SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S. Radhakrishnan And Dipak Misra, JJ.
Joginder Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1148 OF 2007
Decided On : 24-10-2013
AIR 1934 PC 227; AIR 1957 SC 216; (1970) 2 SCC 450; (1975) 4 SCC 497; (1978) 4 SCC 371; (1988) 2 SCC 557; 1995 Supp (1) SCC 248; (2002) 4 SCC 85; (2007) 3 SCC 755; (2008) 3 SCC 795; (2009) 11 SCC 334; 2012 (10) SCALE 378; (2013) 5 SCC 705; (2011) 8 SCC 65 - Relied upon
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 379 r/w Articles 134(1)(a) and 134(1)(b) - Appeal against acquittal - Stands on different footing compared to ordinary appeal. (Para 15)
(2011) 8 SCC 65; 2012 (10) SCALE 378 - Relied upon
(c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 379 - Appeal against acquittal - High Court re-appreciating the evidencing and negativing reasons given by trial court one by one - Procedure cannot be flawed - Ultimately High Court set aside the acquittal without holding the judgment of trial court neither plausible nor reasonable - Moreover the order ignoring the ballistic report and being cryptic one, not acceptable. (Paras 16 to 18 and 21)
(2003) 11 SCC 219 - Relied upon
(d) Criminal Trial - Evidence - Material witness - Non-examination of - Assumes significance when the witness examined is interested witness having an axe to grind against accused. (Para 25)
2013 (11) SCALE 394; (2001) 6 SCC 71; (2001) 6 SCC 145; 2013 (11) SCALE 394; (1973) 1 SCC 512 - Relied upon
AIR 2004 SC 2329 - Distinguished impliedly
(e) Criminal Trial - Benefit of doubt - Accused alleged to have snatched gun and fired - Disbelieving, trial court acquitting him - High Court giving benefit of doubt - Not proper. (Para 26)
(2002) 9 SCC 408; (2011) 11 SCC 140 - Referred
Facts of the case:
Appellant was acquitted of offences u/s 302 by the trial court.
High Court reversed the judgment and order and convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment is not sustainable.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Dipak Misra, J.
The present appeal under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”) is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9.5.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 702- DBA of 1997 whereby the High Court has partly reversed the judgment of acquittal dated 9.6.1997 recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 1993 instituted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act against the appellant and two others and convicted the appellant alone under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
2. Filtering the unnecessary details the broad essential facts, as put forth by the prosecution, are that there was a dispute about the vacant plot of shamlat land where the complainant and his family members used to store their respective kurris (heap of rubbish). The said land was given to Guru Ravidass Mandir by the Gram Panchayat vide resolution dated 22.03.1989. Accused Joginder Singh and Mohinder Singh, both real brothers kept on asserting their ownership over the said land and were not prepared to surrender it. Both the accused were booked twice under sections 107 and 151 of CrPC relating to the said land. On 15.11.1991 about 4:00 pm., Joginder Singh parked his combine harvester on the disputed land which was objected to by deceased Kamla wife of Chander, Murti, wife of Dharambir, Bala, daughter of Sita Ram and other ladies present at that time. But Joginder Singh did not pay any heed to the objection raised by the women, and abused them. In the meantime Chander, Dharambir, PW-3, and Mithan Singh, PW-2, came outside and asked accused Joginder Singh not to park his combine harvester on the disputed land. At that juncture, Mohinder Singh and Anokh Singh, nephew of the accused, arrived at the scene and all of them started abusing the complainant and other women. The initial altercation took a violent turn and both the parties grappled with each other. During the fight accused persons ran away to their houses and returned with weapons. Joginder Singh came armed with a DBBL .12 bore gun while the other two accused did not bring any weapon. As the prosecution story proceeds, both of them raised a ‘lalkara’ in filthy language to kill the members of other side. Accused Joginder Singh fired two shots from his gun pellets of which hit in the chest of Kamla and Bala and also in the chest and mouth of Mithan Singh, PW-2. Accused Mohinder Singh snatched the gun from Joginder Singh and fired two shots that hit the back of Bimla and the stomach region and thigh of Murti. The injured persons fell down on the ground on receipt of gunshot injuries. After hearing the gunshot number of villagers came to the place of occurrence whereafter the accused persons took to their heels. Kamla succumbed to her injuries on the spot and her husband was asked to stay back to guard the dead body of his wife. Pritam Singh, PW-1, Karambir, Mamu Ram and others took the other injured persons in a vehicle to Civil Hospital, Kaithal. Pritam Singh went to Police Station to lodge the FIR and his statement was recorded by the Inspector of Police, Prem Chand, PW-16, and an FIR was registered at 8:30 pm.
3. After the criminal law was set in motion, the investigating agency commenced the investigation and in course of investigation, Prem Chand, PW-16, prepared the inquest report, got the site plan done, collected the blood-stained earth and the pellets lying at the spot, sent the dead body for the post mortem and forwarded the articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination, arrested the accused persons, recovered DBBL .12 bore gun and live cartridges, recorded the statements of other witnesses and after completing all other formalities laid the charge sheet for the offences
State of U.P. v. Iftikhar Khan
Chandu v. State of Maharashtra
Murugesan S/o Muthu v. State through Inspector of Police
Rathinam @Rathinam v. State of Tamilnadu
Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab
Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Ram Bali v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab
Khedu Mohton v. State of Bihar
Ganesh Bhavan Patel v. State of Maharashtra
Awadhesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P.
State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran
Puran Singh v. State of Uttaranchal
Shivasharanappa v. State of Karnataka
State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Home Department v. Abdul Mannan
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.