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

2013 Supreme(SC) 358

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD & V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.
TEJINDER SINGH @ KAKA - APPELLANT
Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB - RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1280 OF 2008
RAJINDER KUMAR
VS.
STATE OF PUNJAB
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1281 OF 2008
BALWINDER SINGH AND ANR.
VS.
STATE OF PUNJAB
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1281 OF 2008
SUNNY LAL PASWAN
VS.
STATE OF PUNJAB
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1282 OF 2008
Decided On : April 11, 2013.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 201 — Scope — Ingredients required to be established in order to constitute an offence under — Enumerated. (Para 21)

       (B) Confession — Extra-judicial confession — Evidence of — Nature — Basing conviction on — A weak evidence — No conviction and sentence can be imposed upon the accused based on such evidence — However, certain principles guiding the court — Stated.

        (Paras 24 and 26)

       (C) Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 142 — Jurisdiction of Supreme Court under — Exercise — Scope — Not filing of appeal before Supreme Court challenging the impugned judgment by co-accused — Supreme Court, in exercise of jurisdiction u/Art. 142, Constitution extended the same benefit to him also as was extended to other co-convicts in allowing their appeals and setting aside their conviction and sentence. (Para 33)

JUDGMENT

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

These Criminal Appeals are directed against the Judgment and Order dated 05.06.2006 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No 716-DB of 2004. The Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused for offences punishable under Sections 302, 376(2)(g), 148, 201,404 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code with different sentences of imprisonment which will be referred to in the later portion of the judgment to run concurrently and fine imposed upon them. The same is under challenge in these appeals by the appellants urging various grounds. However, the High Court acquitted the appellants of the charges framed under Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. The appellants have prayed for allowing the appeals by setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and to acquit them from all the charges urging various facts and grounds in support of the questions of law framed in these appeals. For proper appreciation of rival factual and legal submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties the relevant facts in relation to the prosecution case are briefly stated as under:

3. On 25.05.2000, FIR No. 73 was lodged at Police Station Banga, Nawanshahar on the basis of statement of Nago Ram, S/o Munshi Ram who is relative of Seeso, the deceased, for offences under Sections 302, 376(2)(g), 148, 201, 404 read with Section 34 IPC alleging that on 24.05.2000 at about 9.00 a.m. the deceased went to the field to bring fodder and when she did not return home till afternoon, the informant along with family members of the deceased and villagers started searching her but they could not gather any information. It was alleged that on 25.05.2000 at 8.00 a.m., the informant along with other people went to the sugarcane field searching for the deceased where they found a fresh pit dug filled back with earth inside which the dead body was lying buried in the soil covered with a palli. It was further alleged that the gold ear rings, silver bangles and anklets from the dead body of the deceased were found missing. It was alleged by the informant that Sunny Lal Paswan, the owner of the land along with three-four persons after committing the murder buried the body of the deceased.

4. On the basis of the registration of the said FIR the case was investigated and report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed before the committal court and thereafter it has committed the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahar and the case went for trial as the accused pleaded not guilty of charges and prayed to try them for the charges. The charges were framed for offences punishable under Sections 302, 376(2)(g), 148, 201, 404 read with Section 34 IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-15 were examined and the statement of evidence of the witnesses were recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Court has convicted the accused with various sentences for different offences along with fine as has been set out in detail in the later part of the judgment. The same is affirmed by the High Court by passing the impugned judgment. The correctness of the same is challenged in these appeals by the appellants by raising certain legal questions and urging grounds in support of the same.

5. It is contended by the learned senior counsel for the appellant Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi that the High Court ignored the vital aspect of the case, namely, PW-9 Niranjan Ram, the so- called sole eye witness of the alleged offences who has categorically stated in his evidence that on 24.05.2000 at about 10.30 a.m. in order to ease himself, he had gone towards the eastern side of the village where a fair was being held. In order to get his hands wash





































































































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