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

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1078

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sureshwar Thakur, Kuldeep Tiwari, JJ.
Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky - Appellant - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent - Respondent
CRA-D-996-DB of 2018 (O&M)
Decided On : 02-05-2023

Advocates appeared:
Dr. Anmol Rattan Singh Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raghav Gulati, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Monika Jalota, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive and creditworthy evidence to support the charges against the accused, especially in cases involving eyewitness testimonies and recovery of incriminating items.

Headnote:

Conviction - Offences Punishable under Sections 302, 307 of the IPC, and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 - [MISAPPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE] - [SUMMARY OF ACTS AND SECTIONS] - The court discussed the misappreciation and non-appreciation of evidence related to the charges drawn against the accused. The prosecution relied on ocular witnesses who turned hostile, leaving the case unsupported. The injured eye witness's identification of the accused was deemed uncreditworthy due to the absence of a valid test identification parade. The recovery of the firearm was inconclusive, and the ballistic expert's report did not conclusively link the recovered firearm to the crime event. As a result, the court quashed the verdict of conviction and acquitted the accused.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved charges against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 of the IPC, and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The prosecution's case was based on ocular witnesses and an injured eye witness, but their testimonies were found to be uncreditworthy. The recovery of the firearm was inconclusive, leading to a misappreciation of evidence.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution's case was unsupported due to the ocular witnesses turning hostile and the injured eye witness's uncreditworthy identification of the accused. The recovery of the firearm did not conclusively link it to the crime event, leading to a misappreciation of evidence.

Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the witnesses' testimonies and the conclusiveness of the firearm recovery in establishing the accused's guilt.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the misappreciation and non-appreciation of evidence related to the charges against the accused, leading to the quashing of the verdict of conviction and the acquittal of the accused.

Final Decision: The court quashed the verdict of conviction and acquitted the accused, ordering the refund of any fine amount deposited and the cancellation of the personal and surety bonds of the accused.

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. The instant appeal is directed against the impugned verdict, as made on 20.10.2018, upon Sessions Case No. 182 of 27.7.2011, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby in respect of charges drawn against the accused qua offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 of the IPC, and, under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to record a finding of conviction against accused-appellant Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky. However, the other coaccused, namely, Gurpreet Singh, was ordered to be acquitted of the charges framed against him qua the offences (supra). Moreover, through a separate sentencing order of even date, the learned trial Judge concerned, sentenced the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, besides also imposed, upon the convict sentence of fine, as comprised in a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, and, in default of payment of fine amount, he sentenced the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Moreover, the learned convicting Court also sentenced the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years, for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, and, also imposed, upon him the sentence of fine, as comprised in a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, besides in default of payment of fine amount, it sentenced the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Further, the learned trial Judge concerned, also sentenced the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years, for an offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, and, also imposed, upon him the sentence of fine, as comprised in a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, besides in default of payment of fine amount, he sentenced the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

2. All the above imposed sentences of imprisonment, were ordered to run concurrently but the period of detention undergone by the convict, during the investigations, and, trial of the case, was, in terms of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C., rather ordered to be set off from the above imposed sentence(s) of imprisonment. Further, as per the provisions of Section 357 of the Cr.P.C., the injured and the LRs of the deceased were granted compensation of Rs. 10,000/- each, and, the same amount was ordered to be paid out of the fine imposed upon the convict.

3. The accused-convict becomes aggrieved from the above drawn verdict of conviction, besides also, becomes aggrieved from the consequent therewith sentence(s) of imprisonment, and, of fine as became imposed, upon him, by the learned convicting Court concerned, and, hence has chosen to institute thereagainst the instant criminal appeal, before this Court.

Factual Background

4. The genesis of the prosecution case becomes embodied in the appeal FIR, to which Ex. PW-15/C is assigned. The narrations carried in Ex. PW-15/C are, that 03.03.2011. SI/SHO was present at Police Station, where he received call from Escort Hospital, that Kanwardeep Singh son of Ranjit Singh and Jiwanjot Singh were under treatment due to fire shots. Then SI/SHO, along with other police officials reached at the Escort Hospital, where brother and uncle of Kanwardeep Singh were present. Complainant Gurpinder Singh, who got recorded his statement to the effect that he is an agriculturist by profession and they were two brothers. He had his younger brother aged about 20 years and he was studying in B. Com Ist Year, Guru Arjan Dev Khalsa College, Amritsar. On 03.03.2011, Bhog of Akhand Path, was to be performed in his college, and, at about 10:30 AM, his brother Kanwardeep Singh and his friends Amritpal Singh and Manpreet Singh proceeded from their home. At about 03:30 PM Manpreet Singh called him on his mobile that his brother was going to face fight at adda (Bus Stand) Bundala. He along with his paternal uncle Sukhwinder Singh reached at bridge canal, slightly ahead of Bund

          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