridges in a bag, have concealed in the Sitas, on the right side of Bakki road, at Bridge Raj Ba Thandewala and I can get the some recovered on pointing out.
This statement was made in the presence of Sham Singh and Kehar Singh and they duly proved it in court. As a result of this statement, the police recovered 1 1/2 feet below the surface of the ground a cotton bag which contained a .12 bore pistol and 2 twelve-bore cartridges one of which had misfired and bore the mark of the firing pin. At the site of the offence, the police had found three spent .12 bore cartridges. The pistol and the five cartridges, live and spent, were examined by Dr. B. R. Sharma a Ballistic expert. He deposed that the spent cartridges as also the cartridge which had misfired were from the same pistol and that pistol was the one found on the statement of Mohinder Singh.
5. In the Committal Court, the prosecution examined all the eye-witnesses whom we have already named and Sham Singh and Kehar Singh who were witnesses of the search: The prosecution also produced documents mentioned in S. 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code relative to the crime. Curiously enough, some of the eye-witnesses in the committal Court in examination-in-chief deposed to the main occurrence as described by us above but under cross-examination added that Mohinder Singh was not one of the assailants. Previously in the same statement, they had named him and also fully described the occurrence. The other eye-witnesses did not name him at all stating that after receiving their injuries, they fell down unconscious and did not see anything. The latter were cross-examined by the prosecution on the basis of the statements made to the police; they denied that they had been won over by the accused. The learned Magistrate relying upon
AI
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
