SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. BHAGWATI, A.C. GUPTA AND S. MURTAZA FAZL ALI, JJ.
Sarwan Singh and Others, Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 232 of 1973
Decided on 11-8-1976.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Har Dayal Hardy, Sr. Advocate, (for Nos. 1 and 2), Mr. V. C. Mahajan, Advocate (for No. 3), (M/s. S. K. Mehta, M. Qameruddin and P. N. Puri with them), for Appellants Mr. O. P. Sharma, Advocate, for Respondent.
SC (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 - Section 2(a) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302/149 - Appeal against Order - Order of Acquittal - Offence of Murdering - Appellant along with some other persons had obtained a licence for sale of country liquor in village Bhadaur and deceased Jit Singh was also one of partners in that business. Subsequently, however, Jit Singh was dropped and he started selling illicit liquor which appears to have seriously affected business of Sarwan Singhs liquor vend and caused him considerable loss - This appears to have been the motive for Sarwan Singh to wreak vengeance on deceased - According to prosecution, Pal Singh a villager of Bhadaur and an acquaintance of Jit Singh informed him that Bashir Ahmed who was known to the deceased was being prosecuted in an opium case and had requested Jit Singh to arrange for his bail… – Held, View taken by learned Additional Sessions Judge was perverse and was against the weight of the evidence led by the prosecution. The law only requires that Appellate Court, in reversing the order of acquittal, should be slow and circumspect to disturb a finding of fact, but if it is of the opinion that finding of fact is wrong and not borne out by the evidence there is no limitation on its power to interfere with order of acquittal - Due regard to the views of the trial Court as to credibility of witnesses in matters resting on pure appreciation of evidence and studied slowness of the appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, where such seeing and hearing can be useful aids to the assessment of evidence, are well-known principles which generally inform the administration of justice and govern the exercise of all appellate jurisdiction - They are self-imposed limitations on a power otherwise plenary and like all voluntary restraints, they constitute valuable guidelines - Such regard and slowness must find their reflection in the appellate judgment, which can only be if appellate Court deals with the principal reasons that influenced the order of acquittal and after examining evidence with care gives its own reasons justifying a contrary view of the evidence - It is implicit in this judicial process that if two views of evidence are reasonably possible, the finding of acquittal ought not to be disturbed - Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
FAZL ALI, J.:—This is an appeal by Sarwan Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Amar Singh under S. 2(a) of the SC (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 and is directed against the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by which the appellant Sarwan Singh has been convicted under Section 302. I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life, whereas other two appellants Mukhtiar Singh and Amar Singh have been convicted under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and given the same sentence. The appellants along with five others were prosecuted for the offence of murdering Jit Singh deceased and a charge under Section 302/149, I.P.C. and a number of other charges were framed against them. All the accused were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge. Barnala who rejected the prosecution case in its entirety and acquitted all the accused persons of the charges framed against them. The State of Punjab filed an appeal before the High Court against the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court and after hearing the appeal, the High Court maintained the acquittal of the five accused other than the appellants. As regards the appellants, the High Court reversed the order of acquittal passed in their favour by the Additional Sessions Judge and found that the prosecution case against them had been proved beyond reasonable doubt and it accordingly convicted the appellants and sentenced them as indicated aforesaid. We might further mention here that the High Court completely reversed the findings on the merits of the prosecution case and held that generally the prosecution case was fully proved but as there were some doubtful features regarding the five other accused, whose acquittal was maintained, the High Court did not like to interfere but made it clear that this would not cast any reflection on the credibility of the witnesses of the prosecution which had been believed by the High Court.
2. This is rather an unfortunate case which as a result of a serious and deeprooted rivalry between the two partners of a liquor vend culminated in the murder of the deceased converting one of his friends into a foe who, animated by a desire to wreak vengeance, pounced upon the deceased with a party of eight persons and brutally murdered him.
3. The prosecution case may be summarised as follows:
The appellant Sarwan Singh along with some other persons had obtained a licence for sale of country liquor in village Bhadaur and the deceased Jit Singh was also one of the partners in that business. Subsequently, however, Jit Singh was dropped and he started selling illicit liquor which appears to have seriously affected the business of Sarwan Singhs liquor vend and caused him considerable loss. This appears to have been the motive for Sarwan Singh to wreak vengeance on the deceased. According to prosecution, Pal Singh a villager of Bhadaur and an acquaintance of Jit Singh informed him that Bashir Ahmed who was known to the deceased was being prosecuted in an opium case and had requested Jit Singh to arrange for his bail. Jit Singh accordingly took his brother-in-law P. W. Ajaib Singh and P. W. Pal Singh who had given him the information and Gurdev Singh with him to Phul where Bashir Ahmed was to be produced before the Magistrate on July 20, 1970. The party of these persons proceeded by bus from village Bhadaur to Phul. Gurdev Singh was to give surety and perhaps Jit Singh and Pal Singh were to be witnesses if the bail was granted to Bashir Ahmed. As it happened, however, the prayer for bail of Bashir Ahmed was rejected by the Magistrate at Phul who remanded him for another four days. The deceased and his party, therefore, returned disappointed and on their way to Bhadaur they alighted from the bus at Salabatpura at about 2 P. M. It may be noted that there does not appear to have been any direct bus service between Bhadaur and Phul and for any person going from Phul to Bhadaur had to change at Salabatpura for another bus. To resume the narrative of th
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.