Sandeep Singh @ Akash vs State of Punjab

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1803

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sureshwar Thakur, Kuldeep Tiwari, JJ.
Sandeep Singh @ Akash – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-D. No. 40 of 2021
Decided On : 23-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. Aakash Singla, Mr. Mandeep Singh Gill, Mr. Arshdeep Singh Brar, Ms. Monika Jalota Sr. DAG, Punjab

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 302, 404, 449 - Appeal against conviction for murder and theft - Convicts were convicted based on eyewitness testimony, however, evidentiary issues regarding identification and lack of physical evidence led to reasonable doubt - Verdict of acquittal established due to insufficient evidence against convicts. (Paras 42-43)

(B) Burden of proof - The prosecution carries the burden to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so necessitates acquittal. The court ruled that mistakes in evidence collection and witness reliability justify doubt in the prosecution case. (Paras 36-41)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were charged with murder and theft following a shooting that resulted in the deaths of two individuals. Eyewitness accounts were conflicting and lacked substantive physical evidence connecting the appellants to the crime. (Paras 5-41)

Findings of Court:
Critical flaws were identified in the prosecution's case, particularly issues with witness credibility and forensic evidence, leading to a ruling of acquittal based on reasonable doubt. (Paras 30-34)

Issues: The main issues were the adequacy of eyewitness identification, the reliability of recovery evidence, and the overall credibility of the prosecution's case. (Paras 20-34)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of definitive evidence in upholding convictions and ruled that uncertainties in witness testimony and lack of corroborative forensic evidence warrant the benefit of doubt to the accused. (Paras 41-42)

Result: Appeals allowed; the appellants were acquitted of all charges.

Table of Content
1. introduction of the appeals. (Para 2)
2. factual background of the prosecution incident. (Para 6 , 7)
3. committal and trial proceedings. (Para 8 , 9)
4. analysis of evidence and conviction. (Para 10 , 11)
5. arguments of the appellants and state. (Para 12 , 13)
6. witness testimonies and their credibility. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
7. disclosure statements of raju tiwari. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
8. issues with evidence collection and investigation. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
9. post-mortem evidence and its implications. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
10. final ruling and judgment. (Para 42)
11. conclusion and payment guideline. (Para 43)

Judgment

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Since both the above appeals arise from a common verdict, made by the learned trial Judge concerned, hence both the appeals (supra) are amenable for a common verdict being made thereons.

2. Both the appeals (supra) are directed against the impugned verdict, as made on 29.10.2020, upon case bearing CIS No. SC/735/2017, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ludhiana, where through in respect of charges drawn against the accused qua offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 404 and 449 of the IPC, thus the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to record a finding of conviction against appellants- convicts. However, the other co-accused namely Aman Masih, Sonu Ali, Krishna Pandey @ Pankaj @ Golu and Sumit Parshad were acquitted from the charges drawn against them. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order of even date, the learned trial Judge concerned, sentenced both the appellants-convicts in the hereinafter extracted manner.

Name of the convicts	Under Section	Sentenced to undergo	Fine	In default of payment of fine to undergo further
Raju Tiwari	449 IPC	Imprisonment for life	25,000/-	Rigorous imprisonment for four months.
	302/34 IPC	Imprisonment for life	25,000/-	Rigorous imprisonment for four months.
Sandeep Singh @ Akash	449 IPC	Imprisonment for life	25,000/-	Rigorous imprisonment for four months.
	302/34 IPC	Imprisonment for life	25,000/	Rigorous imprisonment for four months.
	404 IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for three years	5000/	Rigorous imprisonment for four months.

3. All the above imposed sentences of imprisonment, were ordered to run concurrently but the period of detention undergone by the appellants-convicts, 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.

4. Both the accused-convicts become aggrieved from the above drawn verdict of conviction, besides also, become aggrieved from the consequent thereto sentence(s) of imprisonment, and, of fine as became imposed, upon them, by the learned convicting Court concerned, and, hence have chosen to institute thereagainst the instant criminal appeals, before this Court.

5. Since the learned State counsel is unable to intimate this Court, that the State has constituted an appeal, before this Court, against the verdict of acquittal, as made by the learned trial Judge concerned, qua the acquitted persons (supra). Thus, the verdict of acquittal, as made in respect of the acquitted accused, does acquire a conclusive, and, binding effect.

Factual Background

6. The genesis of the prosecution case becomes embodied in the appeal FIR, to which Ex. P-11/A is assigned. The narrations carried in Ex. P- 11/A are, that SHO of the said police station received a wireless message about an incident of firing in the vicinity of Dugri, and, thereafter he proceeded to the place of occurrence where complainant Rahul Gupta had got recorded his statement to the effect that at about 2.00 PM, outside the main gate of his house, he had heard the noise regarding firing shots from the firearm. W