Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY AND I.D. DUA, JJ.
Tapinder Singh, Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and another, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 244 of 1969, D/- 7-5-1970.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302, 307/324 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 162 - Indian Evidence Act - Section 32 (1) – Offence of Murder - Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons - Challenged - Appeal by special leave - Occurrence is stated to have taken place near clock tower in Ludhiana City - It is not disputed that on appellant, a business man and a Municipal Commissioner, had lodged a first information report (Ex. PR) with police station, , against, deceased whom he described as his (his wife s sister s husband) and one, alleging that on pretext of consulting him they had taken him in their car to canal near Agricultural College and after getting down from car, when they had walked about 150 paces on banks of canal, deceased saying that he would teach appellant a lesson, whipped out a clasp-knife and attacked him - Also shouted that appellant should not be allowed to escape - Appellant raised alarm and tried to run away – Held, Considerable stress was laid on behalf of appellant on submission that according to folder Ex. DC one was present in hospital as a friend or relation of injured person - From this it was sought to be inferred that, father, had not accompanied his son to hospital and that this would show that eye witnesses are not telling truth - Argument seems to Court to be without any basis and is misconceived - Court are, not impressed by submission that Ex. DC goes against testimony of eye witnesses - Incidentally, Ex. DC also contains precise information which was subject matter of dying declaration - It appears that in order to discredit Ex. DC with respect to information about appellant being assailant, name of one was somehow made to appear on folder but as it has not been legally proved and not referred to by any witness court need say nothing more about it - Appeal dismissed.
The judgment relied heavily on the principle that a dying declaration, when made voluntarily and recorded properly by a competent authority, is a highly reliable form of evidence that can independently establish guilt if deemed credible (!) . The court emphasized that such declarations, made under the stress of impending death, are presumed truthful and carry substantial evidentiary weight, provided their circumstances are thoroughly scrutinized to confirm their authenticity (!) .
Additionally, the court relied on the principle that eyewitness testimony, which is consistent and given by persons with an opportunity to observe the incident, is credible and supports the case. The assessment of witness credibility focused on their opportunity to observe and the consistency of their accounts, rather than re-examining all details of the evidence (!) (!) .
The physical evidence, including blood stains and the manner of attack, was considered corroborative of the victim’s dying declaration and eyewitness accounts. The court held that minor discrepancies or unproved details in physical evidence do not necessarily undermine the core facts if the evidence as a whole establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt (!) (!) (!) .
The presence of a motive, supported by circumstances indicating personal grudges or illicit relations, was deemed relevant in establishing culpability. The court also found that the deliberate and premeditated nature of the attack justified the imposition of a severe penalty, including capital punishment, given the heinousness of the crime (!) (!) .
Finally, the court relied on the principle that appellate courts tend to uphold the factual findings of lower courts unless a clear error is demonstrated. The overall strength of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses supported the conviction, and the severity of the sentence was deemed appropriate considering the circumstances (!) (!) .
Judgment
DUA, J. - In this appeal by special leave the appellant challenges his conviction and sentence under Section 302, I. P. C. for the murder of his brother-in-law (husband of his wife s sister). The occurrence is stated to have taken place on Sunday October 8, 1968 at about 4.45 p. m. near the clock tower in Ludhiana City. It is not disputed that on August 13, 1968 the appellant Tapinder Singh, a business man and a Municipal Commissioner, had lodged a first information report (Ex. PR) with the police station, Sadar, Ludhiana against Kulwant Singh, deceased whom he described as his Sandhu (his wife s sister s husband) and one Ajit Singh, alleging that on the pretext of consulting him they had taken him in their car to the canal near the Agricultural College and after getting down from the car, when they had walked about 150 paces on the banks of the canal, the deceased Kulwant Singh, saying that he would teach the appellant a lesson, whipped out a clasp-knife and attacked him. Ajit Singh also shouted that the appellant should not be allowed to escape. The appellant raised alarm and tried to run away. While endeavouring to ward off with his right hand the knife blow by Kulwant Singh the appellant s right hand palm got wounded and started bleeding. Just at that moment Gurmel Singh, Sarpanch and Shamsher Singh, Lambardar, happened to pass that way in a car. They stopped the car. In the meantime Kulwant Singh and Ajit Singh got into their car and went away. Pursuant to this report admittedly a criminal case was pending against the deceased when the occurrence in question took place. Kulwant Singh, deceased, who had been arrested pursuant to that report, in a case under S. 307/324, I. P. C., was actually on bail on the date of the occurrence. According to the prosecution Gurdial Singh (P. W. 7), father of the deceased Kulwant Singh is employed as Works Manager in the Ludhiana Transport Company, which is a private concern and which plies buses on different routes in Ludhiana District. Gurdial Singh is also a share-holder of this Company. The workshop, the office and the taxi stand of this Company are located in Sarai Bansidhar which faces the clock tower. Gurdial Singh, in addition, owns two taxis which he runs on hire. He also owns two private cars which are used both for personal requirements and as taxis. The deceased used to look after these four vehicles. The father and the son used to live together in Model Town. The two taxis used to remain at the Taxi Stand about 100 yards away from the clock tower whereas the other two cars used to be parked at Gurdial Singh s business premises. On August 8, 1968 at about 4.45 p. m. the deceased was sitting on a Takhat posh at the Taxi Stand. It being a Sunday the shops in the neighbourhood were closed. Shersingh (P. W. 9) was standing close to the Takhat posh. Harnak Singh, the driver of one of the taxis and Gurdial Singh were also present. At the taxi stand there was at that time only one taxi belonging to Gurdial Singh. The appellant came from the side of the railway station and fired at the deceased five shots from his pistol. After receiving three shots the deceased dropped down and the remaining two shots hit him when lying. The persons present there raised an alarm, shouting Don t kill; don t kill . The appellant, after firing the shots, briskly walked back towards the railway station. The deceased who was bleeding profusely was taken in the taxi by Gurdial Singh, his father and Harnak Singh, the driver, to Dayanand Hospital where they were advised to take the injured to Brown s Hospital because his condition was serious. It is in evidence that some person had telephoned to the City Kotwali, Ludhiana on the day of the occurrence at about 5.30 p. m. informing the police authorities that firing had taken place at Taxi Stand, Ludhiana. The person, giving the information on telephone, did not disclose his identity; nor did he give any further particulars. When the police officer rec
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
