Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(P&H) 972

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURESHWAR THAKUR, DEEPAK MANCHANDA, JJ.
Ramesh Saha @ Rooman Saha – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-D-928-DB of 2018 (O&M)
Decided On : 07-08-2024

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. B.K.Mehta, Advocate; For the Appellant
For the Respondent: Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

Conviction based on eyewitness testimony was quashed due to significant investigative failures, including lack of weapon recovery and forensic analysis, undermining the prosecution's case.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 397, 326, 452, 342 - Conviction and sentencing of the appellant for murder and robbery - The trial court's conviction was based on eyewitness testimony; however, significant investigative lapses, including failure to recover weapons and conduct timely forensic analysis, undermined the prosecution's case. (Paras 15, 19, 27)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 428 - The appellant's period of detention was set off against the imposed sentences, ensuring compliance with legal provisions. (Para 2)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Ajit Singh and related offences, with the trial court relying on eyewitness accounts despite substantial investigative shortcomings. (Paras 1-4)

Findings of Court:
The court found merit in the appeal, quashing the conviction due to inadequate evidence and procedural failures in the investigation. (Paras 15, 27)

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of eyewitness testimony and the adequacy of the investigation. (Paras 15, 19)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lack of corroborative evidence from the investigation, including failure to recover weapons and conduct forensic analysis, invalidated the conviction. (Paras 19, 27)

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction quashed and appellant acquitted. (Para 27)

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The instant appeal is directed against the impugned verdict, as made on 19.9.2017, upon Sessions Case No. 21 of 6.6.2015, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, wherethrough in respect of charges drawn against the convict-appellant qua offences punishable under Sections 302, 397, 326, 452, 342 of the IPC, the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to record a finding of conviction against the convict-appellant.

2. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order of even date, the learned trial Judge concerned, sentenced the convict-appellant in the hereinafter extracted manner:-

Name of the convict	Convicted under Section	Sentence imposed	In default of payment of fine
Ramesh Saha	U/s 302 IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-	Further rigorous imprisonment for one year.
	U/s 397 IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
	U/s 452 IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-	Further rigorous imprisonment for six months.
	U/s 342 IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-	Further rigorous imprisonment for one month.
	U/s 326 IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-	Further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

3. The trial Court concerned, further ordered the convict-appellant to pay compensation amounting to Rs. Four lacs to the legal heirs of deceased Ajit Singh.

4. All the above imposed sentences of imprisonment, were ordered to run concurrently but the period of detention undergone by the convict-appellant, 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.

Factual Background

5. The genesis of the prosecution case, becomes embodied in the appeal FIR, to which Ex. PC/2 is assigned. The narrations carried in Ex. PC/2 are, that Gurbinder Kaur made a statement to the investigating officer concerned, that she is the daughter of Ajit Singh, and is the resident of village Sultan Khan Wala. Her father Ajit Singh and her mother Mohinder Kaur were posted as Headmaster and Headmistress respectively. Varinder Singh and Bhupinder Singh are her brothers. On 16-7-95 they were studying at Chandigarh. The complainant was the student of M.A. Part-II. After she had taken the examination, she had come to the house of her father constructed in the fields in the area of Sultan Khan Wala. Her father Ajit Singh had employed the accused for agricultural purposes. Raju Mandal and Ramesh Shah were employed about 1½ month prior to 16-7-1995. The remaining accused were employed about 15 days before 16-7-1995. Accused were living in the room constructed in the fields where electric motor was installed. House of Ajit Singh was also near that room. On 16-7-1995 Gurbinder Kaur, her mother Mohinder Kaur and her father Ajit Singh were sitting in their bed room and were watching television. At about 9.30 P.?. Ramesh Shah gave a call to Ajit Singh and took him at the place where electric motor was installed. Gurbinder Kaur and her mother came out and saw that accused Raju Mandal, Ramesh Shah and the other two employees of Ajit Singh had caught hold of Ajit Singh and were beating him. Electric light was on at that place. Ajit Singh was raising hue and cry. Ramesh Shah had Dah in his hand. He gave two Dah blows to Ajit Singh, which landed on the right side of his neck and on the nose. Accused Raju Mandal gave dagger blow to Ajit Singh on the left side of his fore-head. Another dagger blow was given by Raju Mandal on the backside of the left shoulder of Ajit Singh. Thereafter, all the four accused threw Ajit Singh in the deep pit of the tubewell. Gurbinder Kaur and her mother were raising hue and cry. Out of fear from the accused they started running towards their house. Raju Mandal a