IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
Swinder Singh @ Ninder Singh and others - Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
CRA-S-1063-SB-2014, CRA-S-333-SB- 2014
Decided on : 14-07-2023
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under Section 460 - [MURDER] - [Section 460 of Indian Penal Code] - The judgment discusses the shortcomings in the prosecution case, the importance of prompt lodging of FIR, and the need for corroboration of oral evidence. The court found that there was hardly any evidence indicating the complicity of the appellants and acquitted all the appellants due to lack of evidence and benefit of doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the murder of Sohan Singh during a robbery at his house. The complainant initially reported two unidentified persons intruding for robbery but later named six persons as accused. The prosecution presented witnesses and medical evidence to support the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was hardly any evidence indicating the complicity of the appellants. It observed discrepancies in the complainant's statements, lack of corroboration, and unexplained delay in naming the accused, leading to the acquittal of all the appellants.
Issues: The issues included the reliability of the complainant's statements, the sufficiency of evidence, and the importance of prompt lodging of FIR in a criminal case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of prompt lodging of FIR, the need for corroboration of oral evidence, and the requirement for naming the accused at the earliest possible opportunity. It held that unexplained delay in naming the accused rendered the prosecution case unreliable.
Final Decision: The court acquitted all the appellants due to lack of evidence and benefit of doubt.
JUDGMENT :
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
[1] The above-said two appeals have been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.10.2013 passed by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 460 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the appellants were ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each. These appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as they have arisen out of the same judgment.
[2] Criminal Appeal No.S-1063-SB-2014 was admitted by this Court on 11.03.2014 and Criminal Appeal No.S-333-SB-2014 was admitted by this Court on 07.05.2014 respectively. Recovery of fine was ordered to remain stayed during the pendency of the appeals. A perusal of the orders suspending the sentence of the appellants during pendency of the present appeal indicates that each of the appellants has undergone more than 04 years of incarceration.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
[3] The brief facts of the prosecution case are that during the intervening night of 17/18th January, 2010 the complainant, namely, Kulwant Kaur wife of Sohan Singh was sleeping in the courtyard of her house along with her husband and youngest son Arvinder and the electric bulb was on. At about 1.30/2.00 p.m., the complainant and her husband woke up on hearing some noise and they found two unidentified persons standing near their cots. The husband of the complainant-Sohan Singh confronted them and asked for what purpose they had come there. When these persons tried to run away, Sohan Singh, husband of the complainant tried to catch them when one of the intruders, armed with a pistol gave a blow with the edge of that pistol near the nose of Sohan Singh. Thereafter, one of the intruders fired a shot at Sohan Singh which hit him at his stomach and he died on the spot after receiving the bullet injury. The complainant Kulwant Kaur and his son Arvinder Singh, both had witnessed the entire occurrence. They raised alarm and both the intruders ran away towards the outer gate. On hearing the firing of a gun shot, brother-inlaw Surjit Singh and nephew Baldev Singh of the complainant along with one Swaran Singh came inside the house of the complainant. Both the intruders had entered the house of the complainant with an intention to commit robbery and in the process, they had killed her husband Sohan Singh.
[4] On the basis of complainant's statement Ex.PA, an FIR was registered. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination. On 15.02.2010, complainant-Kulwant Kaur suffered a supplementary statement to the effect that she could not narrate the real sequence of events as she was frightened. On 18.01.2010, in fact, she had noticed that two persons namely Surjit Singh alias Seeta armed with 12 bore pistol and Nishan Singh had entered her house. These two persons were their neighbours and they started scuffling with her husband Sohan Singh and in the meantime, Swinder Singh alias Ninder Singh armed with pistol, Harjit Singh armed with Gandasi, Karaj Singh alias Baba armed with pistol and Kabal Singh alias Dodhi armed with Kirpan came inside the house. Surjit Singh alias Seeta gave a blow with the edge of pistol on the nose of Sohan Singh and then he fired a shot with his pistol which hit Sohan Singh in his abdomen and then he fired another shot in the air. Sohan Singh, on receiving the gunshot injury, died at the spot and all the assailants fled away from the spot with their respective weapons.
[5] The statements of Jeon Singh and Surjit Singh son of Pritam Singh were also recorded on 15.02.2010 to the effect that on the date of occurrence they had seen the accused in the evening making some plans and around 1.30/2.00 a.m. they heard the noise of a shot being fired and also saw all the accused coming out of the house of Sohan Singh but due to fear they did not
Kirender Sarkar and others vs. State of Assam
Maharaj Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Mousam Singha Roy vs. State of West Bengal
AI
A conviction under Section 394 IPC requires evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which is compromised by significant procedural lapses and inconsistencies in witness statements.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the court's reliance on the lack of corroborating evidence, cont....
The delay in lodging the FIR, non-reliance on CCTV footage, and minor contradictions in witness statements were not considered sufficient to reject the prosecution's case. The involvement of the appe....
Delay in FIR and pre-FIR inquest not vitiating trial absent prejudice; reliable natural witness testimony, corroborated by medical/weapon evidence, suffices for murder conviction despite inconclusive....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.