Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
16th October, 1961.
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A.K. SARKAR, K.N. WANCHOO AND K.C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.
Harbans Singh and another, Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 1959.
Advocates appeared
Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate, (M/s. I. M. Lall, C. L. Sareen and Mohan Lal Agarwal, Advocates, with him), for Appellants; Mr. N. S. Bindra, Senior Advocate, (Mr. P. D. Menon, Advocate, with him), for Respondent.
CRIMINAL APPEAL - PRINCIPLES GOVERNING INTERFERENCE WITH ACQUITTAL - RE-APPRAISAL OF EVIDENCE BY APPELLATE COURT - DYING DECLARATION - CORROBORATION - NEED FOR - CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED IN ASSESSING VALUE OF DYING DECLARATION - MURDER - EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY.
Fact of the Case:
Two brothers, Munshi Singh and Hazura Singh, were killed in a homicidal attack by six persons, including the appellants. The prosecution relied on the evidence of the deceased's father and uncle, as well as the dying declaration of Hazura Singh, to prove its case. The Trial Judge acquitted all the accused, finding that the prosecution case had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court, on appeal by the State, set aside the acquittals of two of the accused, Harbans Singh and Major Singh, and convicted them under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in interfering with the Trial Judge's order of acquittal, as the Trial Judge had erred in his reasoning and had misdirected himself on several points. The Court found that the delay in recording the First Information Report was not as significant as the Trial Judge had thought, and that the dying declaration of Hazura Singh was admissible and had probative value, even though it implicated multiple accused. The Court also held that the Trial Judge had erred in thinking that a dying declaration required corroboration by other evidence before a conviction could be based thereon.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the Trial Judge's order of acquittal. 2. Whether the dying declaration of Hazura Singh was admissible and had probative value. 3. Whether a dying declaration requires corroboration by other evidence before a conviction can be based thereon.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court was justified in interfering with the Trial Judge's order of acquittal because the Trial Judge had erred in his reasoning and had misdirected himself on several points. 2. The dying declaration of Hazura Singh was admissible and had probative value, even though it implicated multiple accused. 3. A dying declaration does not require corroboration by other evidence before a conviction can be based thereon.
Final Decision: The appeal of Harbans Singh was dismissed, and the order of conviction and sentence made against him by the High Court was upheld. The appeal of Major Singh was allowed, the order of conviction and sentence made against him by the High Court was set aside, and the order of acquittal made by the Trial Court was restored.
Judgment
DAS GUPTA, J. : Six persons including the present appellants were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozpur on several charges in connection with the death by homicidal injuries of two brothers Munshi Singh and Hazura Singh. Of these six, Bhag Singh was the father of the other five accused persons. All the six accused persons were acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge; on appeal by the State, the High Court of Punjab set aside the orders of acquittal in respect of Harbans Singh and Major Singh and convicted them under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was dismissed in respect of the other four, viz., Bhag Singh, Gursi, Bant Singh and Gian Singh. It is against this order of conviction that Harbans Singh and Major Singh have filed the present appeal after obtaining special leave from this Court.
2. The prosecution case is that at about 8 or 9 p. m. on July 23, 1956, shortly after Munshi Singh had returned home and complained to his father Hira Singh about the conduct of Harbans Singh and Bant Singh in abusing him, Munshi Singh ran out of his house on hearing some cries; but when he reached the Dharamshala not far from his house these two appellants, along with their father Bhag Singh and their brothers Bant Singh, Gian Singh and Gursi fell upon him and caused numerous injuries with the weapons which they carried. Harbans Singh, it is said, struck Munshi Singh on the abdomen with a Sela in his hand. Munshi Singh s brother Hazura Singh and his father Hira Singh also had followed Munshi Singh when be ran out of the house. On seeing this attack on Munshi Singh, Hazura Singh tried to intervene, but he too was attacked and received several injuries. Harbans Singh, it is said, gave him a Sela thrust in the abdomen. Munshi Singh died on the spot; Hazura Singh was brought to the hospital at Gidderbha the following morning and received some treatment but he also died of his injuries the following day, that is, the 24th July.
3. All the accused pleaded not guilty, the defence being that they had been falsely implicated out of enmity.
4. To prove its case the prosecution relied on the evidence of two persons, the deceased s father Hira Singh and their uncle Bhag Singh and the dying declaration alleged to have been made by Hazura Singh, once in the village before Devendra Singh, the Sub-Inspector of Police who had come to the village that night in connection with some other investigation and for the second time at Gidderbha hospital before a Magistrate.
5. On a consideration of the evidence the Trial Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution case had not been proved against any of the accused person. Being of opinion that the First Information Report had been recorded as late as 4-30 p.m. on the 24th July he thought that "the complainant party was not able to say who the assailants were and the police was making time to find out the culprits after investigation and the First Information Report was delayed on that account." He was doubtful also about the truth of the Sub-Inspector s story that he actually reached the village of occurrence on that very night and consequently doubtful about any statement having been made by Hazura Singh to him on that night. In any case, he thought Hazura Singh s dying declaration had little probative value because as many as six persons had been named and that it could not be relied upon without corroboration. The learned Judge was also not satisfied that Bhag Singh (Prosecution Witness) "was present in the village or at his house at the time of the occurrence" since "his statement was not recorded in the Inquest Report prepared by the police at midnight". The learned Judge also thought it unsatisfactory that nobody other than these two near relatives, that is, the father and uncle of the deceased persons had been examined as witnesses of the occurrence. These were the main reasons for which he came to the conclusion that the case had not been proved against any of the ac
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
