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

2011 (2) Crimes 29 (SC)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma and Anil R. Dave, JJ.
Gurjinder Singh — Appellant
versus
State of Punjab — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1237 of 2008
Decided on : 18-2-2011

IMPORTANT POINT
A police officer can be a reliable witness if the court finds him to be a truthful person and in that event there is no harm in relying upon his statement.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 302-Prosecution of appellant for causing death of deceased by firing shots at him from his pistol-Conviction by Trial Court-Appeal –Dismissed by High Court-Appeal- Trial court had rightly appreciated the evidence and the High Court had also confirmed the order of conviction for justifiable reasons, duly incorporated in the judgment and order confirming the conviction- So far as the delay in filing the FIR was concerned, there appeared to be substance in what had been stated by PW-4-Possibly PW-4 was afraid as he was threatened by the appellant as stated by him and also because he had seen the offence being committed before him and for that reason he did not dare to go to the police station immediately- Though there was delay in filing of FIR, contents of FIR were not incorrect- Story put forward by accused in his FIR about his being shot by another person not appeared to be correct- On the contrary, injuries inflicted upon accused prima facie appeared to be self inflicted- Recovery of pistol could not be said to be from a place which could have been easily accessible to anyone-With regard to recovery memo, the mistake committed in writing word ‘witness’ or ‘witnesses’ could not be said to be so material so as to adversely affect the case of prosecution- Simply because the recovery was in the presence of policemen would not adversely affect the prosecution case-With regard to ownership and possession of pistol, prosecution had proved beyond any doubt that accused was not only owner of the pistol in question but was also having possession thereof-Appeal dismissed. (Paras 18 to 24)

       Facts of the Case :

        Appellant herein in the instant case was convicted for causing death of deceased by firing shots at him from his pistol. Trial Court convicted appellant for said offence. Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.

        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        Trial court had rightly appreciated the evidence and the High Court had also confirmed the order of conviction for justifiable reasons, duly incorporated in the judgment and order confirming the conviction. So far as the delay in filing the FIR was concerned, there appeared to be substance in what had been stated by PW-4.Possibly PW-4 was afraid as he was threatened by the appellant as stated by him and also because he had seen the offence being committed before him and for that reason he did not dare to go to the police station immediately. Though there was delay in filing of FIR, contents of FIR were not incorrect. Story put forward by accused in his FIR about his being shot by another person not appeared to be correct. On the contrary, injuries inflicted upon accused prima facie appeared to be self inflicted. Recovery of pistol could not be said to be from a place which could have been easily accessible to anyone.With regard to recovery memo, the mistake committed in writing word ‘witness’ or ‘witnesses’ could not be said to be so material so as to adversely affect the case of prosecution. Simply because the recovery was in the presence of policemen would not adversely affect the prosecution case.With regard to ownership and possession of pistol, prosecution had proved beyond any doubt that accused was not only owner of the pistol in question but was also having possession thereof. Appeal was dismissed.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

Anil R. Dave, J. —

1) Being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 253-DB of 2006 dated 1st February, 2008, this appeal has been filed by the convict. By virtue of impugned order, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and has been awarded sentence of imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The order of conviction dated 3rd March, 2006, passed by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, in Sessions Case No.33 of 2001 has been confirmed.

2. The case of the prosecution in a nut-shell before the trial court was as under:

Sandeep Singh (who has been referred to hereinafter as ‘the deceased’) was a resident of village Chhibian Wali. He had lent a sum of Rs.5 lacs to Gurjinder Singh-the appellant and the said amount was not being returned by Gurninder Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’).

On the night of 9th June, 2001, the deceased and the accused, along with Jasbir Singh (PW-4) were going to village Chhibian Wali in Maruti Car No. PB-4-E 6699 from Muktsar. The deceased was driving the car and the accused was sitting next to him, whereas PW-4 was sitting on the rear seat. Around 10.30 p.m., when they were about one kilometer away from Canal Bridge, Ladhuwala, the accused asked the deceased to stop the car as he wanted to ease himself. When the car was stopped, the accused stepped out of the car and went to the back side of the car and thereafter came near the driver’s seat with his pistol and fired one shot on the right temple of the deceased and another shot on the neck of the deceased. Upon seeing the said firing, PW-4 raised an alarm and thereupon the accused warned him that he would kill him also if he would not keep quiet and, thereafter, the accused fired on his own left arm and another shot below his own knee of the right leg. PW-4 was afraid of the incident and thereafter he ran away from the place. He, thereafter, telephoned his sister and his sister’s husband but he was advised to keep mum to save himself. Thereafter, his sister and her husband, who were abroad, came to India and cremated the deceased. Thereafter, PW-4 went to police station along with his sister and her husband and narrated the incident to S.H.O. Harbans Singh (PW-13). An FIR was lodged by him on 1st July, 2001 at 5 a.m. whereas the incident had taken place on 9th June, 2001.

3. It may incidentally be noted that before the aforesaid FIR was lodged, the accused had lodged an FIR being FIR No.118 on 10th June, 2001 at PS Sadar, Jalalabad.

4. On 10th June, 2001, the accused had filed the FIR before Harbans Singh (PW-13) to the effect that when the accused and the deceased were returning to village Chhibian Wali from Muktsar in Maruti car along with PW-4, who was sitting on the back seat of the car, around 10.30 p.m. when they reached near Canal Bridge, Ladhuwala, he saw a white gypsy belonging to Harcharan Singh parked on the road. Harcharan Singh and two other unknown persons, whom he did not know but he could identify if produced before him, stopped the car of the deceased and, thereafter, Harcharan Singh came near the driver’s window and fired at the deceased. The bullets injured him on his neck and temple. Those two unknown persons also fired at him and the bullets hit him on the upper side of the arm between shoulder and his elbow, then the accused and PW-4 tried to run away. Thereafter, Harcharan Singh went away in his gypsy. The accused and PW-4 had seen Sandeep Singh dead in the car. Leaving PW-4 near the dead body of the deceased, he went to police station and lodged the FIR. The aforesaid version of the accused was recorded as FIR No.118 on 10th June, 2001.

5. After the aforesaid FIR was filed, Harbans Singh (PW-13), the S.H.O. went to the place of offence and prepared inquest report Ex.P.2 and took possession of three empty cartridg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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