IMPORTANT POINT
Appeal against acquittal – Where on consideration of material on record, even if two views are possible, yet Supreme Court, while exercising powers under Article 136 of Constitution, will not tinker with order of acquittal – An erroneous or perverse approach to proven facts of a case and/or ignorance of some of vital circumstances would amount to grave and substantial miscarriage of justice.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal against acquittal – Once appellate court acquits accused, presumption of innocence as it existed before conviction by Trial Court, stands restored and Supreme Court, while scrutinizing evidence, will proceed with great circumspect and will not routinely interfere with order of acquittal, save when impeccable prosecution evidence nails accused beyond any doubt – Where on consideration of material on record, even if two views are possible, yet Supreme Court, while exercising powers under Article 136 of Constitution, will not tinker with order of acquittal – An erroneous or perverse approach to proven facts of a case and/or ignorance of some of vital circumstances would amount to grave and substantial miscarriage of justice – In such a case, Supreme Court will be justified in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction to undo injustice mete out to victims of crime. (Paras 15 and 18)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 34 – Murder – Common intention – Appeal against acquittal by High Court – Typically, a close relative is unlikely to shield actual culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person – While it is acknowledged that emotions can run high and personal animosity may exist, merely being related does not provide a valid basis for criticism; instead, familial ties often serve as a reliable assurance of truth – Promptly lodged FIR reflects first-hand account of what happened and who was responsible for offence in question – Weapon of crime was recovered from respondent pursuant to his disclosure statement – Occurrence took place inside house – It is natural that residents in adjoining houses did not see occurrence – Shot was fired at close range and people in neighbourhood did not come to know about incident – No adverse inference can be drawn against prosecution on this count – Judgment passed by High Court acquitting respondent from offence under Section 302 IPC set aside and that of Trial Court convicting him and sentencing him to life imprisonment restored. (Paras 29, 30, 32, 33,35 and 36)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals are directed against Judgment dated 05.12.2019, passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, allowing Criminal Appeal filed by (Respondents. High Court has, through impugned judgment, acquitted all four Respondents of charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Findings of Court:
Criminal Appeal No.664 of 2024 @ SLP(Crl.) No.1852/2024 is allowed in part and Criminal appeal No.665 of 2024 @ SLP(Crl.) No.1853 of 2024 against acquittal of Harpreet Singh is dismissed.
Result : Appeals against acquittal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Surya Kant, J.

Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 05.12.2019, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (hereinafter, ‘High Court’), allowing Criminal Appeal, CRAD1606DB2015 (O&M) filed by Gurpreet Singh, Kashmira Singh and Jagdeep Singh (Respondent Nos. 13) and Criminal Revision, CRR29422015 (O&M) filed by Harpreet Singh against their conviction awarded by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana (hereinafter, ‘Trial Court’) vide judgments dated 29.09.2015 and 02.07.2015 respectively. The High Court has, through the impugned judgment, acquitted all the four Respondents of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’).

FACTS:

4. At this juncture, it is imperative to delve into the factual matrix to set out the context of the present proceedings.

5. FIR No. 100 dated 18.07.2012, was registered at Police Station City Jagraon, District Ludhiana Rural, under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959. The subject FIR was lodged on the statement of Gursewak Singh (P.W.2), the Complainant, who stated that his elder daughter, Kirandeep Kaur, was married to Gurpreet Singh (main accused) in the year 2009 and they got divorced in the year 2011. On 18.07.2012, at about 1.30 p.m., the Complainant was taking rest in his bedroom while his wife, Amarjit Kaur, and their son and younger daughter were on the first floor. At the exact time of the incident, the Complainant received information from Amarjit Kaur, who was standing on the stairs, that someone was calling for him. The Complainant opened the drawing-room door to check the main gate, wherein he saw Gurpreet Singh, accompanied by an unidentified individual, who had entered the porch by jumping the compound wall. Gurpreet Singh was armed with a pistol, while the unidentified person held a hockey stick. No sooner did the Complainant open the drawing-room door Gurpreet Singh shot at the Complainant’s wife, Amarjit Kaur, under the right ear from a close range. When the Complainant accessed the main gate, he saw brothers of Gurpreet Singh, namely, Harpreet Singh and Joga Singh (sons of Puran Singh r/o Bhodipura), standing there besides an Innova car. The Complainant shouted at them and tried to catch hold of the assailants, but they crossed the main gate and fled in the Innova car. The reason for enmity, according to the Complainant, was that the daughter of the Complainant, Kirandeep Kaur, had cleared the IELTS exam and had shifted to Australia. Gurpreet Singh also wanted to settle in Australia, but due to their divorce, his dreams were shattered, and he blamed Amarjit Kaur, the wife of the Complainant to be responsible for the divorce.

6. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses to bring the guilt home, including Gursewak Singh, P.W.2 (the Complainant) and his daughter, Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3), both eyewitnesses. The entire case of the prosecution is based upon the version of these two eyewitnesses, who claimed that the murder took place in the broad daylight in front of them.

7. The Trial Court, having found the version of the two eyewitnesses to be trustworthy, which was duly corroborated by the medical evidence and the recovery of the weapon, held Gurpreet Singh guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC, whereas his co-accused were held guilty for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. All of them were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

8. The High Court, vide the impugned judgment, disbelieved the version of Gursewak Singh (P.W.2, the Complainant) and his daughter, Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3), primarily for the reasons that (i) Gursewak Singh (P.W.2) had gone for the medical checkup of his son to a hospital in Jagraon. It was not possible for him to reach back Doraha at the time of occurrence, as the distance was of about 70 kms. (ii) Gursewak Singh (P.W.2) failed to disclose the names of the c