1. Appeal against confirmation of death sentence for shooting a person with a double-barrel gun. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1971 Supreme(SC) 254
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI C.J.I., C.A. VAIDIALINGAM AND A.N. RAY, JJ.
Om Prakash, Appellant
Versus
The State of Haryana, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 181 of 1970, D/-19-4-1971.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. S. R. Chari, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. R.L. Kohli, Advocate with him) for Appellant; M/s. V.C. Mahajan and R.N. Sachthey, Advocates, for Respondent.
The court held that where ocular evidence is corroborated and not contradicted by medical evidence, the conviction stands; however, the court may commute a death sentence to life imprisonment based on the circumstances of the case, such as the age of the accused.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Law - Evidence and Sentencing - Conflict between medical and ocular evidence - Where ocular evidence of multiple witnesses is consistent and corroborated by a neutral witness, and medical evidence does not conclusively contradict it, the ocular evidence prevails - Appropriateness of sentence - Court may commute death sentence to life imprisonment based on the circumstances of the case. (Paras 1 and 3)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted of shooting the deceased with a double-barrel gun. Eye-witnesses and a neutral witness testified that two shots were fired, whereas it was contended that medical evidence suggested four shots. The appellant was 19 years old at the time of the offense. Two other relatives were implicated but were granted the benefit of doubt.
Findings of Court:
Upon close examination of the medical and forensic evidence, the court found no conflict with the ocular evidence.
Issues: Whether there was a conflict between the medical evidence and ocular evidence regarding the number of shots fired, and whether the death sentence should be commuted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the ocular evidence was reliable and corroborated. Given the circumstances, including the age of the appellant, the court found that life imprisonment was a more appropriate sentence than death.
Result: Appeal allowed to the extent that the sentence of death is altered to sentence of imprisonment for life.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether medical evidence indicating four shots fired conflicts with ocular evidence of two shots fired. (Para 1 )
3. Medical and forensic evidence does not conflict with ocular evidence provided by eye-witnesses and an independent witness regarding the number of shots fired. (Para 1 )
4. The court may commute a death sentence to life imprisonment if the circumstances of the case make such a sentence more appropriate. (Para 3 )
5. Death sentence altered to imprisonment for life. (Para 3 )
6. How is a conflict between medical evidence and ocular evidence regarding the number of shots fired resolved?
The court examines medical and forensic evidence alongside ocular testimony; if the forensic evidence does not contradict the eye-witnesses and is corroborated by independent witnesses, there is no conflict. (Para 1 )
7. Under what conditions may a court alter a death sentence to life imprisonment?
A court may commute a death sentence to life imprisonment when it determines that, given the circumstances of the case, life imprisonment is a more appropriate sentence. (Para 3 )
Judgment
SIKRI, CJI. :- This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana accepting the reference made by the learned Sessions Judge for confirmation of the death sentence and dismissing the appeal of Om Prakash, appellant before us. We gave leave because the medical evidence seemed to conflict with the ocular evidence as it was suggested that the medical evidence showed that four shots were fired at the deceased and not two shots, as deposed to by the eye-witnesses. But now on a close examination of the medical evidence and the evidence of Dr. B. R. Sharma, Director. Forensic Science Laboratory, who was examined by the High Court as Court witness, we are of the opinion that there is no conflict with the ocular evidence. The learned Sessions Judge and the High Court have relied on the evidence of the five eye-witnesses, namely. Smt. Bhagwani P. W. 1 Surate, P. W. 5, Smt. Phulpati, P. W. 6, Smt. Sahabo, P. W. 8 and Hari Singh P. W. 9. They all deposed to the appellant having shot at Aik Singh, deceased with a double barrel gun . Their evidence that two shots were fired is corroborated by the evidence of Shyam Murari Lal, P. W. 21, Railway booking clerk. The deceased was shot, at while he was trying to buy a railway ticket from the said Shyam Murarilal In cross-examination it was not suggested to him that as a matter of fact four shots were fired. There is no reason why he should say that he heard two shots being fired if four shots had in fact been fired.
2. The learned counsel drew our attention to the prosecution case two other persons, namely, Dalip, appellant s father, and Partap, his uncle, and that Dalip and Partap exhorted Om Prakash to fire at Aik Singh and it was thereafter that the appellant fired. The appellant was about 19 years old at that time. We may mention that benefit of doubt was given to Dalip and Partap.
3. In view of the circumstances mentioned above we think that instead of the sentence of death sentence of imprisonment for life would be more appropriate. In the result the appeal is allowed to the extent that the sentence of death is altered to sentence of imprisonment for life.
Order accordingly.
For Citation : AIR 1971 SC 1388
