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

2003 Supreme(SC) 959

Supreme Court Of India
N. SANTOSH HEGDEAND B.P. SINGH, JJ.)
STATE OF PUNJAB-Appellant;
Versus
DALJlT SINGH AND ANOTHER-Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 487 of 1996
decided on September 25, 2003

The court emphasized the importance of credible eyewitness testimony and the need for a consistent and reliable prosecution case in establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Headnote:

Murder - Panchayat Election - Section 302 IPC, Section 34 IPC

Fact of the Case:

The State of Punjab appealed against the acquittal of the accused in a murder case. The prosecution alleged that the accused murdered the elected Sarpanch and his uncle due to a political rivalry. The eyewitnesses delayed reporting the incident due to fear and the prevailing law and order situation in Punjab.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court acquitted the accused due to doubts regarding the eyewitnesses' testimony, delay in reporting the incident, and discrepancies in the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no reason to differ.

Issues: Delay in reporting the incident, credibility of eyewitnesses, discrepancies in the prosecution's case

Ratio Decidendi: The court found the delay in reporting the incident and discrepancies in the prosecution's case to be significant, leading to doubts about the credibility of the eyewitnesses and the timing of the incident.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision to acquit the accused.

ORDER

1. The State of Punjab has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 24-5-1995 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal of the respondent-accused and acquitted them of the charges for which they were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar.


2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that inpanchayat election which had taken place in the year 1983, Harbinder Singh, one of thesee deceased had contested for the post of Sarpanch as against one Jiwa Singh and won the said election. The said Jiwa Singh was an accused before the trial court but was declared as absconder; he is also the brother of A-I,_ 2and A-3. Keeping in mind this defeat, the said Jiwa Singh and other accused persons on 7-2-1984 at about 8 p.m. committed the murder of the said Harbinder Singh and his uncle Harbans Singh. It is further the case of the prosecution that on that day the said two deceased persons had visited the house of PW 6 Brinderjit Kaur at about 5 p.m. and had dinner with PW 6, PW 7, Satnam Singh, son of deceased Harbans Singh and PW 8 Mohinderjit Kaur, the mother of the other deceased Harbans Singh. Having had dinner they left the house at about 8 p.m. and the eyewitnesses, PW 6 who is alsocomplainant in this case, PW 7 and PW 8 also went along with the deceased persons till the outskirts of the village to bid farewell to them. It is at that time the four persons which included three accused before the trial court attacked the two deceased persons. The prosecution alleges that Jiwa Singh shot Harbinder Singh while A~2 Bhagwant Singh shot Harbans Singh while C A-I Daljit Singh stabbed Harbans Singh withkirpan and also chopped off the head of deceased Harbinder Singh with the said kirpan while A-3 Lakhwinder Singh stabbed Harbans Singh with kirpan consequent to which both the victims died on the spot. As• stated above, the incident in question

was witnessed by PWs 6, 7 and 8 but being afraid of the prevailing law and order situation in Punjab as also because of the threat of the accused personsthey did not bring this incident to the notice of anyone else. It is only the next day, on 8-2-1984 at about 6 a.m. PWs 6 and 7 went to the police station at Bhikhwind which is 5 km away from the place of incident and lodgedreport which was reduced to writing by PW 14, the investigating officer. It is further the case of the prosecution that during the course of investigation the accused persons except Jiwa Singh surrendered on 20-2-1984 and certainrecoveries were made from them. On completion of the said investigationcharge-sheet was filed against Accused 1, 2 and 3 for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC while Jiwa Singh who was not arrested and was declared as proclaimed offender, his trial was separated from others.


3. The learned Sessions Judge placing reliance on the evidence of PWs 6, 7 and 8 as also on medical evidence of PW 9 came to the conclusion that Accused 1 Daljit Singh and Accused 2 Bhagwant Singh are guilty of the offence charged against them and accordingly convicted them for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC while it accepted the defence put forth by Accused 3 Lakhwinder Singh which was one of alibi and accepting the alibi Lakhwinder Singh was acquitted.

4. In an appeal filed by the convicted accused persons the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, as stated above, has allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction imposed on those two accused persons. The State is the appellant before us in this appeal.

5. The High Court in the course of its judgment inter alia came to the conclusion that the prosecution has totally failed to explain the inordinate delay in filing the complaint as also the special report reaching the Ilaqa Magistrate; the High Court also came to the conclusion that it is not the normal practice of the people of that area for the ladies to go long distances in the night to see their guests off, the






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