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

2022 Supreme(UK) 290

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
S.K. Mishra, R.C. Khulbe, JJ.
Kulwant Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 391 of 2018
Decided On : 02-09-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, the learned counsel
For the Respondent:Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Dy. Advocate General along with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi
For the Complainant :Mr. M.S. Pal, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B.M. Pingal

The duty to assess medical evidence, the reliability of eyewitnesses, and the inconclusiveness of ballistic reports in cases supported by unimpeachable eyewitness testimony.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code - Murder - Sections 302, 324, 504 - Arms Act - Section 30 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Sections 302, 324, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30 of the Arms Act. The court emphasized the duty to assess medical evidence, the reliability of eyewitnesses, and the inconclusiveness of ballistic reports in cases supported by unimpeachable eyewitness testimony.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted of murder and other offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. The prosecution's case was based on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, alleging that the appellant shot and killed the deceased and injured others. The defense claimed false accusation due to strained relationship and lack of motive.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the prosecution's case proved beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the unimpeachable evidence of eyewitnesses and medical evidence. The court rejected the defense's arguments regarding the reliability of witnesses and inconclusive ballistic reports, upholding the appellant's conviction and dismissing the appeal.

Issues: The issues involved the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the inconclusiveness of ballistic reports, and the impact of strained relationships on the case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty to assess medical evidence, the reliability of eyewitnesses, and the inconclusiveness of ballistic reports in cases supported by unimpeachable eyewitness testimony.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction was upheld.

JUDGMENT :

S.K.Mishra, J.

Having been convicted of the offence under Sections 302, 324 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Penal Code for brevity), the appellant Kulwant Singh has assailed the judgment passed by the learned 1st Additional Session Judge, Nainital in Sessions Trial No. 109 of 2013, dated 10.10.2018. He was charged for the offence under Sections 302, 324, 504 of the Penal Code read with Section 30 of the Arms Act. He was convicted for the offences as mentioned above. He is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 302 of the Penal Code, in default, he has to undergo further 1 year imprisonment; he is also sentenced to undergo 1 year imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- under Section 324 of the Penal Code, in default, he has to undergo one month of simple imprisonment and is sentence to undergo 1 year imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 504 of the Penal Code, in default, he has to undergo one month simple imprisonment. All the substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution is that, the appellant Kulwant Singh happens to be a first cousin of the deceased Harjeet Singh and was residing near his house. There was some dispute between them because of the activities of the appellant of blowing horn of his car unnecessarily near the room of the deceased Harjeet Singh. In the night of the incident, at about 10:30 pm., the appellant came to his house by passing the house, especially the room of the deceased, and started blowing horn of his car without any reason as a result of which the deceased, who was watching TV in his room, came out and protested the same, on his protest the appellant told the deceased he thinks big of himself and that he will teach him a lesson and suddenly took out his licensed fire arm (pistol) and fired several rounds at the deceased as a result of the injuries the deceased fell down. The informant Nimrat Pal Singh and informant Kamaljeet Singh wanted to rescue the deceased and they also sustained gun shot injuries. As a result of such attack, by means of fire arm deceased Harjeet Singh sustained grievous injuries and while he was being taken to the hospital, he breathed his last on the way, and therefore, his body was returned to their house. It is also the case of the prosecution that after firing several rounds, the appellant hide behind the compound wall separating their houses and either picked up something or left something on the ground. Since, there was hue and cry and lot of persons gathered in the house of the deceased and due to death, the FIR was not lodged on the same day but on the next day.

On lodging of the FIR, criminal case no. 275 of 2013 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302,307 and 504 of the Penal Code. Investigation was taken over by the police officer incharge of the investigation. In course of investigation, the police officer held inquest on the dead body of the deceased, inspected the spot, collected blood stained earth, sample earth from the spot, dispatched the dead body for post mortem examination, recorded statements of the complainant and other witnesses, arrested the accused and seized the licensed revolver from his possession along with some empty cartridges. Investigating agency has also dispatched the material objects for chemical and forensic examination to the State Forensic and Science Laboratory, Dehradun. Upon completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted for the offences stated above.

3. The defence in this case took plea of false accusation and that he has been implicated because of strained relationship between him and the deceased.

4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 15 witnesses in total. PW2 Nimrat Pal Singh is the informant in this case. He is also an eye witness being an injured, PW3 Kamaljeet Singh is the other injured eye witn

      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