Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.K.Bali and K.S.Kumaran JJ.
Nafe Singh
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Appeal No. 327 of 1993,
Decided On : JANUARY 29, 1996
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC - MURDER - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - CHALLENGE - EYE WITNESSES' TESTIMONY - DELAY IN LODGING FIR - TIME OF OCCURRENCE - INJURIES ON ACCUSED - DISCREPANCIES IN STATEMENTS - RELIABILITY OF EVIDENCE - LEGAL PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants, Nafe Singh and four others, were convicted and sentenced for the murder of Samunder Singh under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the accused, armed with gandasis, attacked Samunder Singh and his mother, Bhartho, causing fatal injuries to Samunder Singh and injuries to Bhartho. The appellants challenged the conviction and sentence, raising issues related to the reliability of eyewitness testimony, delay in lodging the FIR, the time of occurrence, injuries on the accused, and discrepancies in statements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the eyewitness testimony was consistent and reliable, despite some minor discrepancies. The court rejected the argument that the delay in lodging the FIR and the variation in the time of receipt of the special report by the Magistrate were attempts to fabricate evidence. The court also found that the evidence regarding the time of occurrence, based on the presence of semi-digested food in the deceased's stomach, was not contradictory to the eyewitness accounts. The court further held that the injuries on the accused could have been sustained during the attack on Samunder Singh and that the small discrepancies in the statements of the eyewitnesses were insignificant.
Issues: 1. Reliability of eyewitness testimony and the significance of minor discrepancies. 2. Delay in lodging the FIR and the variation in the time of receipt of the special report by the Magistrate. 3. Time of occurrence based on the presence of semi-digested food in the deceased's stomach. 4. Explanation for injuries on the accused. 5. Significance of small discrepancies in the statements of eyewitnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Eyewitness testimony can be reliable even with minor discrepancies, especially when the witnesses are stamped witnesses, such as victims of the same incident. 2. Delay in lodging the FIR and variation in the time of receipt of the special report do not necessarily indicate fabrication of evidence, particularly when there is a reasonable explanation for the delay. 3. The presence of semi-digested food in the deceased's stomach does not necessarily contradict eyewitness accounts, as the rate of digestion varies and the exact time of the last meal may not be precisely known. 4. Injuries on the accused may have been sustained during the attack on the deceased, and the absence of an explanation does not render the prosecution case doubtful. 5. Small discrepancies in the statements of eyewitnesses are insignificant when the overall evidence supports the prosecution's version of events.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellants.
V.K.Bali, J.
1. Appellants, Nafe Singh and four others, seek setting aside of the order of conviction and sentence passed against them by Addl. Sessions Judge, Jind, who vide his judgment dated September 15, 1993, held all of them guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC as also for one year each under Section 148 IPC as also for one year each under Section 324 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and for three months each under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC. All the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.
2. The events culminating into murder of Samunder Singh were brought to the notice of Dharam Pal, PW 15, Sub Inspector of police station Sadar, Jind by PW 7 Sat Pal, whose statement was recorded at 11.25 a.m. on September 16, 1992. PW 7 Sat Pal reported that they were four brothers and two sisters. All the four brothers were residing separately. On the eventful day i.e. September 16, 1992, at about 6 a.m. his aunt (fathers brothers wife) Bhartho, wife of Sube Singh and her son Bhupinder Singh had gone to their old house to collect niar (fodder). His uncle (fathers younger brother) Maha Singh son of Nathu Ram and Nanhi, wife of Chand did not allow them to do so. For this, they had an altercation. In the meantime, his brother Samunder Singh reached there and in his presence Maha Singh inflicted a gandasa blow on the head of his aunt. He gave a gandasa blow from its reverse side on the head of Bhupinder Singh and thrust-wise on his chin. His brother Samunder Singh separated them and brought his aunt and her son Bhupinder to their house. At about 6.30/7 a.m. on the same day, he along with his brother Samunder Singh and mother Bhartho, reached near the house of Dalip Singh, son of Gulzari, from their house for taking them to the hospital at Jind. Ranbir, Sultan and Ram Mehar sons of Nafe Singh and Nafe Singh and Maha Singh sons of Nathu Ram, armed with gandasis, after having connived with one another, appeared in the public street all of a sudden and opened an attack while raising lalkara on his brother Samunder Singh and mother Bhartho with an intention to kill them. Within their sight, Ranbir gave one gandasa blow to his brother Samunder Singh hitting on his right knee and two gandasa blows hitting below his right calf. Sultan gave three gandasa blows to him on his left calf and two gandasa blows below his left knee. Ram Mehar inflicted two gandasa blows on his head and one gandasa blow near the elbow of his right hand. Nafe Singh and Maha Singh dragged his brother, as a result of which he sustained scratches on his back. Nafe Singh gave two gandasa blows to his mother hitting on the right side of her head. Maha Singh gave two gandasa blows to her hitting on the left side of her head. Ranbir gave a gandasa blow to her hitting on the left side of her chin and Sultan inflicted a gandasa blow near her right eye with an intention to kill his mother. At this, they raised an alarm saying "MAR DIA MAR DIA" (Killed, killed) which attracted many people to the spot. Thereafter, Ranbir and others fled away from the spot together with their gandasas. Later on, he along with his father Hoshiar Singh, put his brother Samunder Singh and mother Bhartho in his tempo and reached Hospital at Jind from their village. His brother Samunder Singh succumbed to his injuries on the way and his mother was admitted in the hospital. Nafe Singh and his sons suspected that his brother Samunder Singh was helping his aunt Bhartho and due to that, Ranbir, Sultan, Ram Mehar, Nafe Singh and Maha Singh, having connived with each other, had committed the murder of his brother Samunder Singh and inflicted gandasa injuries to his mother with the intention to kill her, as well. The occurrence, as per the FIR, referred to above,
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
