2007 Supreme(SC) 1609

2007(8) Supreme 375
Supreme Court of india
S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ
Ujjagar Singh — Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab— Respondents
Appeal (crl.) 1044 of 2006
Decided on 13/12/2007

Important Point
It is true that in a case relating to circumstantial evidence motive does assume great importance but to say that absence of motive would dislodge entire prosecution story is perhaps giving this one factor an importance which is not due.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 376 – Prosecution of Appellant for causing death of his neice by a gun shot injury and for committing rape on her – Conviction by Trial Court and High Court – Appeal there against – Medical evidence and chemical examiner’s reports showed that regional swab and clothes taken form dead body did indicate presence of semen – However absolutely no evidence to suggest that intercourse was committed by appellant or that he had done so without consent of deceased or against her will – Even though some tell tale injuries had been detected on deceased’s person – However two injuries other than gun shot wounds ie injury No. 3 being on left pima and No. 4 an abrasion near right eye not indicated any attempt to rape or commission of rape – No attempt made by investigators to have appellant medically examined to ascertain his capacity to perform sexual intercourse – Even though examination could not have been carried out immediately but no justification in omission of prosecution to have appellant examined after he had recovered his health and had been discharged form hospital – Even assuming for a moment that sexual intercourse between appellant and deceased had indeed taken place, it could not be said from evidence, that it was without consent or against wishes of deceased – Conviction of appellant u\s 376 of IPC could not be sustained.(Para 8)

       Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 376 – Prosecution of Appellant for causing death of his neice by a gun shot injury and for committing rape on her – Conviction by Trial Court and High Court – Appeal there against – Case based on circumstantial evidence - Place of incident being adjoining rooms in residential house of appellant and fact that alleged murder weapon was his licensed DBBL gun was proved on record - Evidence on record revealed that appellant was living in premises along with his wife, mother and son, and two daughters, who were studying outside village, were frequent visitors – However, it was admitted position that nobody but appellant and deceased were present at time of incident - Evidence on record showed that two spent cartridge cases recovered, one from near deceased’s dead body, and second from right barrel of gun lying near appellant had been sent to Forensic Science Laboratory which opined that one of cartridges had been fired from gun and other could have been fired therefrom - There appeared to be no motive for incident - It is true that in a case relating to circumstantial evidence motive does assume great importance but to say that absence of motive would dislodge entire prosecution story is perhaps giving this one factor an importance which is not due - Testimony of PW14 Inspector revealed that accused was having illicit relations with deceased and one could assume that some thing untoward had happened which could have triggered volatile and hostile incident - Story of unknown assailants entering house and causing deceased’s murder etcetera ruled out and prosecution story that it was appellant who had first shot deceased and then attempted to commit suicide, stood proved – Since case of rape had not been made out, death sentence held to be not called for – Appellant acquitted of charge under section 376 of the IPC but his conviction for other offences was maintained - Death sentence however commuted to imprisonment for life – Appeal dismissed.(Para 8)

       Facts of the case:-

       1.Appellant herein in the instant case was convicted for causing death of his neice by a gun shot injury and for committing rape on her.

       2.Present Appeal has been filed against said order of Conviction and award of death sentence.

       Findings of the Court:-

       The Court held that case was based on circumstantial evidence. Place of incident being adjoining rooms in residential house of appellant and fact that alleged murder weapon was his licensed DBBL gun was proved on record Evidence on record revealed that appellant was living in premises along with his wife, mother and son, and two daughters, who were studying outside village, were frequent visitors. However, it was admitted position that nobody but appellant and deceased were present at time of incident. Evidence on record showed that two spent cartridge cases recovered, one from near deceased’s dead body, and second from right barrel of gun lying near appellant had been sent to Forensic Science Laboratory which opined that one of cartridges had been fired from gun and other could have been fired therefrom. There appeared to be no motive for incident. It is true that in a case relating to circumstantial evidence motive does assume great importance but to say that absence of motive would dislodge entire prosecution story is perhaps giving this one factor an importance which is not due. Testimony of PW14 Inspector revealed that accused was having illicit relations with deceased and one could assume that some thing untoward had happened which could have triggered volatile and hostile incident. Story of unknown assailants entering house and causing deceased’s murder etcetera ruled out and prosecution story that it was appellant who had first shot deceased and then attempted to commit suicide, stood proved. Since case of rape had not been made out, death sentence was held to be not called for. Appellant was acquitted of charge under section 376 of the IPC but his conviction for other offences was maintained. Death sentence was however commuted to imprisonment for life. Appeal was dismissed.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.