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

1990 Supreme(Del) 115

High Court Of Delhi
JAGJIT SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 78 of 1987
Decided On : 03/28/1990

Advocates Appeared:
D.C.MATHUR, M.N.GROVER, R.P.Lao

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 — Evidence of eyewitnesses not reliable — existence of serious lacunae in prosecution version — Section 154 Code of Crl. Procedure examined. Substance of first information report not entered in daily diary, effect of — absence of motive, discussed.

       Allowing the appeal against an order of conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life, the Court

       Held:

       1. While standing on the balcony of the second floor, it was not possible to see the scooter parked by the side of the footpath. Both the eye witnesses could not and must not have seen their brother and two of the assailants conversing with each other. It is for that reason that they have not been able to depose as to what transpired between the assailants and Mohan Singh inasmuch as they could not hear anything.

       2. It has been repeatedly observed that the substance of the F.I.R. if not entered in the Daily Diary inasmuch as the names of the accused nor the names of the witnesses nor any other details were given in the said entry and further the failure to forward the copy of the F.I.R. to the Area M.M. is indicative of the fact that when the said entry was made, full facts of the occurrence were not known. In the present case, the binding force of these observations can hardly be overemphasized, particularly, when in the present case, the evidence of the so-called eye-witnesses is not reliable.

       3. The absence of motive or the existence of an inadequate motive has repeatedly been held to be a matter of comparative unimportance where there exists absolutely cogent evidence that a crime has in fact been committed by a particular person. It is only because of this that the evidence of the prosecution has to be closely examined and scrutinized to bring home the guilt of the accused.

M. K. Chawla, J.

( 1 ) BY order dated 22-8-83, the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, framed a charge against the accused Jagjit Singh alias Jaggi and Brij Mohan u/s. 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for having committed the murder of Mohan Singh in furtherance of their common intention at about 1. M. on the night between 27th and 28th of February. 1983 at G. B Road. Delhi. Accused Jagjit Singh was further charged for the offence punishable u/s. 27 or the Indian Arms Act for having been found in possession of a knife which he used for unlawful purposes.

( 2 ). After trial, accused Brij Mohan was let off by giving him benefit of doubt as one of the eye-witnesses (Public Witness -4) Ramesh Kumar failed to identify him, even though Public Witness -2 Kishan Singh and Public Witness -3 Manjit Singh identified him to be the person who had held the deceased from behind while accused Jagjit Singh stabbed him. On the same set of evidence, Jagjit Singh was convicted of the offences charged with and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10. 000. 00 , in default of payment of fine, to undergo R. I. for two months u/s. 302 I P. C. He was further sentenced to undergo R. I for 3 ears and a fine of Rs. 100. 00 for the offence u/s 27 of the Indian Arms Act by order dated 13-2-87. The present appeal of Jagjit Singh is directed against his conviction and the order of sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Delhi on 13 2 1987.

( 3 ). The facts of the prosecution case are that on 28th February, 1983, the deceased alongwith his threewheeler scooter no. DHR 1677 came to his house bearing no. 28, G. B. Road, as uoval at about 12 mid-night. He took his meals and thererfter came downstairs. His two brothers Kishan Siagh and Manjit Singh, Public Witness s, were standing on the second floor balcony of their house, As soon as Muhan Singh reached near his scooter, they saw two persons out of whom one Sikh gentleman was driving the motorcycle and the other a clean shaven sitting on the pillion. They stopped their motorcycle near the scooter and started an altercation with the deceased. On seeing this, Kishan Singh and Manjit Singh came downstairs and found that the Sikh gentleman whose name was disclosed later on as Jagjit Singh u/s. Mehar Singh. F-173, Laxmi Nagar Delhi, was armed with a knife. He gave two/three knife blows. to Mohan Singh, while his companion, later on identified as Brij Mohan caught hold of the deceased from behind. One Ramesh Kumar was trying to rescue the deceased. On seeing this Kishan Singh and Manjit Singh raised an alarm and tried to apprehend the accused. Jagjit Singh, however, brandished the knife at them and called his accomplice by the name Surinder and asked him to escape on the motorcycle.

( 4 ). In the meantime, S. I. Harbans Lal alongwith Constable Sri Kishan who were on patrolling duty on Enfield motorcycle came from Ajmeri Gate side. They heard the noise and stopped the motorcycle nearby and they then saw Jagjit Singh holding a blood-stained knife in his band. He was overpowered by the police officers. Brij Mohan, however, succeeded in escaping. The injured was immediately sent to J. P. N. Hosptial with his brother M;injit Singh in a three-wheeler scooter, where on examination he was declared dead by Dr. Ravinder K. Gupta at 1. 45 AM.

( 5 ). S. I. Harbans Lal then recorded the statement of Kishan Singh. PW-2/a, underneath which he made his endorsement on the basis of which the formal F. I. R Ex Public Witness -12/a was recorded. From the spot, S. I. took into possession the blood-stained shirt of the deceased, blood-stained pieces concrete and the knife after its sketch was prepared. The site was got photographed from Constable Baljit Singh. The motorcyle and the three-wheeler scooter were seized by different recovery memos. Accused Jagjit Singh was arrested there and then.

( 6 ). Subsequently, investigation was taken over by S. I. Om Prakash and on 16th March, 1983, he ca

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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