IMPORTANT POINT
Where facts and circumstances created a serious doubt in evidence of two eye witnesses of occurrence and there was serious enmity between parties, conviction could not be sustained.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302/149, 364/149, 436/149, 148, 427—Nine appellants convicted under —Two groups in the village were inimically disposed towards each other and it had resulted in several murders—Informant PW1, sister of victim and PW2 were at their farm house with victim when appellants armed with weapons came in side the farm house and abducted the victim after setting the room on fire in which victim tried to hide on seeing appellants—No one thereafter saw the victim nor his body was recovered and prosecution proceeded that appellants abducted victim and killed him—Conviction was recorded by trial Court believing PW1 and PW2 and High Court upheld it—Appeal—PW1 and PW2 belonged to the family of ‘J’ who was undergoing life imprisonment for murder of two sons of one of the appellants—It was pre-eminently a case in which rule of caution was needed to be applied—Case was registered after 12 days—Prosecution case was not believable that PW1 went to police station on date of incident but police refused to lodge report or take action—PW1 claimed to have disclosed incident to namberdar and chowkidar in the village but they were not examined in trial—Facts created a serious doubt whether any such occurrence took place as alleged by PWs 1 and 2—Vague allegations that police was supporting appellants but police had illegally detained some of appellants and habeas corpus petitions were filed for their release—Belated complaint in background of enmity created suspicion in the report—In view of serious doubt about truthfulness of two witnesses, conviction could not be sustained.
Held : This is a case in which enmity and bad blood between the rival groups is established beyond doubt. We have only the evidence of two interested witnesses namely– PWs.1 and 2. No immediate report was lodged to the police regarding the occurrence. We have scrutinized the evidence on record and come to the conclusion that the story about making an effort to lodge a report earlier does not appear to be true. The Namberdar and the Chowkidar who were alleged to have accompanied PW.1 to the Police Station have not been examined as witnesses. On the other hand, there is a categoric denial by PW.6, the Station House Officer that anyone reported the incident to him before December 4, 1989. Unfortunately, the High Court has not even noticed these facts. Even the allegation that the police was favourably disposed towards the appellants is belied by the fact that some of the appellants were illegally detained by the police who were ultimately released by the Warrant Officer appointed by the High Court in the Habeas Corpus petition. We, therefore, entertain a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. The facts and circumstances of the case no doubt establish that Shivraj Singh had dis-appeared on November 19, 1989 but the circumstances of the case indicate that PWs.1 and 2 may not have seen the occurrence in which Shivraj Singh had been either abducted or killed, and taking advantage of his disappearance a false case was belatedly concocted against the appellants. Since we entertain a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the two eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution, we hold that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt.(Para 29)

JUDGMENT

B.P. Singh, J.—There are 9 appellants in these four appeals which have been preferred against a common judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated July 1, 2005 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 671-DB/2003; 701-DB/2003 and 696-DB/2003. The appellants had been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda by his judgment and order dated 5th August 2003 and 7th August, 2003 to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. They had also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months under Section 364 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 436 read with Section 149 IPC. They had also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and 6 months each respectively under Section 148 and Section 427 read with Section 149 IPC. All the sentences had been directed to run concurrently. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order dated 1st July, 2005 dismissed the appeals preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda dated 5th August, 2003 and 7th August, 2003.

2. The facts of this case disclose that in village Kamalu there were two groups inimically disposed towards each other which resulted in several murders. The appellants herein belong to one group while the family members of the informant and others belong to the rival group. The case of the prosecution is that on 19th November, 1989 the informant Chhoto, PW-1, alongwith her brother Shivraj Singh and her sister-in-law (brothers wife) Balbir Kaur, PW-2 went to their fields in Village Bangi Kalan where they had also constructed a farm house. While they were there, the appellants came on a jeep and a tractor variously armed with deadly weapons including a double barrel gun. They also belong to village Kamalu, the village of the informant. Seeing them, the informants brother Shivraj Singh hid himself in a room meant for storing chaff but the accused set the room on fire so that he was compelled to come out. He was immediately abducted by the appellants. The informant apprehended that they may kill Shivraj Singh. It is an undisputed fact that thereafter no one has seen Shivraj Singh alive, nor was his body recovered. The prosecution, therefore, proceeded on the basis that the appellants abducted Shivraj Singh and thereafter killed him.

3. The case of the informant PW-1 is that soon after the occurrence she returned to her village and immediately reported the matter to Namberdar Gurnam Singh and Chokidar Tohla Singh (both not examined). Along with them she went to P.S. Raman but despite their insistence the police did not take any interest in the matter and did not record the information she wanted to give. They, therefore, came back to the village. The informant admitted in her deposition that except the Namberdar and the Chowkidar she did not report the matter to any other person in the village on that day. She, in particular, named Major Singh Thanedar, PW-6, and stated that she had met him in P.S. Raman but he refused to take down the information which she wanted to lodge.

4. Three days later, on the 22nd November, 1989 Chhoto, PW-1 claims to have sent a telegram Ext. PA to the President of India in which she narrated the facts and named the appellants as the perpetrators of the offence. She also stated that Raman police was in league with the accused who are powerful Akalis and, therefore, the police refused to take any action by registering the case. PW-1 stated that since police took no action she waited for 2-3 days. Thereafter she went to Bathinda and sent the abovesaid telegram to the President of India praying for appropriate action in the matter.

5. Thereafter on 4t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 952

IMPORTANT POINT Where facts and circumstances created a serious doubt in evidence of two eye witnesses of occurrence and there was serious enmity between parties, conviction could not be sustained.

IMPORTANT POINT
Where facts and circumstances created a serious doubt in evidence of two eye witnesses of occurrence and there was serious enmity between parties, conviction could not be sustained.