Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. Sawant and R.M. Sahai, JJ.
State of Punjab - Appellant
versus
Ajaib Singh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 754 of 1980
Decided on 20.1.1995
Counsel for the parties:
For the Appellant: Sushil Kuttlar, R.S. Suriand Ms. Amita Gupta.
For the Respondent: U.R. Lalit, M.C. Dhingra and R.P. Wadhwani.
Held: The submission that the respondent was not entitled to use firearm as he was attacked by dandas only cannot be accepted. That is not what is provided for by clauses (I) and (II) of Section 100 of the IPC. It shall depend on facts of each case whether the assault was such as could cause reasonable apprehension that death would otherwise be the consequence of such assault. If the High Court found that the respondent was assaulted by three persons with dandas, and hence the accused developed a reasonable apprehension that if he did not use the firearm then death would be the consequence, it cannot be said that the High Court was guilty of taking palpably erroneous view." (Para6)
(ii) Appeal Against Acquittal - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Conviction u/s. 302 being solely based on failure to establish that accused had not exceeded his right of private defence. Appeal Acquittal by High Court. Finding of High Court neither rendered perverse nor infirm nor palpably erroneous. It would not be an exercise of sound discretion to interfere with order passed by High Court.
Held: That the incident was shocking admits of no doubt. May be sitting as the appellate court the task was not easy. But where the High Court has set aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC after delving in depth and discussing evidence in detail, should this Court interfere, merely, because there could have been other view? We agree that this Court is not precluded or the Court hearing appeal-against acquittal is not prevented from examining and reappreciating the evidence on record. But the duty of a court hearing appeal against acquittal in the first instance is to satisfy itself if the view taken by acquitting court exercising appellate jurisdiction was possible view or not. And if the court comes to conclusion that it was not, it can on reappreciation of evidence reverse the order. What had persuaded us to rehear the appeal was that the revolver of the deceased was in the holster beneath the overcoat. At the first flush, it appeared to be a clinching circumstance. But even after accepting this and ignoring the opinion of forensic expert, the finding of the High Court is neither rendered perverse nor infirm nor palpably erroneous. It having been found by both the High Court and the Trial Judge that the defence version that the respondent received the information from a truck passing from that direction that some persons in the police uniform were forcibly collecting money from the truck drivers whereupon the respondent reached there, challenged the deceased who did not disclose his identity rather tried to move towards the car giving an impression that he was about to run away whereupon the respondent rushed towards him, grappled with him and was injured with danda blows used by three companions of the ASI, it is very difficult to say , as held by the High Court, that he had not developed a reasonable apprehension that if fire arm was not used he was himself likely to be killed. The respondent had nine injuries. They have been found not to be self-inflicted. He was attacked by the deceased and his companions. (Para 6)
(iii) Speedy Trial - Murder case pending for more than eighteen years from date of incident - Suggestions made.
Held: Although crime never dies nor there should be any sympathy for the criminal, yet human factors play an important role and reflect advertently or inadvertently in the decision making process. In this appeal there is a time lag of more than eighteen year from the date of incident and nearly fifteen years from the date of acquittal and its: hearing. By any standard it is shocking. And this-has-been aggravated by still more shocking behaviour of the Government which shall be adverted later. Speedy trial, early hearing and quick disposal are sine qua non of criminal jurisprudence. In some countries like England days are fixed statutorily for trial of cases. Keeping an accused in custody for a day more than it is necessary, is constitutionally impermissible and violative of human dignity, freedom of life and liberty. The overcrowded court dockets, the phenomenalrise of public interest litigation, duty to ensure enforcement of fundamental rights undoubtedly keeps this court under stress and strain. But that cannot be an excuse for keeping the sword of Damocles hanging on the accused for an indefinite period of time. It does not do any credit rather makes one sad. If the accused is not granted bail and serves out the sentence then the appeal is rendered academic for all practical purposes. And the right to establish innocence fades away in lack of enthusiasm and interest. If he is granted bail then long delay may give rise to humane considerations. Time heals the gravest scar and mitigates deepest injury suffered physically, mentally and emotionally. Therefore, if the courts have been rendered helpless and the exasperating delay is threatening to eat away the system then the Government may consider either to increase the strength to clear the backlog or devise some mechanism by which criminal appeals pending for more than reasonable time in higher courts should stand disposed of. (Para5)
(iv) Service Jurisprudence - Murder case - Appeal against acquittal pending - Accused, Sub-Inspector of Police reinstated and promoted - He has now become Deputy Superintendent of Police - Unwarranted actions of Government - Serious disapproval of such action of Government expressed.
Held : We shall be failing in our duty if we do not record our serious disapproval of the manner in which the Government not only reinstated but promoted the officer when the appeal by it against his acquittal was pending in this Court. In our opinion the Government would have been well advised to adopt the sealed cover procedure, a firmly established and well known practice in service law. Murder by a police officer is provocative. The trial, of the officer and conduct, of the Government both are in public glare. , It is not the competency or efficiency of the officer but his conduct and behaviour and approach of the Government towards such officer which is measured in social scale. Such unwarranted actions of the Government shakes the confidence of common man in the system: He loses faith in it when a person who is standing trial in appeal is promoted. (Para 7)
JUDGMENT
R.M. Sahai, J. - In this appeal by grant of special leave under Article136 of the Constitution of India the question that-arises for consideration is whether the order of acquittal passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana is so palpably erroneous or perverse that it is liable to interference in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court.
2. In an unfortunate incident which took place at 11 P.M. on 16th December; 1976 on the G. T. Road just in front of Sat Kartar cold Storage Phagwara, two police officers of the Punjab Traffic Police appeared to have fallen out on the authority to check the truck on the G.T. Road resulting in death or one Assistant Sub-Inspect Or of Police and one constable and conviction of the respondent under Section 302 IPC who was Sub-Inspector of Police at the time of incident, but since the date of acquittal he has now become Deputy Superintendent of Police. There was no dispute about the time, date and place of incident. Nor there was any dispute that Assistance Sub-Inspector Gumam Singh and constable Paramjit Singh died as a insult of shooting from the service revolver by the Sub-Inspector Ajaib Singh. The dispute, mainly, was whether the incident took place as stated by the prosecution and the shooting and killing by the respondent was unwarranted, unjustified and deliberate or it was, as claimed by the respondent, in exercise of right of private defence. The respondent was tried and convicted under Section 302 for committing murder of ASI Gumam Singh and constable Paramjit Singh and Sentenced by the trial judge to undergo life imprisonment. He was also convicted under Section 87 of the Arms Act arid sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were to run concurrently. His co-accused Balbir Kumar was tried under Section 302 but convicted under Section 383 IPC for causing simple hurts to constable Jit Ram, P.W.10, and Channan Singh, P.W. 13. He was directed to be released on probation. Another accused constable Jit Singh was acquitted of all charges, The state did not file any appeal either against release of Balbir Kumar on probation or acquittal of Jit Singh. But revision was filed by one Sukatrar Singh for enhancing the sentence of respondent from life imprisonment to death and convicting others suitably. The High Court dismissed the revision for enhancing sentence and further acquitted the respondent. The State is aggrieved by acquittal of the respondent. Since both the trial judge and the High Court have considered the evidence in detail it does not appear necessary to refer to them, except the findings arrived by them on which mere is not much dispute. The findings recorded by the trial judge were summarised by the High Court as under:-
"(1) That the incident took place at about l0 P.M. on 15th December, 1976, on the G.T. Road just opposite to the Sat Kartar Cold Storage at Phagwara;
(2) That all the three accused (Ajaib Singh and Balbir Kumar appellants and Jit Singh acquitted accused) were present at the spot and they had arrived there from the side of Ludhiana in jeep No. PUJ250.
(3) That a1 that time A.S.I. Gurnam Singh along with Constables paramjt Singh and Jit Ram was present at the spot. According to the prosecution version, Constable Chanan Singh, P.W. was also with them. However, that fact is denied, by the accused.
(4) That before the main incident took place, a verbal altercation took place between A.S.I. Gurnam Singh deceased and S.I. Ajaib Singh accused and thereafter they also grappled with each other for some time.
(5) That S.I. Ajaib Singh fired three shots with his service revolver, one of which hit A.S.I. Gurnam Singh and another hit Constable Paramjit Singh and as a result thereof both of them had died at the spot. The third shot hit the shutter of the cycle shop of Subhash Chand situated near the place of the occurrence."
Apart from these findings, the trial judge held t
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
