IMPORTANT POINT
In view of the facts of circumstances viz., presence of PW 4 and PW 5 at the scene of occurrence is found improbable and there are discrepancy between medical evidence and ocular testimony, order of acquittal recorded by High Court cannot be interfered with on ground of presence of strong motive.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302/34-Conviction of Sucha Singh and two others for murder based on evidence of PW 4 and 5-High Court acquitted them on grounds of non-presence of PW 4 and PW 5 at the place of occurrence and marked discrepancy between medical evidence and ocular testimony-Appeal to Supreme Court -Whether High Court was right? (Yes)-Appeal dismissed despite strong motive.
       Held : In our view, these circumstances would make the alleged presence of PW4 and PW5 at the place of occurrence inherently improbable. (Para 7)
       Held further : PW-4 in his testimony before the Court stated that the accused also caused more injuries with their respective weapons on Sarabjit Singh. This witness was confronted with his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. where he has not stated. Apart from discrepancy between ocular and medial evidence with regard to the injuries sustained by the deceased Sarabjit Singh on his body, the fact that the deceased suffered as many as 24 bodily injuries makes all the more doubtful the presence of PWs 4 and 5 at the place of occurrence. Inflicting 24 injuries on the body of deceased by the three accused persons would require a considerable amount of time. This itself suggests that the accused had sufficient time at their disposal to commit the crime. Any father, worth the name, would not remain a mute spectator when his son is being inflicted as many as 24 injuries at his very nose. (Para 10)
       Held finally : In the instant case, in view of the facts and circumstances as discussed above, the motive, however, strong merely creates a suspicion. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof of guilt. For the reasons aforestated, we do not find any infirmity in the order of acquittal, recorded by the High Court, which warranted our interference. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The accused are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. (Paras 11 and 12)

JUDGMENT

Sema, J.-By an order dated 15-6-1990, the Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar convicted the accused Sucha Singh, Major Singh and Kashmir Singh alias Bitoo for an offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine further RI for 2 years each. Being aggrieved, the accused preferred an appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 220 DB of 1990. By the impugned judgment and order dated 11.5.1992, the High Court has reversed the conviction and sentence passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge and recorded the acquittal of the accused. This appeal has been preferred by the State.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that PW-4 Gurdial Singh lodged a complaint at S.G.T.B. Hospital, Amritsar on 8.10.1987 at 11.40 a.m. to the effect that he was a resident of village Lawan and was an agriculturist. He had two sons. The elder one was Sarabjit Singh (deceased) and the younger one was Gurwinderpal Singh. He further stated that his wife Amarjit Kaur was having pain in the abdomen and was suffering from dysentery. At about 7.00 a.m. complainant Gurdial Singh was in his fields which is adjacent to the matalled road. PW-5 Shangara Singh was present in his fields, which is adjoining to the fields of Gurdial Singh. While PWs 4 and 5 were talking about the current situation prevailing in the State, his son Sarabjit Singh came there on his scooter No. PAA-660 and on being inquired from PW-4 as to where he was heading to, his son told that he was going to bring medicine for his mother from Chogawan. When he had hardly covered a distance of about 20/21 karams the accused Sucha Singh armed with kirpan, Major Singh armed with gandasi and Kashmir Singh alias Bitoo armed with datar emerged from the fields of basmati crops and encircled his son Sarabjit Singh. He further stated that accused Sucha Singh raised lalkara that the deceased be taught a lesson for the murder of Kuldip Singh, nephew of Sucha Singh, committed by him and others earlier. Sucha Singh gave two kirpan blows successively which hit on the head and forehead of Sarabjit Singh, resulting in the fall of Sarabjit Singh on the ground. Thereafter, the accused Bitoo gave two datar blows, which hit Sarabjit Singh on the head towards the side of right ear and right wrist. Accused Major Singh gave two gandasi blows successively which hit Sarabjit Singh on the right eye and forehead. Accused Sucha Singh gave further kirpan blow, which hit Sarabjit Singh on his wrist of left arm. Bitoo gave datar blow on the right ankle. On alarm being raised by Sarabjit Singh Mar Ditta, Mar Ditta , his father Gurdial Singh PW-4 and Shangara Singh PW-5 went running towards the place of occurrence and on seeing them all the accused fled away with their respective weapons. Sarabjit Singh was immediately taken to S.G.T.B. hospital, Amritsar and was admitted for treatment at 9.20 a.m. He expired at 10.00 a.m. and the FIR was lodged at 11.00 a.m., as noticed. The motive of the crime, as stated in the FIR, was that about two years prior to the occurrence, Kuldip Singh nephew of Sucha Singh had been murdered by the complainant party in which all the complainant party were acquitted by the High Court. Accused Sucha Singh was the prosecution witness in that case and deposed against the complainant party, and therefore, he and co-accused nursed a grudge against the complainant party. The High Court, on re-appraisal of the evidence recorded the acquittal of the accused mainly on two grounds (1) that the presence of PWs 4 and 5 at the place of occurrence is doubtful and (2) that the ocular testimony is belied by the medical evidence, with regard to the injuries sustained by the deceased.

Presence of PW-4 and PW-5 at the place of occurrence

3. It is submitted by Mr. Sudhir Walia, learned counsel for the appellant, that the presence of PWs 4 and 5 at the place of occurrence has been wrongly disbelieved by the High Court. According to him, the pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document