Back
V.RAMASWAMI, K.RAMASWAMY, A.M.AHMADI
Malkiat Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
What is the evidentiary value of a First Information Report (F.I.R.) and the Case Diary in criminal proceedings? What are the rights regarding the use of previous statements recorded under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? How is the conviction of an accused established when it is based on the testimony of a solitary witness?
Key Points: - The First Information Report is not substantive evidence but can be used to contradict the maker, corroborate evidence, or show the implication of the accused was not an afterthought (!) (!) . - The Case Diary is a record of investigation and cannot be used as evidence by the accused or for contradicting prosecution evidence unless the investigating officer uses it to refresh memory or the court uses it to contradict the officer under Section 161 and Section 145 of the Evidence Act (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Statements recorded during an inquest under Section 174 and 175 of the Code are "previous statements" under Section 162 and cannot be used as substantive evidence by the prosecution except to contradict the maker or explain the statement in re-examination (!) (!) . - Conviction can be made on the basis of the testimony of a solitary witness if the court is satisfied with the quality and credibility of the witness, considering circumstances like presence at the time, opportunity, and normal conduct (!) (!) . - The omission of the names of the accused in memos sent to the Medical Officer does not create doubt about their later implication, as it is not a rule of law that such memos must bear names with cause titles (!) . - Accused A-1 and A-3 were convicted of murder and attempt to murder due to strong circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of a rifle and gandasas, and the testimony of injured witness PW-4, while A-2 was acquitted due to grave doubts regarding his participation (!) (!) (!) . - The death sentence awarded to A-1 was modified to rigorous imprisonment for life because the sentence was awarded on the same day as the conviction, which contravenes Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (!) .
JUDGMENT
K.RAMASWAMY,J. This appeal under s.14(1) of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 61 of 1984 for short `the Act the reference under s.15(3) thereof and s.366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short the Code for confirmation of the death sentence of Malkiat Singh, accused No. 1 in Sessions case No.62 of 1984, Trial No.23 of 1985 on the file of the Special Court, Ferozepur.
The first accused was convicted under s.302 read with s.34, I.P.C. for causing the deaths of Ram Babu, D-1, Sunder Lal, D-2, Ram Nath, D-3 and Ram Chand, D-4 of each death and sentenced to death subject to confirmation by this court. He was also further convicted under s.307 read with s.34, I.P.C. and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years for attempt to murder Ashok Kumar, PW-4. Sukhdev Singh A-2 and Sohna Singh, A-3 were convicted under s.302 read with s.34, I.P.C. for causing deaths of D-1, to D-4 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. A-2 and A-3 were convicted under s.307 read with S.341 I.P.C. for attempt to murder of PW-4 and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years, all the sentences to run concurrently.
Ram Avtar, PW-3 and D-3 Ram Nat
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
