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

2004 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 19

JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, J
Karanjit Singh v. State of J & K
Criminal Appeal | 1998



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ajay Kotwal
For the Respondents: B. S. Salatia

The court affirmed the conviction based on credible eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence establishing a strong link between the accused and the murder, despite minor discrepancies.

Headnote:(A) Ranbir Penal Code - Section 302 - Arms Act - Section 4/27 - Conviction for murder and illegal possession of a weapon - Accused sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and one year for arms violation. (Paras 1, 24)

(B) Criminal Law - Eyewitnesses - Court must assess the credibility of witness testimonies against the backdrop of surrounding circumstances. Discrepancies in minor details do not undermine the core narrative of the incident. (Paras 12, 26)

(C) Evidence - Medical testimony corroborates eyewitness accounts and does not contradict their narratives, establishing a strong link between the accused and the crime. (Paras 19, 21)

Facts of the case:
The accused, during a family wedding, fatally assaulted the victim with a kirch, resulting in multiple stab wounds. The incident occurred in front of several witnesses, and the accused made threats prior to the attack. The prosecution presented compelling eyewitness accounts, which were supported by medical evidence.

Findings of Court:
The eyewitnesses were credible and consistent, thereby upholding the conviction. The prosecution effectively demonstrated the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through reliable testimonies and recovery of the weapon used.

Issues: The core issues involved the veracity of eyewitness accounts, the motive behind the murder, and the credibility of medical evidence in relation to the testimonies.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the presence of eyewitnesses at the crime scene during a wedding was credible; minor discrepancies in their accounts do not detract from their overall reliability. Motive, while relevant, may not be determinative if guilt is otherwise established clearly through compelling evidence.

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2)
2. defense argument regarding lack of motive (Para 3)
3. eyewitness testimony regarding the incident (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. evaluation of eyewitness credibility (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. medical evidence as supportive but not conclusive (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
6. importance of motive in context (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
7. final judgment and confirmation of trial court's findings (Para 26)

1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19-2-1998 propounded by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, whereby he has convicted and sentenced Karanjit Singh alias Dolly, son of Dalip Singh, resident of Simbal Camp, Tehsil R. S. Pura, Jammu, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life, under S.302, RPC and one year's imprisonment under S.4/27 Arms Act .

2. The sheet anchor of the prosecution case stemming out of the record having trait in narration is that on 6-7-1992, Police Post, Miran Saheb, received an information from a reliable source at 2.10 p.m. that during celebration of marriage of daughter of Sangat Singh in his house at Simbal Camp Tikri, Ward No. 1, Karanjit Singh alias Dolly, accused, actuated with criminal intention, committed a murderous assault on one Ajit Paul Singh son of Ujagar Singh with a kirch in his possession and caused four injuries, one after the other persistently, on the chest and the abdomen, as a result of which, the injured fell down in a pool of blood and had been removed to Hospital at Jammu. Hardeep Singh, Sub Inspector, Incharge, Police Post, Miran Saheb, entered the information in Daily Register and dispatched its copy of the Police Station, R.S. Pura, for registration of the case under S.307, RPC and 4/27 Arms Act . ASI Jaswant Singh and Constable Baldev Raj were sent for recording statement of the injured in the Hospital. Hardeep Singh, Sub Inspector, himself rushed to the spot. Soon after, the injured died in the Hospital and, consequently, the offence was converted from S.307, RPC to S.302, RPC. The dead body of the deceased was taken in custody by the Police and got its autopsy conducted from PW Dr. Anayat Ullah. A blood sample taken from the body of the deceased was handed over to Jaswant Singh, ASI, along with blood stained garments of the deceased, which were seized and sealed. The dead body was, thereafter, handed over to the father of the deceased to perform the last rite ceremonies. The accused came to be arrested by the Police and on his disclosure statement made during investigation on 9th July, 1992 while in Police custody, weapon of offence, 'kirch', was recovered was recovered at his instance from a Pully underneath a bridge at the Jammu R.S. Pura road, and seized and sealed it by the Police. After recording the statement of the witnesses and on conclusion of the investigation, the accused was finally sent up for trial for the alleged offence under S.302 RPC. The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence let in by the prosecution during the currency of the trial and after considering the rival contentions, found the accused guilty under S.302, RPC and 4/27 Arms Act and convicted and sentenced him accordingly.

3. Mr. Ajay Kotwal, learned counsel, debated that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive, which persuaded the appellant to cause the murder of the deceased, Ajit Paul Singh by inflicting injuries with a kirch, in the house of Sangat Singh. Neither any scuffle had taken, place nor there was any provocation prior to the alleged commission of the offence attributed to the accused and, thus, completely improbabilize the prosecution version. The evidence of the witnesses relied upon by the trial Court is neither trustworthy nor credible to warrant the conviction, particularly, when the accused was at Poonch at the time when alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place. Even the ocular testimony of the eye witnesses does not find support from the medical testimony and other incriminating circum




























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