Back
2014 Supreme(SC) 902
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. Gopala Gowda, C. Nagappan, JJ.
State of Punjab - Appellant
Versus
Jagga Singh Etc. - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.2329-2331 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2327 OF 2009 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2328 OF 2009
Decided On: 17-12-2014
For Appellant(s): Mr. V. Madhukar, AAG, Ms. Anvita Cowshish, Adv., Mr. Mohit Nain, Adv., Mr. Kuldip Singh, Adv., Mr. M. P. Jha, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, Adv., Mr. S. R. Setia, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINTS
Omission to name the accused in the compliant is not fatal to prosecution story.
Presence of family members, that too in the morning is natural.
No conviction can be based on unreliable evidence.
Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 154 – FIR – Accused not named in the complaint to the police – Witnesses identifying accused persons – Omission to name them in the compliant not fatal to prosecution story. (Para 12)
(b) Identification of Prisoners Act – Section 5 – Specimen finger print impression taken in presence of Judicial Magistrate – Magistrate even attesting the specimens and putting his signatures thereon – Section 5 fully complied with – Bona fides of same beyond suspicion. (Para 15)
(1997) 10 SCC 44 – Distinguished
(c) Criminal trial – Witnesses – Presence at place of occurrence – PWs 1 and 2 family members – Occurrence taking place in morning – Presence of PWs 1 and 2 natural – Courts below rightly relying on their evidence. (Para 16)
(d) Criminal trial – Extra judicial confession – Conviction – Other 5 witnesses charged with offences u/s 302 IPC r/w 120B on basis of extra judicial confession – Witness claiming extra judicial confession not reliable – Inquest report also not showing presence of accused persons at place of occurrence – High Court rightly giving them benefit of doubt. (Para 17)
Facts of the case:
The appellants/accused in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2327 and 2328 of 2009 numbering 2 were convicted for the offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
The respondents/accused in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2329-2331 of 2009 numbering 5, were convicted for the offences under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC.
The High Court allowed the appeals preferred by five of the accused who were convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with section 120-B IPC and acquitted them of the said charges and at the same time dismissed the appeal preferred by two of the accused who were convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC, confirming their conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment does not warrant any interference.
Result: All appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
C. NAGAPPAN, J.
1. All these criminal appeals have arisen out of the common judgment dated 17.09.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
2. The appellants/accused in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2327 and 2328 of 2009 numbering 2, and the respondents/accused in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2329-2331 of 2009 herein numbering 5, were the accused in sessions case Nos. 14,15 and 16 of 2003 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and the first two of them were convicted for the offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-each with default sentence for the offence of murder and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-each with default sentence for the offence punishable under the Arms Act. Rest of them were convicted for the offences under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life each, and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-with default sentence. All the convicted accused preferred appeals in criminal appeal Nos.65, 90, 101 and 617 of 2006 on the file of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and the High Court by the impugned common judgment allowed the appeals preferred by five of the accused who were convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with section 120-B IPC and acquitted them of the said charges and at the same time dismissed the appeal preferred by two of the accused who were convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC, confirming their conviction and sentence. Challenging their conviction and sentence the said two accused preferred independent appeals in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2327 and 2328 of 2009 on the file of this Court. The State of Punjab aggrieved by the acquittal of five of the accused preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2329-2331 of 2009. All these appeals are heard together and common judgment is rendered.
3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: PW1 Balwinder Kaur is the mother of the deceased Satnam Singh. PW2 Gurmeet Kaur is his wife. They were originally living in Village Gholia Khurd and 10 years prior to occurrence they had shifted to Ludhiana. Satnam Singh was working with one Jugraj Singh for two years and thereafter he started working with Avtar Singh and Surjeet Singh. On 09.11.2002 at about 7/8 P.M. Satnam Singh received a call on his mobile phone from certain persons from village Dhandra asking him to do some earthwork and it was agreed that they should come next morning at 5.30 A.M. Satnam Singh sent a message to his partner Avtar Singh about the visit of the callers for going to the plot. On 10.11.2002 at 5 A.M. on hearing the door bell PW1 Balwinder Kaur opened the door. Two persons aged about 30 and 40 respectively wrapping themselves in Chaddars were standing outside and they were let in. On the direction of Satnam Singh his wife PW2 Gurmeet Kaur prepared tea and after taking it both went outside and asked Satnam Singh to come alongwith them on his scooter to see the plot. Satnam Singh took out his scooter and while he was starting it both the visitors took out pistols from the respective folds of their garments and fired at Satnam Singh who fell on the scooter. PW2 Gurmeet Kaur fell upon Satnam Singh and in the meanwhile Avtar Singh also reached the spot. Both the assailants ran away. PW1 Balwinder Kaur heard the noise of starting of some vehicle from the other side of the road and she suspected that the assailants had boarded the said vehicle for fleeing from the spot.
4. PW1 Balwinder Kaur gave Exh.PA statement at 7.30A.M. and same was recorded by sub inspector, Gurpreet Singh at Hambran Road and he prepared Exh. PA/2 FIR at 7.45 A.M. and reached the spot. PW6 fingerprint expert Surinder Singh raised the fingerprints from two glasses and both the glasses were made into a sealed parcel and handed over to the sub inspector Gurpreet Singh in m
