Back
1989 Supreme(Del) 452
High Court Of Delhi
SURINDER KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 94 of 1987
Decided On : 12/14/1989
B.G.SINGH, D.R.Sethi, F.Anthony, R.P.Lao
The court held that a conviction cannot be based solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness whose testimony is unreliable and whose evidence is tainted by suspicious circumstances.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - EYE WITNESS ACCOUNT - F.I.R. - DELAY IN REGISTRATION - IDENTIFICATION PARADE - WEAPON RECOVERY - SUSPICION OF IMPROPER INVESTIGATION - MODULATION OF EVIDENCE - RELIABILITY OF WITNESS - CONVICTION OVERTURNED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution's case rested on the testimony of a single eyewitness, Balraj Singh, who claimed to have witnessed the incident and identified the accused. The defense challenged the reliability of Balraj's testimony and raised suspicions about the investigation, including the delay in registering the FIR, the lack of a proper identification parade, and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the recovery of the alleged murder weapons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FIR was not registered promptly and that there was a delay in sending it to the magistrate. The court also found that the identification parade was not conducted properly and that the accused were shown to the witnesses before they were formally identified. The court further found that the recovery of the alleged murder weapons was suspicious, as they were recovered after the accused had been in police custody for three days.
Issues: 1. Whether the testimony of the sole eyewitness, Balraj Singh, was reliable and trustworthy. 2. Whether the delay in registering the FIR and the lack of a proper identification parade affected the reliability of the prosecution's case. 3. Whether the suspicious circumstances surrounding the recovery of the alleged murder weapons tainted the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the testimony of Balraj Singh was not reliable and trustworthy, as he had modulated his evidence to suit the prosecution's theory and had failed to disclose the details of the incident to anyone before the arrival of his father from the airport. 2. The court held that the delay in registering the FIR and the lack of a proper identification parade affected the reliability of the prosecution's case, as they raised suspicions about the investigation and the possibility of improper influence. 3. The court held that the suspicious circumstances surrounding the recovery of the alleged murder weapons tainted the prosecution's case, as they raised suspicions about the possibility of planting or tampering with the evidence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the accused.
( 1 ) THE appellants herein together with one Suresh Kumar alias Bunti and Mukesh Kumar were found guilty of the offence under sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code. and were sentenced so undergo imprisonment for life. Surinder Kumar and Mukesh were also found guilty under section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The sentences were passed by an order dated 30th of March 1987 the date on which their order of conviction was recorded. The date of incident is 25th of June 1984 at 11. 20 P. M. The deceased is one Kaptan Singh who was the brother of Balraj Singh, prosecution witness.
( 2 ) STATING briefly, the prosecution case is that Balraj Singh Public Witness alongwith his brother Kaptan Singh decased and on Dinesh and Prem were taking fruit juice near Shanti building on Mandoli road. While they were there Suresh one of the accused who is supposed to be known to Balraj and resides near old Sawheny factory, came to the juice shop to purchase fruits. Suresh is then said to have asked the shop-keeper to give fruits as they were required for Samey Pandit appellant. He sought priority over other customers. Prem one of the companions of the deceased objected and said that since they have come first they must get the preference. Suresh thereupon is stated to have defiantly told him " don t you know Samey Pandit". Prem replied that Samey Pandit was not a God. There was exchange of hot words between Suresh and Balraj Singh and others and Suresh left the place thereafter remarking that he will teach them a lesson. Thereafter Prem is also stated to have left the place of incident. Within 5 to 7 minuts of this incident. accused Surinder and Samey came on motor cycle No. DEN 2316 while the accused Mukesh and Suresh came on a scooter. Accused Suresh was carrying a bottle in his hand. After pointing out Balraj and his companions he is said to have exhorted to his accomplices that these are the persons and none of them should be allowed to escape. Accused Suresh thereafter hit the empty bottle on the ground and the broken pieces of glass are supposed to have hit on the left calf of Kaptan Singh. Accused Surinder and Samey are alleged to have taken out knives while Mukesh was holding a naked kirpan. Surinder accused thereafter is said to have given a knife blow on the right side of the abdomen of Kaptan Singh while Mukesh accused attacked with open kripan but the blow was warded off by Kaptan Singh. At this stage, the deceased together with Balraj Singh and Dinesh ran towards their houses but all the four accused chased them and the accused Samey gave a knife blow on the left buttock of Kaptan Singh. The prosecution case is that at this some people arrived on the spot and on finding the people crowding Samey and Surinder accused escaped on their motor-cycle while Suresh and Mukesh accused ran away from the spot abandoning their scooter. Balraj and Dinesh are said to have removed the injured Kaplan Singh to general hospital, Shahdara where within a short time after arrival he died.
( 3 ) THE prosecution case further is that Dr. B. K. Tandon of the aforesaid hospital prepared the M. L. C. Ex. PW6/a of Kaptan Singh who was declared dead at about 11. 30 P. M. on the same night. Since the telephone of the hospital was out of order, constable Ram Pal Singh who was on duty in the said hospital sent information in writing marked Ex. Public Witness 9/a through constable Raj Kumar Public Witness. 15 who happened to be in the hospital for the medical examination of one person namely Chanan Lal. Ram Pal Singh head constable recorded the DD entry. 20a at 12 A. M. at police station Shahdara and a copy thereof was handed over to Inspector M. S. Sapra, S. H. O. Police Station Shahdara who along with other police officials went to the hospital, and collected the M. L. C. of the deceased. They further found Balraj Singh , brother of the deceased present in the hospital and rec
