Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Deepak Gupta, Aniruddha Bose, JJ.
PREM SINGH – APPELLANT(S)
Vs.
SUKHDEV SINGH AND OTHERS – RESPONDENT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1560 OF 2019 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1561 OF 2019
Decided on : 17-10-2019
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 148, 302/149 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25 – Murder and rioting – Common object – Acquittal by High Court – High Court, in appeal acquitted accused mainly on the ground that medical version was totally different from that of eyewitnesses – Version of eyewitnesses that knife blows were given by accused is falsified by testimony of doctor who clearly states that injuries caused by a sharp edged weapon were post-mortem – This is a major discrepancy in statement of eyewitnesses because both eyewitnesses Claim that knife blows were given first by accused and, thereafter when deceased tried to run away, other accused came out from Tata Sumo with fire arms – Medical evidence does not support prosecution – There are other reasons to discredit prosecution witnesses – No attempt was made by PWs to take deceased inside Hospital for treatment – First reaction of close relatives would be to try and save their relative rather than rush to police station – This is especially so when occurrence took place in Hospital compound itself – Second doubtful feature is that instead of going to police station witness went to milk chilling centre to lodge report – There is no reasonable explanation given except that since police were present at milk chilling centre when elections took place, he went to milk chilling centre – Though licensed fire arms of accused were seized but they were not sent to a ballistic expert and there is no forensic evidence to show that these were the guns actually used during occurrence – As far as recovery of Tata Sumo vehicle is concerned, it is not proved to be belonging to accused – It belongs to some other person and accused have not been linked to this – Doctor was a prosecution witness and prosecution cannot be heard to say that his statement should not be relied upon – Prosecution did not pray that doctor be declared a hostile witness – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals by victim as well as by State assail judgment dated 24.07.2013 whereby High Court allowed appeal of accused and set aside judgment of trial court whereby respondents herein were convicted for various offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act, and sentenced to various terms including life imprisonment.
Findings of Court:
According to the two eyewitnesses PW1 and 2, all four fire arm shots hit the deceased on the head. According to doctor there were only two entry wounds. This also belies statement of so-called eyewitnesses according to whom accused gave four fire arm injuries on the head of deceased. Doctor was a prosecution witness and the prosecution cannot be heard to say that his statement should not be relied upon. The prosecution did not pray that the doctor be declared a hostile witness. Therefore, we have to go by the statement of the medical expert.
Result : Appeals dismissed
JUDGMENT
Deepak Gupta, J.
These appeals by the victim as well as by the State are directed against the judgment dated 24.07.2013 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal of the accused and set aside the judgment of the trial court whereby the respondents herein were convicted for various offences punishable under Sections 148, 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, and sentenced to various terms including life imprisonment.
2. We do not intend to give detailed facts of the case. The gist of the case is that on 25.05.2005, accused Jagir Singh had caused injuries to Palwinder Kaur, who is the sister-in-law of Prem Singh (PW-1). Prem Singh (PW-1) had gone to the milk chilling centre at Lopoke, because his father was contesting election being contested there. At about 3.15 PM, Prem Singh (PW-1), along with Major Singh (PW-2) proceeded to Civil Hospital at Lopoke to see his sister-in-law, Palwinder Kaur. Satinder Pal Singh (since deceased) was already there in the Hospital.
3. When these two witnesses reached the Hospital, they found a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration no. PB-02-AL-5478 was parked outside the Hospital. Accused Sardul Singh alias Kalu came out of the Tata Sumo with a knife in his hand. Accused Sawinder Singh raised a lalkara (exhortation) that Satinder Pal Singh should be killed. Thereafter, Sardul Singh inflicted a knife blow on the person of Satinder Pal Singh which hit both sides of his abdomen and chest. Satinder Pal Singh tried to run away, but in the meanwhile accused Sukhdev Singh, Resham Singh, Sawinder Singh and Swaran Singh, who were armed with rifles came out of the sumo vehicle and fired at Satinder Pal Singh, which hit him on the forehead, right ear, eye and back of the head. Thereafter, he fell down. Prem Singh (PW-1) and Major Singh (PW-2) raised alarm. All the accused ran away with their respective weapons after jumping over the boundary wall of the Hospital, leaving behind the Tata Sumo and one motorcycle.
4. The case of the appellant is that there was a land dispute and Jagir Singh wanted to take possession of the land of the complainant and hence the appeal. FIR was got lodged by Prem Singh (PW-1), at the milk chilling centre at Lopoke, because according to him the police was present there. Thereafter, the police came to the Hospital. After investigation the accused were charged with committing murder of the deceased and other offences. The trial court convicted them. The High Court, in appeal acquitted them mainly on the ground that the medical version was totally different from that of the eye-witnesses and, therefore, reliance cannot be placed on the eye-witnesses.
5. We may now refer to the relevant portion of the statement of Dr. Deepak Walia (PW-13), who found the following injuries on the deceased:-
1. A lacerated wound with inverted margins 1 cm x 0.8 cm present center of upper eye lid, right abrasion collar around it, phtisis (sic) of right eye ball present subconjunctival hemorrage on right side.
2. A lacerated wound with inverted margins 4 cm x 2.8 cm on right side of fore head 1 cm above the right 1/3rd of right eye brow. Clotted blood was present.
3. A lacerated wound 3.8 x 2.1 cm present on right temporo parietal region 2 cm above pinna of right ear. Margin were everted, brain matter coming out.
4. A lacerated wound 4.2 cm x 1.8 cm on right parieto occipital region with everted margins. Clotted blood was present at the site. Brain matter coming out.
5. An incised penetrating wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm on left side of chest just below nipple in anterior axillary line, muscle deep. No infiltration of blood and no clot was present in the wound.
6. An incised penetrating wound 1.5 x 0.5 cm on left side of abdomen in the left Lumber region. It communicated with peritoneal cavity. No infiltration of blood in the wound.
7. An incised penetrating wound 3 cm x 1 cm obliquely placed in right hyponchondric region, it communicated with peritonial cavity. No infiltra
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
