Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 320
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajiv Sharma and Harinder Singh Sidhu, JJ.
Nachhattar Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRA-D-39-DB-2008
Decided On : 04-03-2020
Gurjinder Singh Thind, Advocate, for the Appellant; H.S. Grewal, Addl. A.G, for the Respondent
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the court's reliance on evidence and witness statements in reaching a decision.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Murder - Section 302, Section 34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the prosecution's case under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, focusing on the evidence presented by various witnesses, including medical professionals and family members of the deceased. The court highlighted the failure of the prosecution to prove the case against the appellant, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and co-accused were charged with the murder of Hardeep Singh. The prosecution presented evidence related to the injuries and subsequent death of the victim, as well as statements from witnesses and medical professionals. The appellant was convicted, but his co-accused were acquitted.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellant, as the evidence presented did not sufficiently establish the appellant's guilt in the murder of Hardeep Singh. The court highlighted discrepancies in the statements of witnesses and the lack of conclusive evidence linking the appellant to the crime.
Issues: The key issue was whether the prosecution had successfully proven the appellant's involvement in the murder of Hardeep Singh, based on the evidence and witness statements presented during the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of conclusive evidence and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of the charges due to the prosecution's failure to prove the case against him.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Sharma, J. - This appeal has been instituted against the judgment and order dated 27.09.2007 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Mansa, in Sessions case no. 07 dated 31.08.2005 whereby, the appellant along with co-accused Sukhwinder Singh, Charanjit Singh and Raj Kumar was charged with and tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC). The appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five months. However, the co-accused of the appellant were acquitted.
2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that MLR of Hardeep Singh son of Hazur Singh was received in Police Station City Mansa on 29.05.2005. ASI Gurcharan Singh went to the Civil Hospital, Mansa. He moved an application Ex. PF. The doctor made an endorsement Ex. PF/1 declaring the patient unfit to make statement. There was no other person present with the injured who could be the eye witness. The endorsement Ex. PF/1 was made by the doctor at 3.40 A.M. ASI Gurcharan Singh again went to the hospital and filed an application Ex. PG upon which the doctor made an endorsement Ex. PG/1 that the patient was referred to DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana, at 06.15 AM. Nobody contacted the ASI. On 30.05.2005 ASI Gurcharan Singh was proceeding to DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana along with other police officials. He received a telephonic message from MHC Prem Kumar of Police Station at 11.00 AM on the cell phone of the Investigating Officer that injured Hardeep Singh had expired. The Investigating Officer went to Police Station Division no. 8, Ludhiana. He collected ruqa received from DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana. The dead body of Hardeep Singh was received at about 04.30 PM. Harmeet Kaur wife of Hardeep Singh was present in DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana. FIR Ex. PH was registered. The version of the prosecution is that three days before 30.05.2005 deceased Hardeep Singh and accused Raj Kumar, an employee of Government Hospital, Mansa, had jointly purchased a maruti car. On 27.05.2005 Raj Kumar came along with Nachhattar Singh alias Gora accused for taking car. Hardeep Singh refused to hand over the car. Accused were under the influence of liquor. On 28.05.2005 Nachhattar Singh alias Gora, Raj Kumar and Sukhwinder Singh alias Ghilli accused came to the house at about 05.00 PM for taking car from Hardeep Singh. Hardeep Singh told them that they would discuss the matter in the godown of Gas Agency of Charanjit Singh. The dead body of Hardeep Singh was sent for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem was conducted. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to injury found on the dead body of Hardeep Singh. The injury was ante mortem and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The investigation was completed. Challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.
3. The prosecution examined a number of witnesses. Statements of the appellant and co-accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the case of prosecution. The appellant was convicted and sentenced, as noticed hereinabove. However, his co-accused were acquitted. Hence, this appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has supported the prosecution case.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment and record very carefully.
7. PW-1 Dr. M.L. Gupta deposed that patient Hardeep Singh was admitted in Emergency Ward of DMC and Hospital on 29.05.2005 at 10.47 A.M. The patient was referred from Civil Hospital, Mansa. He was the head of Surgery Department of the DMC and Hospital and heading the team of doctors for treatment of Hardeep Singh patient. It was a case of assault on 2
