1977 Supreme(SC) 297

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P.S. KAILASAM, JJ.
Piara Singh and others, Appellants
Versus
 State of Punjab, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 1972,
D/- 4-10-1977.
Advocates Appeared
M/s. R. L. Kohil and B. P. Singh, Advocates for Appellants; M/s. Hardev Singh and R. S. Sodhi, Advocates, for Respondent.

Headnote:

SC Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970 - Section 2 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 302/34 – Offence of murder – First Information Report - Imprisonment for life - Courts below have given a complete and exhaustive narration of details of prosecution case and it is not necessary for us to repeat same all over again - Present occurrence has resulted in death a collateral of accused and appears to be a result of a long standing enmity between parties - Suffice it to say that on November deceased had arrived at his house with a cartload of maize cobs from side of his field - At that time a cousin of the deceased and his mother and two other relations were sitting inside the courtyard of their house yards from door of his house - Four appellants entered house variously armed and pounced upon deceased and assaulted him and also with a bullet from rifle - According to prosecution was armed with a rifle fired a rifle shot at deceased on his groins as a result of which he fell down and died soon after - On hearing alarm then arrived at spot who were apprised of the occurrence and other members of family also narrated entire incident to them - Complainant rushed to Police Station situated at about four miles from place of occurrence and lodged F.I.R. giving necessary details of the incident - Court have heard counsel for parties at great length and have also gone through evidence and judgments of the two courts - High Court has discussed evidence in great detail and it has also indicated clearly important circumstances relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge in acquitting appellants and has sought to displace them by giving in court opinion cogent reasons - Court are clearly of opinion that High Court was right in reversing order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge who had made a wrong approach to the whole case - This was not a case in which two views were reasonably possible - Judgment of Sessions Judge is legally erroneous and is also against weight of the evidence on the record – Held, In court opinion has given a very convincing explanation for this omission - High Court has explained that there was the direct evidence to show that one of appellants was armed with deceased was assaulted by all four persons even after he had fallen on the ground - It is quite possible that might have assaulted the deceased from the blunt portion of which explains simple injuries on the person of deceased - In view of evidence there can be no doubt that deceased had contusions and abrasions - It is also proved that the deceased had been assaulted by appellants and by no others - In these circumstances therefore irresistible inference would be that deceased must have been assaulted by one of appellants by a blunt portion - This was therefore not a good ground in law on basis of which the Sessions Judge could have rejected prosecution case or held that evidence of eye-witnesses was falsified - They did not have any watches with them and if they gave time which elapsed between assault and death of deceased it was purely by guess - Villagers had no idea of time – Moreover villagers were not medical experts so as to know as to when actual death of deceased took place - Even though deceased may have died after five or ten minutes the witnesses may have taken him to be alive for another ten or twenty minutes - This is hardly a circumstance which would to falsify evidence of eye-witnesses and the trial Court was not at all justified in throwing out prosecution case on this ground - There are other circumstances mentioned by learned Sessions Judge which do not appear to be material and which are based mainly on speculation and have been rightly displaced by the High Court - Prosecution case court find that there is sufficient evidence against accused to prove charge of murder against them - Evidence of eye-witnesses is fully corroborated by medical evidence of recoveries evidence of ballistic expert and evidence of P. W. who deposed regarding extra judicial confession made by accused - Learned Sessions Judge regarded extra judicial confession to be a very weak type of evidence and therefore refused to rely on same - Here learned Sessions Judge committed a clear error of law - Law does not require that evidence of an extra judicial confession should in all cases be corroborated - In instant case extra judicial confession was proved by an independent witness who was a responsible officer and who bore no animus against the appellants - There was hardly any justification for Sessions Judge to disbelieve evidence particularly when extra judicial confession was corroborated by the recovery of an empty from place of occurrence - Appeal dismissed