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

2011 Supreme(SC) 620

2011 (5) Supreme 739
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Aftab Alam and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
Jalpat Rai & Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of Haryana — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1736 of 2007
with
Criminal Appeal No. 1306 of 2006
Decided on : 6-7-2011

IMPORTANT POINT
Conviction cannot be based on uncorroborated, inconsistent evidence suffering form significant improvements and omissions.

Headnote:(a) Criminal Trial – Interested witness – Evidence of witnesses interested in the prosecution and inimically disposed towards the accused should be considered with care and caution – Their trustworthiness and credibility should be tested in light of the collateral and surrounding circumstances as well as the probabilities and in conjunction with all other facts brought out on record – There should be corroboration to their evidence. (Para 39)

        (b) Criminal Trial – Conviction – Conviction cannot be based on uncorroborated, inconsistent evidence suffering form significant improvements and omissions. (Para 46)

        (1971) 3 SCC 192; (1975) 3 SCC 219; (2004) 10 SCC 583; (2010) 2 SCC 333; (2003) 9 SCC 420; (2005) 11 SCC 245; (2003) 11 SCC 219; (2009) 11 SCC 334; (1990) 4 SCC 389; (2002) 2 SCC 737 – Relied upon impliedly

        (c) Administration of Justice – Right to appeal – Mere dismissal of SLP does not amount to acceptance of correctness of the High Court decision – Such an order is not an impediment in allowing appeals on merits. (Para 48)

        (1982) 2 SCC 101; (1988) 2 SCC 602; (1994) 2 SCC 568; (2003) 2 SCC 708; (2003) 12 SCC 758 – Distinguished

       Facts of the case:

        1. On October 2, 2002 two persons - Sunil and Chand - were shot dead and three persons - Pawan, Rohtas and Rakesh - got injured in the town of Jind (Haryana). One of the injured, Pawan died after three days. In connection with that incident, six persons—Jalpat Rai (A-1), Shyam Sunder (A-2), Satish Kumar (A-3), Purshotam (A-4), Harinder alias Kala (A-5) and Pawan (A-6) — were tried for the offences punishable under Section 148, Section 302 read with Section 149, Section 307 read with Section 149 and Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC. Four of them were also charged for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

        2. The trial court convicted A-2 under Section 302 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 . A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6 were acquitted of all the charges.

        3. The High Court convicted A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6 under Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The High Court modified the conviction of A-2 from Section 302 to Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC while maintaining the sentence awarded to him by the trial court.

       Finding of the Court:

        Evidence of PW-1, PW-4 and PW-8 is not trustworthy.

       

JUDGEMENT

R.M. Lodha, J. —

On October 2, 2002 two persons - Sunil and Chand - were shot dead and three persons - Pawan, Rohtas and Rakesh - got injured in the town of Jind (Haryana). One of the injured, Pawan died after three days. In connection with that incident, six persons—Jalpat Rai (A-1), Shyam Sunder (A-2), Satish Kumar (A-3), Purshotam (A-4), Harinder alias Kala (A-5) and Pawan (A-6) — were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind for the offences punishable under Section 148, Section 302 read with Section 149, Section 307 read with Section 149 and Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC. Four of them were also charged for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The trial court vide its judgment dated November 20, 2004 convicted A-2 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.25000/- with default stipulation. A-2 was also convicted for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a term of one year with a fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation. The trial court acquitted A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6 of all the charges.

2. Against the judgment of the trial court, two criminal appeals and one criminal revision came to be filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The State preferred appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 95-DBA of 2006 aggrieved by the acquittal of A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6. The complainant party filed a criminal revision being Criminal Revision No. 578 of 2005 against the acquittal of the five accused and for enhancement of sentence. A-2 preferred criminal appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 42-DB of 2005 against his conviction.

3. The High Court heard all the three matters together and by a common judgment dated September 20, 2006; allowed the appeal of the State and convicted A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6 under Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. A-5 was also convicted under Section 323 IPC. All these five accused have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. A fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation was also imposed on them. Insofar as A-2 is concerned, the High Court modified his conviction from Section 302 to Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC while maintaining the sentence awarded to him by the trial court. In light of the judgment in the appeal preferred by the State, the criminal revision preferred by the complainant party was dismissed.

4. A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6 are the appellants in the two appeals before us filed under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 (for short, ‘1970 Act’). A-2 filed special leave petition against his conviction which came to be dismissed by this Court summarily.

5. The prosecution case in regard to the incident leading to the triple murder is this: On October 2, 2002 at about 9.00 p.m., Sewa Singh (PW-1) and one Subhash Gaba were sitting in their office (Nav Bharat Transport Company) situate at Phuara Bazar, Jind. At that time, A-2, A-3 and A-4, all sons of A-1, passed in front of their office and went towards Chamber Dharamshala. They were armed with firearms. PW-1 suspected their movement as he had long standing truck owners’ union rivalry with A-2 and his family. PW-1 came out of his office and saw that A-2 was talking with someone on mobile phone. After about 10/15 minutes, A-1 came there on a motorcycle. He, too, carried firearm with him and was accompanied by a boy. Sensing some danger from A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4, PW-1 telephoned his brother Rohtas (PW-4) who along with his nephews Chand, Sunil, Pawan, Arun and Rakesh (PW-8) reached the office of PW-1 in about 10/15 minutes. PW-1 told his brother (PW-4) that A-1 and his sons had gathered nearby and might commit some mischief. On the advise of PW-4, the office was closed and PW-1, PW-4, their nephews and Subhash Gaba left for their homes. Hardly had they started that A-2 fired one shot from behind with








































































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