SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1977 Supreme(SC) 260

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.C. GUPTA AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.
State of Punjab, Appellant
Versus
Pritam Singh and others, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 227 of 1976,
D/- 4-8-1977.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. O. P. Sharma, for Appellant; Mr. R. L. Kohli, for Respondents.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section, 302, 307/149, 302/149, 148/307 and 452 - Arms Act - Section, 27 - Explosive Substances Act. – Section, 4 and 5 - Investigation - First Information Report - Case was that some time Toga Singh father of respondents and Bhan Singh was murdered and Pala Singh and Banta Singh had been accused of murdering deceased and were accordingly charge-sheeted by police which resulted in conviction of Pala Singh who was sentenced to imprisonment for life- Pala Singh served out sentence of life imprisonment and had just come out of jail when feelings between him and respondents became extremely strained as a result of which security proceedings had to be drawn up to maintain peace and tranquillity between two factions in village prosecution alleged that as sons of Toga Singh and other respondents were bent upon wreaking vengeance for murder of Toga Singh they wanted to take life of Pala Singh and with this avowed object in view six accused persons led came on roof of house of Pala Singh at armed with pistol-gun hand-grenade and - As soon as party climbed over walls of house of Bachan Singh adjoining house of Pala Singh gave a that entire family of Pala Singh should be finished- Thereupon who was armed with a hand-grenade threw it in courtyard –Held, Court has relied on evidence of Constable prove circumstance about explosion- stated in his evidence that while he was on round he heard a sound of explosion of bomb only comment made by counsel for respondents against him was that filed a complaint against victims alleging that he had taken utensils and one maund of grain witness denied this and no documentary evidence has been produced by prosecution to show that complaint was really filed and if so what action was taken thereon- In these circumstances therefore empty allegation made against witness Dalip Singh is not sufficient to discredit his testimony particularly when he appears disinterested witness Having regard to cumulative effect of circumstances mentioned above wholly interested and partisan nature of testimony of witnesses examined by prosecution and complete absence of corroborative evidence which though in possession of prosecution was not produced without any adequate explanation we find ourselves in complete agreement with reasons given by High Court that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt- Furthermore this appeal is directed against order of acquittal passed by High Court and unless there are special circumstances or grave errors committed by High Court leading to serious miscarriage of justice this Court would not interfere in special leave in order to set aside an order of acquittal and that too in a murder case - Appeal dismissed

Judgment

FAZAL ALI, J. - This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated May 13, 1975 by which the six respondents, namely, Pritam Singh, Gurdev Singh, Gurmej Singh, Teja Singh, Bhan Singh and Kewal Singh had been acquitted of the charges under Ss. 302, 307/149, 302/149, 148/307 and 452, I. P. C. and S. 27 of the Arms Act and under Ss. 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. The respondents had been convicted under the aforesaid sections by the trial Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepore.

2. Put briefly, the prosecution case was that some time in 1964 Toga Singh father of respondents Gurmej Singh, Teja Singh and Bhan Singh was murdered and Pala Singh and Banta Singh had been accused of murdering the deceased and were accordingly charge-sheeted by the police which resulted in the conviction of Pala Singh who was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Pala Singh served out the sentence of life imprisonment and had just come out of the jail when the feelings between him and the respondents became extremely strained as a result of which security proceedings had to be drawn up to maintain peace and tranquillity between the two factions in the village. The prosecution alleged that as the sons of Toga Singh and other respondents were bent upon wreaking vengeance for the murder of Toga Singh, they wanted to take the life of Pala Singh and with this avowed object in view the six accused persons led by Pritam Singh came on the roof of the house of Pala Singh at about 6 A. M. on August 30, 1973 armed with pistol-gun, hand-grenade and Gandasis. As soon as the party climbed over the walls of the house of Bachan Singh adjoining the house of Pala Singh, Gurmej Singh gave a lalkara that the entire family of Pala Singh should be finished. Thereupon Pritam Singh who was armed with a hand-grenade threw it in the courtyard. The hand-grenade exploded and killed Balwant Kaur, sister-in-law of Pala Singh and her daughter Charan Kaur who were sleeping in the courtyard. Pala Singh and his brother Ajit Singh escaped as they were giving fodder to the cattle and took shelter behind the pillar. When Gurmej Singh found that Pritam Singh had missed the target, he fired a pistol-shot at Pala Singh which also did not hit him. Thereafter the accused bolted away. Pala Singh immediately left for police station Zira and lodged First Information Report at 6-45 A. M. on the same day. All the respondents were named in the F. I. R. and the facts mentioned above were briefly narrated therein. Harbhajan Singh, S. H. O., took up investigation and visited the spot, prepared inquest reports and after usual investigation submitted a charge-sheet against the respondents who were tried and ultimately convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepore as mentioned in his judgment. The learned Sessions Judge was fully aware of the fact that the prosecution had produced only inimical and interested witnesses, but in view of the fact that the F. I. R. was lodged very promptly and the splinters of the hand-grenade were found on the spot which had killed the deceased and that the medical evidence also supported the manner in which the deceased had died, the learned Judge held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The defence of the respondents was that they had nothing to do with the occurrence and had been falsely implicated due to enmity.

3. The accused/respondents filed an appeal to the High Court against their convictions and sentences and in appeal the High Court found that the case against the respondents was not proved beyond reasonable doubt as it was replete with inherent improbabilities and consisted of purely partisan evidence without any corroboration from independent sources.

4. It might appear that the High Court did not try to consider the intrinsic merits of the evidence of the eye-witnesses but rejected the evidence of those witnesses only on the ground that they were i









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top