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

2006 Supreme(UK) 348

2006 UAD 646
UTTARANCHAL HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice Rajeev Gupta & Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant
Balkar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1387 of 2001 (Old No. 2174 of 1985)
Decided on: 10.7.2006

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. S.K. Aggarwal and Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocates with Mr. Gopal K. Verma and Mr. V.S. Pal, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. H.C. Pande, Additional Government Advocate.

Headnote:A. Evidence Act, 1872-Sec. 32-Dying declaration-Statement in Difference between such statement and declarant's statement in Court Effect of-Such difference being only in respect of detail in both such statements-Not significant-Dying declaration of injured who survived his injuries containing narration of incident in substance - Statement of such person recorded in Court narrating prosecution story in detail Dying statement/declaration, held, to be relevant and reliable. (Para 14)

       B. Injuries-Gun fire injuries caused from short close distance Absence of blackening and tatooing-Significance of-Person injured putting on clothes at time of being shot at-Blackening and tatooing would not be found-Wrapping blankets at relevant time by injured person would further rule out blackening and tatooing. (Para 15)

       

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The judgment discusses the relevance and reliability of dying declarations (Ext. B-1) under Sec. 32 of the Evidence Act and their relation to in-court statements (!) . - It addresses the lack of blackening and tatooing on injuries at close range, considering clothing and blankets, and its impact on the prosecution’s theory of close-range firing (!) (!) . - It analyzes consistency between eyewitness statements (P.W. 2 Roop Singh, P.W. 1 Harbhajan Singh, P.W. 3 Jeet Singh), medical post-mortem reports, and site plan to sustain the murder/attempted murder convictions (Sections 302 and 307 IPC) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

What is the legality and scope of relying on dying declarations under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, 1872 in this murder/attempted murder case?

What is the significance of the absence of blackening and tatooing in gunshot injuries at close range, and how did the court treat this in relation to establishing the proximate cause and weapon discharge?

What standards did the court apply to evaluate eyewitness testimony (including Roop Singh and others) in light of the dying declaration and medical evidence, and to uphold the conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC?


JUDGMENT

Per Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.

This appeal, preferred under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein-after for brevity referred as Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.08.1985, passed in Sessions Trial No. 119 of 1983, whereby the then learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, convicted appellant Balkar Singh under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred as I.P.C.), for commission of murder of Ajeet Singh, resident of village Rampur-Balbhadra and Bhajan Singh, R/o village Basai, and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. He is further convicted under Section 307 of I.P.C., for attempting to commit murder of Roop' Singh, Rio Rampur-Balbhadra, and sentenced to imprisonment for ten years on that count.

2. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate/Puhlic Prosecutor and perused the entire record.

3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 01.01.1983, at about 5:00 P.M., Ajeet Singh (one of the deceased). along with P.W 2 Roop Singh (injured) and PW 1 Harhhajan Singh (informant), all Rio village Rampur-Balbl1adra, and Bhajan Singh (another deceased). R/o village Basai, were going in a tractor to take flour from wheat flour mill (CHAKKI) of one Ram Prasad in village Paigakhas, situated within the limits of P.S. Kashipur (earlier part of District Nainital). At about 5:15 PM., when they reached and got down in village Paigakhas, accused/appellant Balkar Singh met them and asked Ajeet Singh to have some wine with him, as it was a chilly day. On trs Ajeet Singh curtly replied that he would not have wine, bought with the money of the accused/appellant. There was old enmity between Balkar Singh (accused/appellant) and Ajeet Singh. as earlier on a report lodged against accused/appellant Balkar Singh by the family members of Ajeet Singh. he had been convicted but later on, acquitted by the appellate court. When Balkar Singh reiterated his request to have drinks with him and not to develop further the enmity between them. Ajeet Singh again firmly told that he would hot have liquor with Balkar Singh and he may do whatever he likes. This made Balkar Singh feel insulted and he threatened Ajeet Singh (one of the deceased) that he will have to face the consequence of this refusal. He (Balkar Singh) went to his house to bring his gun and in the meantime Ajeet Singh after taking nour from the wheat flour mill, proceeded for his further journey. When Ajeet Singh and others, in their tractor, reached near temple of goddess in village paigakhas. accused Balkar Singh armed with a gun, fired a shot at Ajeet Singh. It was still around 5:30 P.M. Aject Singh (deceased) on seeing Balkar Singh. firing at him, drove tractor a bit faster. Balkar Singh, kept on firing shots. one after another and injured Ajeet Singh, Bhajan Singh and Roop Singh. Bhajan Singh (another deceased) along with Roop Singh (PW 2) and Harhhajan Singh (P WI). in an attempt to save their lives, jumped from the tractor and took shelter behind rubbish heap (GHURAS) by the side of pathway in the village. Ajeet Singh died on the spot in the tractor (he was the person driving the tractor). Meanwhile, villagers started assembling towards the scene of occurrence and accused/appellant Balkar Singh, by then left the place. Injured Roop Singh and Bhajan Singh, were taken to civil hospital in the same evening but Bhajan Singh succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. PW 1 Harhhajan Singh lodged oral First Information Report with police station Kashipur, at 7:20 P.M. on the very day i.e. 01.01.1983, which was registered as crime No.2 of 1983 under Section 302/307 IPC. against accused Balkar Singh. On the basis of the oral report, check report (Ext. A-I) was prepared and necessary entry in the general diary was made, extract of which is Ext. An. PW 8 Devendra Kumar Thapliyal, Inspector Incharge of the police station- Kashipur, took up the investigation of the case. Meanwhile. t






















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