In Rana Partap and Ors. vs. State of Haryana
(1983) 3 SCC 327, while dealing with the behaviour of the
witnesses, this Court opined thus:
“6....Every person who witnesses a murder
reacts in his own way. Some are stunned,
become speechless and stand rooted to the
spot.
Some become hysteric and start
wailing.
Some start shouting for help.
Others run away to keep themselves as far
removed from the spot as possible.
Yet
others rush to the rescue of the victim, even
going to the extent of counter-attacking the
assailants.
Every one reacts in his own
special way. There is no set rule of natural
reaction.
To discard the evidence of a
witness on the ground that he did not react
in any particular manner is to appreciate
evidence in a wholly unrealistic and
unimaginative way.”
In State of H.P. v. Mast Ram (2004) 8 SCC 660 it
has been stated that there is no set rule that one must react
in a particular way, for the natural reaction of man is
unpredictable. Everyone reacts in his own way and, hence,
natural human behaviour is difficult
to prove by credible
evidence. It has to be appreciated in the context of given
facts and circumstances of the case. Similar view has been
reiterated in Lahu Kamlakar Patil and Anr. v. State of
Maharashtra (2013) 6 SCC 417.
Behaviour of the witnesses or their reactions
would differ from situation to situation and individual to
individual. Expectation of uniformity in the reaction of
witnesses would be unrealistic and no hard and fast rule can
be laid down as to the uniformity of the human reaction.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1362 OF 2010
DILAWAR SINGH & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
R. BANUMATHI, J.
Citation; 2014 (4) crimes 1 SC
Appellants Dilawar Singh (A-1), Yash Pal (A-3) and
Shamsher Singh (A-7) in Criminal Appeal No.1362/2010
challenge the legality of their conviction for the offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC
and the sentence of life imprisonment and imposition of fine
of Rs.5,000/- each and also challenge their conviction for
the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC and sentence
of imprisonment for two years.
Being aggrieved by the
acquittal of Balkar Singh (A-4), Ranbir Singh (A-6) and
Charan
Singh (A-8), State of Haryana and Chanda Singh –
father of the deceased Narinder Singh have preferred
Criminal Appeal Nos. 826/2010 and 830/2010.
2.
Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that
deceased Narinder Singh was running a shop for the sale of
fertilizers at the Ladwa Town and he was residing near
Veterinary Hospital. On 22.8.1998 at about 8.45 p.m.
Narinder Singh
was driving his motor cycle and when he
turned towards Babain Road, in Ladwa little ahead of the
veterinary hospital, Dilawar Singh (A-1), Gurdev Singh (A-2)
and Yash Pal (A-3) and other
accused persons
namely
2
Page 2
Balkar Singh (A-4), Ashok Kumar (A-5) Ranbir Singh (A-6),
Shamsher Singh (A-7), Charan Singh (A-8) and Dalbir
Singh(A-9) intercepted him. Dilawar Singh (A-1), Yash Pal (A-
3) and Shamsher Singh (A-7) gave blow on the head of
deceased Narinder Singh with their respective cutter and
Narinder Singh fell down along with his motor cycle and
shouted Bachao Bachao. At that time Chanda Singh-father of
the deceased along with his brother Hakam Singh came
nearby in their car and saw the accused being attacked.
Chanda Singh and Hakam Singh cried for help and shouted
‘NA MARO NA MARO’. Gurdev Singh (A-2) and Charan Singh
(A-8) caused sword blows on the
left leg and right leg of
Narinder Singh. Ranbir Singh (A-6) gave gandasi blow on the
right hand of Narinder Singh whereas Balkar Singh (A-4)
gave gandasi blow to Narinder Singh on his left arm. Two
other assailants namely Ashok Kumar (A-5) and Dalbir Singh
(A-9) attacked Narinder Singh with hockey sticks and caused
injuries to Narinder Singh.
In the meanwhile, Sham Singh
(PW-7) also reached there and he too shouted at the
accused not to kill Narinder Singh.
All the accused
fled
3
Page 3
away from the spot with their respective weapons in their
motor cycles. Chanda Singh (PW-6), Hakam Singh and Sham
Singh (PW-7) chased the assailants in their respective
vehicles but they could not catch hold of them.
3.
Further case of prosecution is that on 22.8.1998 at
about 9.00 p.m. ASI Charan Dass (PW-11) who was on
patrolling duty received message about an injured person
lying near Veterinary Hospital, Ladwa and PW-11 and police
party went to the scene of occurrence and shifted injured
Narinder Singh to Community Health Centre, Ladwa where
Dr. Ashwini Kumar (DW-1), Medical Officer
of the Health
Centre examined him and found him not fit to make
statement. In the meanwhile, Chanda Singh and Hakam
Singh reached the spot and found that injured Narinder
Singh had already been shifted to the hospital by the police.
Chanda Singh (PW-6) went to the Ladwa Hospital and Hakam
Singh went to the village to inform the family members of
Narinder Singh
reached
about the incident.
Community
Health
Centre
When Chanda Singh
at
Ladwa,
injured
Narinder Singh was, in the process of being referred to the
4
Page 4
Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Hospital, Kurukshetra as his condition
was very
serious.
In the hospital at Kurukshetra, Dr.
S.C.Grover (PW-1) examined the injured–Narinder Singh and
opined that Narinder Singh was unfit to make any statement.
Since the condition of Narinder Singh was serious, he was
immediately referred to PGI Chandigarh and Chanda Singh
shifted injured Narinder Singh to PGI Chandigarh. Dr. Munish
Kumar (PW-9) of PGI Chandigarh admitted Narinder Singh in
the hospital on 23.8.1998 at about 2.30 a.m. and intimation
was sent
to the police post located near the hospital. On
receipt of information from the hospital, ASI Karam Chand
(PW-4) went to the hospital and on his application Dr. Kanya
Rejangam (PW-8) opined that injured Narinder Singh was
unfit to make statement. Injured Narinder Singh succumbed
to injuries at about
5.30 a.m. on 23.8.1998
and death
intimation was sent to the Police Post, PGI Chandigarh. On
the same day Chanda Singh came back to Ladwa and went
to the police station and lodged the complaint on the basis
of which FIR was registered at
Ladwa
Police Station, ASI
Charan Dass (PW-11) went to PGI Chandigarh and conducted
5
Page 5
the inquest on the dead body of deceased Narinder Singh.
In PGI, Dr. Surinder
Singh (PW-10) conducted autopsy
on the body of Narinder Singh and noted 18 incised injuries
and other injuries all over the body of the deceased and
issued the Post Mortem Certificate. Dr. Surinder Singh (PW-
10) opined that the deceased died of cut injuries on the head
and due to haemorrhage
from multiple
incised wounds.
The accused surrendered before the court on various dates
and on information of their surrender, Inspector Jagdish Ram
(PW-12) took the accused to police custody and based on
their confession the weapons and motor cycles were seized.
After completion of investigation, the accused were charge
sheeted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC.
4.
To
bring
home
the
guilt
of
the
accused,
prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 16 and placed reliance
on documents and material objects. The accused were
questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating
evidence and circumstances and they denied all of them.
Accused Ranbir Singh took a plea of alibi by stating that he is
practising as an advocate at Kurukshetra
and was not
6
Page 6
present
at the spot on the date of occurrence.
Gurdev
Singh (A-2) also took the plea of alibi and stated that he was
posted as a Naib Tehsildar and in connection with his official
work had gone to village Sardhaheri
on the date of
occurrence. The accused examined DWs 1to 6 as witness on
their side.
5.
Upon
consideration of the evidence, the
trial
court convicted and sentenced Dilawar Singh (A-1), Yash Pal
(A-3), Balkar Singh (A-4), Ranbir Singh (A-6), Shamsher Singh
(A-7) and Charan Singh (A-8) under Section 302
IPC read
with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each with
default clause and also convicted them for the offence
punishable under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo
rigorous
imprisonment
for
two
years.
The
trial
court
acquitted Gurdev Singh (A-2), Ashok Kumar (A-5) and Dalbir
Singh(A-9).
6.
Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence,
convicted accused 1,3,4 and 6 to 8 preferred appeal before
the High Court. The High Court confirmed the conviction of
7
Page 7
Dilawar Singh (A-1), Yash Pal (A-3) and Shamsher Singh (A-7)
and acquitted
Balkar Singh (A-4), Ranbir Singh (A-6) and
Charan Singh (A-8). Being aggrieved by the conviction,
Dilawar Singh (A-1), Yash Pal (A-3) and Shamsher Singh (A-7)
have filed Criminal Appeal No. 1362/2010. Being aggrieved
by the acquittal of Balkar Singh (A-4), Ranbir Singh (A-6) and
Charan Singh (A-8), State has preferred Criminal Appeal
No.826/2010
and
Chanda
Singh
deceased Narinder Singh has filed
(PW-6)–father
of
the
Criminal Appeal No.
830/2010.
7.
Mr. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
convicted accused Dilawar Singh (A-1), Yash Pal (A-3) and
Shamsher Singh (A-7) submitted that serious doubts arise as
to the presence of Chanda Singh (PW-6) in the scene of
occurrence and trial court as well as High Court ought not
to have based the conviction on the evidence of PW-6 and
conviction of the aforesaid accused is not sustainable.
8.
Mr. Rao Ranjit, learned counsel, appearing for the
State has taken us through the evidence of Chanda Singh
(PW-6) and Sham Singh (PW-7) and other evidence and
8
Page 8
submitted that evidence of
PW-6 is corroborated
by
evidence of PW-7, recovery of weapons and Serology Report
and courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact that
PW-6 is a reliable witness and the same does not warrant
interference.
when the
learned courts have
PWs 6 and 7
Shamsher
The learned counsel further submitted that
qua
believed the evidence of
Dilawar Singh(A-1), Yash Pal(A-3)
Singh(A-7),
the
courts
ought
not
to
and
have
disbelieved the case of prosecution qua Balkar Singh (A-4),
Ranbir Singh (A-6) and Charan Singh (A-8) for reversal of
acquittal.
9.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the accused 4, 6 and 8 who were acquitted and also
Mr. Shishpal Laler, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant- Chanda Singh.
10.
The prosecution case revolves around the ocular
version of Chanda Singh (PW-6) father of deceased Narinder
Singh who witnessed the occurrence along with his brother
Hakam Singh and Sham Singh (PW-7).
PWs 6 and 7 have
spoken about the attack on the deceased and overt act of
9
Page 9
accused Dilawar Singh (A-1), Yash Pal (A-3) and Shamsher
Singh (A-7) and others.
Hakam Singh was not examined.
Evidence of Sham Singh (PW-7) corroborates the version of
Chanda Singh (PW-6). Learned courts below found the
evidence of PW-6 trustworthy and recorded respective
findings for convicting Dilawar Singh (A-1), Yash Pal (A-3)
and Shamsher Singh (A-7) and acquitting other accused.
11.
Contending that Chanda
have witnessed
the occurrence
Singh (PW-6) could not
and the learned
courts
erred in placing reliance upon version of PW-6, evidence of
PW-6 is interalia assailed on various grounds :- (i) PW-6
had no reason to be present in Babain Road near Veterinary
Hospital, Ladwa; (ii) Conduct of PW-6 is not natural that on
witnessing
the attack on his son, he had not naturally
reacted in trying to save his son but he is alleged to have
chased the accused; (iii) PW-6 had he been the witness, he
would have given statement to the police immediately after
the occurrence
and there would not have been
an
inordinate delay in registration of FIR i.e. on 23.8.1998 at
10
Page 10
11.00 A.M and the delay in registration of FIR falsifies his
evidence.
12.
Insofar as the contention of the appellants that
Chanda Singh (PW-6) had no reason to be present in the
place of occurrence, deceased Narinder Singh was dealing in
fertilizers at Ladwa and was residing in a house near the
veterinary hospital of the town. PW-6 has stated that their
home place Mehra is at a distance of 5 kms from Ladwa and
is connected by a pakka road which leads towards Babain
from
Ladwa.
Village
Mehra
is
connected
with
this
Ladwa - Babain road by a link road and when this link road
is connecting PW-6’s home village Mehra, there is nothing
unusual about Chanda Singh going through
and his presence in the
Babain Road
place of occurrence.
It is
unreasonable to contend that Chanda Singh (PW-6) had no
compelling reason to be present in the place of occurrence.
13.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that
the conduct of Chanda Singh (PW-6) is unnatural and being
father of the deceased and on seeing his son belaboured,
PW-6 had not swiftly acted to save his son and neither PW-
11
Page 11
6 nor Hakam Singh or
Sham Singh ( PW-7) took the
deceased to the hospital and Chanda Singh and other
witnesses are alleged to have left the injured at the place of
incident and
unnatural
proceeded to chase the assailants and such
conduct of PW-6 only shows that he was not
present at the place of occurrence.
14.
We find no merit in the submission that Chanda
Singh (PW-6) is to be disbelieved on the ground that he has
not acted in a particular manner to save his son.
Every
person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. On
seeing Narinder Singh being attacked, PW-6 and Hakam
Singh might have been shocked and stunned.
Being two
together, PW-6 and Hakam Singh might have perhaps
thought of catching the assailants and appear to have
chased them by following them in the car.
15.
In Rana Partap and Ors. vs. State of Haryana
(1983) 3 SCC 327, while dealing with the behaviour of the
witnesses, this Court opined thus:
“6....Every person who witnesses a murder
reacts in his own way. Some are stunned,
become speechless and stand rooted to the
spot.
Some become hysteric and start
wailing.
Some start shouting for help.
Others run away to keep themselves as far
removed from the spot as possible.
Yet
others rush to the rescue of the victim, even
going to the extent of counter-attacking the
assailants.
Every one reacts in his own
special way. There is no set rule of natural
reaction.
To discard the evidence of a
witness on the ground that he did not react
in any particular manner is to appreciate
evidence in a wholly unrealistic and
unimaginative way.”
16.
In State of H.P. v. Mast Ram (2004) 8 SCC 660 it
has been stated that there is no set rule that one must react
in a particular way, for the natural reaction of man is
unpredictable. Everyone reacts in his own way and, hence,
natural human behaviour is difficult
to prove by credible
evidence. It has to be appreciated in the context of given
facts and circumstances of the case. Similar view has been
reiterated in Lahu Kamlakar Patil and Anr. v. State of
Maharashtra (2013) 6 SCC 417.
17.
Behaviour of the witnesses or their reactions
would differ from situation to situation and individual to
individual. Expectation of uniformity in the reaction of
witnesses would be unrealistic and no hard and fast rule can
13
Page 13
be laid down as to the uniformity of the human reaction.
The evidence of PW-6 is not to be disbelieved simply
because he did not react in a particular manner.
PW-6
explained how he happened to be there in the place of
occurrence and had cogently spoken about the occurrence
and his evidence remained unscathed despite searching
cross examination.
18.
In his evidence Chanda Singh (PW-6) stated that
they have chased the assailants for about 300 – 400 meters
and then abandoned the chase and returned to the place of
occurrence after fifteen minutes. In the meanwhile, injured
Narinder Singh was shifted
to
Community Health Centre,
Ladwa by ASI Charan Dass (PW-11). Sham Singh (PW-7)
stated that after chasing the assailants they have returned
to the place of occurrence within 5-7 minutes. On behalf of
the appellants, it was contended that chasing the accused to
a distance of 200–300 meters would have taken only about
5-7 minutes and the fact that Narinder Singh was shifted to
the hospital by the time PW-6 returned
occurrence
to the place of
only shows that PW-6 was not present at the
14
Page 14
time of occurrence and that he has been planted as an eye-
witness subsequently.
Version of PW-6 that they have
chased the assailants and came back after about 15-20
minutes, does not affect his credibility nor the prosecution
case. It is brought on record that on the date of occurrence
i.e. 22.8.1998 there was solar eclipse and Solar Eclipse Fair
was going on in Kurukshetra and large number of people
congregated and the place of occurrence and nearby place
was crowded with temporary bazaars and exhibitions and
therefore PW-6 could come back to the place of occurrence
only after 15 minutes and in the meanwhile injured Narinder
Singh was shifted
by ASI Charan
to Community Health Centre, Ladwa
Dass (PW-11). The alleged time taken in
chasing the accused
and the fact that in the meanwhile
Narinder Singh was shifted
to
the Community Health
Centre, Ladwa, in our view, does not militate against the
credibility of PW-6.
19.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellants
then
contended that police station in Ladwa is situated within a
short distance from the place of occurrence and yet no
15
Page 15
information was given to the police immediately. It was
submitted that Chanda Singh (PW-6) had
statement
not given
to police either at Ladwa or at Kurukshetra or
atleast to PW-4, ASI
Chandigarh
Karam Chand of Police Post
who came to the hospital
at PGI
on receipt of
information of admission of injured Narinder Singh in PGI
Chandigarh and FIR was registered only on 23.8.1998 at
11.00 A.M. and the inordinate delay in giving information to
the police and registration of FIR raises serious doubts about
the credibility of prosecution case and trustworthiness of
PW-6.
20.
We find no merit in the submission that delay in
registration of
reason
that
prosecution.
FIR is fatal to the prosecution case for the
delay
is
satisfactorily
explained
by
the
Let us briefly recapitulate the sequence of
events. After chasing the assailants for few minutes, PW-6
came to Community Health Centre, Ladwa
at 9.00 – 9.15
P.M. Hakam Singh went to village Mehra to inform the family
members and for arranging
money.
By the time
PW-6
arrived in the Ladwa Hospital, the hospital authorities were
16
Page 16
making arrangement to refer the injured to Kurukshetra as
his condition was very serious.
By the time PW-6 went to
Ladwa Hospital, PW-11 left to village Mehra to inform the
family members of injured Narinder Singh.
Evidently in
Ladwa Hospital, PW-6 could not have met ASI Charan Dass
(PW 11). PW-6 shifted the injured to Kurukshetra Hospital at
10.30-11.00 P.M. and then shifted Narinder Singh from
Kurukshetra
Hospital
to
PGI
Chandigarh.
They
left
Kurukshetra between 11.30-12.00 P.M. for PGI and reached
PGI Chandigarh at 2.30 A.M. on 23.8.1998. ASI Charan
Dass (PW 11) reached Kurukshetra Hospital at about 11.30
P.M. and moved an application to the doctor regarding
fitness of the injured
to make
a statement.
Again in
Kurukshetra there was hardly any time for PW-6 to meet
PW-11, ASI Charan
Dass.
There is nothing on record
showing that PW-6 met PW-11 either at Ladwa or at
Kurukshetra. When PW-6 was busy in arranging medical aid
to save his son, delay in lodging the FIR cannot be said to
be fatal. The sequence of events clearly show that PW-6
17
Page 17
was taking all steps to save the life of his son and making
arrangements for money, ambulance etc.
21.
Whether the delay is so long as to draw a cloud
of suspicion
on the prosecution case will depend upon
variety of factors which will vary from case to case.
As
pointed out by the learned courts, from the very beginning
the condition of injured Narinder Singh was very serious
and he was struggling for existence and his father PW-6 and
uncle Hakam Singh were concerned about the welfare of
the injured.
While so, they could not have thought of
approaching the police first and informing them about the
incident and the assailants.
Where delay in lodging
complaint and registration of FIR has been satisfactorily
explained, the delay by itself was no ground for disbelieving
the prosecution evidence particularly when it had
been
accepted both by the Sessions Court and the High Court.
22.
Coming to the further contention of the appellants
raising doubts about
the credibility of PW-6 in not making
any statement at least to ASI Karam Chand (PW-4) of Police
Post PGI Chandigarh, on receipt of the information regarding
18
Page 18
admission of injured Narinder Singh, ASI Karam Chand (PW-
4)
went to the PGI Hospital
to record the statement
of
injured Narinder Singh. At that time, Chanda Singh (PW-6)
was attending his son. The contention of the appellants is
that
PW-6 had the occasion to inform the police about the
incident
at least to ASI Karam Chand (PW-4) but the same
was not done which raise serious doubts about the presence
of Chanda Singh (PW-6) at the scene of occurrence. By
perusal of the evidence of PW-4, it is seen that on receipt of
intimation (rukka) from PGI Chandigarh, PW-4 rushed to the
hospital for recording the statement of
Singh. Since Chanda Singh (PW-6) did not offer any
statement
to ASI Karam Chand
injured Narinder
(PW-4), since Narinder
Singh was then alive, there was no occasion for recording
the statement
of Chanda Singh.
It is also brought in
evidence that after the death of Narinder Singh ASI Karam
Chand (PW-4) did not go to PGI for the second time. In our
view, there is no merit in the submission that PW-6 is to be
disbelieved on the ground that he did not
choose to give
any statement at least to ASI Karam Chand (PW-4).
19
Page 19
23.
Narinder Singh died at 5.30 A.M. on 23.8.1998 and
thereafter Chanda Singh (PW-6) went to Ladwa Police Station
on 23.8.1998 at 11.00 A.M. and lodged the complaint and
FIR was registered as Ext PE No. 314/1998 at Ladwa Police
Station. Sequence of events clearly show that PW-6 was
attending
his son and was taking
Narinder Singh
from
steps to shift
injured
Community Health Centre Ladwa to
Lok Nayak Jai Parkash Hospital, Kurukshetra and from
Kurukshetra to PGI Chandigarh
and PW-6 was busy in
arranging for money, medical aid and ambulance etc. The
delay of about 15 hours and 15 minutes in lodging the
FIR, in our view, cannot be said to be fatal. Learned courts
have recorded
registration
concurrent finding that the
of FIR
has been
delay in
satisfactorily explained and
the delay is not fatal to the prosecution case.
24.
While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the
approach must be whether the evidence
of the witness
read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that
impression is formed it is necessary for the court
to
scrutinize the evidence, to find out whether it is against the
20
Page 20
general tenor of the prosecution case. Learned courts below
found evidence of PW-6 reliable and accepted the same.
The power of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution
are very wide. But in criminal appeals this Court does not
interfere with the concurrent findings of fact save in
exceptional circumstances. When the learned courts below
found the evidence of PW-6 reliable and acceptable, we do
not find any perversity in the approach of the learned courts
in accepting the evidence of PW-6 warranting interference in
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution
of India.
25.
Evidence of Chanda Singh (PW-6) is corroborated
by the evidence of Sham Singh (PW-7). Credibility of PW-7 is
assailed on the ground that he was also challaned along with
Narinder Singh in criminal case in 1994 and that PW-7 has
animosity against the accused persons. The mere fact that
PW-7 was also challaned along with Narinder Singh and that
he was
inimical towards the accused would not result
mechanical rejection of evidence of
in
such a witness; but
would only make the court cautious while evaluating
the
21
Page 21
testimony of the witness and we do not find any infirmity in
the
appreciation of evidence of PW-7
by the courts and
relying upon the same as corroborative evidence.
26.
PWs 6 and 7 have spoken in one voice against
Dilawar Singh (A-1), Yash Pal (A-3) and Shamsher Singh (A-
7).
Their evidence is also corroborated by the medical
evidence of Dr. Surinder Singh (PW-10) who conducted the
autopsy on the body of Narinder Singh. As per Post-Mortem
Certificate, 18 incised wounds were found on the body of the
deceased which strengthen the prosecution case as to the
overt act of the accused 1, 3 and 7.
Based on the
confessional statement of the disclosure of Dilawar Singh (A-
1), Yash Pal (A-3) and Shamsher Singh (A-7) cutters were
recovered
and detection of human blood in those cutters
also lends credence to the prosecution case.
27.
Placing
reliance
on
the
evidence
of
DW-1,
Dr. Ashwini Kumar feeble attempt was made to contend that
serious doubts arise about the prosecution case. Of course,
according to DW-1, Dr. Ashwini Kumar who admitted injured
Narinder Singh
in Ladwa Hospital, he found
only five
22
Page 22
injuries on the person of the injured and he opined that the
same had been caused by blunt weapon.
Mortem Certificate
As per Post
as many as 18 incised wounds were
found on the body of Narinder Singh. As held by the learned
courts DW-1 did not examine the injuries on the person of
the injured in right perspective and did not correctly record
the injuries on the person of Narinder Singh. Opinion of DW-
1 that the injuries were the result of blunt weapon is false
and for that reason he has been rightly challaned by the
police for the offence punishable under Section 218 IPC on
the ground that he had prepared the wound certificate
falsely.
Reasonings contained in paragraphs 44 and 45 in
the judgment of the Sessions Court sufficiently answer the
arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and the
evidence of DW-1 is of no assistance to the accused.
28.
The trial court and the High Court recorded
concurrent findings holding that the appellants accused
Dilawar Singh (A-1), Yash Pal (A-3) and Shamsher Singh (A-7)
have committed the offences punishable under Section 302
IPC read with Section 149 IPC and under Section 148 IPC. It
23
Page 23
has been repeatedly held by this Court that even though
powers of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution
are
very wide, in criminal appeals this Court does not
interfere with the concurrent
findings of
fact, save
in
exceptional circumstances.
29.
Considering the scope of power of this Court
under Article 136 of the Constitution in criminal appeals, in
the case
of Ganga Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Bihar (2005) 6 SCC
211, it is observed:
“From the aforesaid series of decisions of this Court
on the exercise of power of the Supreme Court
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India
following principles emerge:-
(i) The powers of this Court under Article 136
of the Constitution are very wide but in criminal
appeals this Court does not interference with the
concurrent findings of fact save in exceptional
circumstances.
(ii) It is open to this Court to interfere with the
findings of fact given by the High Court, if the
High Court
has acted perversely or otherwise
improperly.
(iii) It is open to this Court to invoke the power
under Article 136 only in very exceptional
circumstances as and when a question of law of
general public importance
arises or a decision
shocks the conscience of the Court.
(iv) When the evidence adduced by the
prosecution fell short of the test reliability and
24
Page 24
acceptability and as such it is highly unsafe to act
upon it.
(v) Where the appreciation of evidence and
finding is vitiated by any error of law or procedure
or found contrary to the principles of natural justice,
errors of record and misreading of the evidence, or
where the conclusions of the High Court are
manifestly perverse and unsupportable from the
evidence on record.”
30.
In the case of Charanjit & Ors. vs. State of Punjab
and Anr. (2013) 11 SCC 163, it was observed as under:-
“26. Thus, the trial court and the High Court have
recorded concurrent findings of facts holding the
appellants guilty of the offences under Sections
323/34, 504/34, 376(2) (a) and 376 (2) (g) IPC and
the appellant Radha Krishan guilty of the offence
under Section 342 IPC also. It has been repeatedly
held by this Court that even though the powers of
this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution are
very wide, in criminal appeals this Court does not
interfere with the concurrent findings of facts, save
in exceptional circumstances where there has been
grave miscarriage
of justice {Sambhu Das v. State
of Assam (2010) 10 SCC 374}. As we have found
that the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the
trial court and the High Court in this case are based
on legal evidence and there is no miscarriage of
justice as such by the two courts while arriving at the
said findings, we are not inclined to disturb the
impugned judgment of the High Court in exercise
of our discretion under Article 136 of the
Constitution.”
31.
As we have found
that the concurrent findings of
fact recorded by the trial court and the High Court qua
Dilawar Singh (A-1), Yash Pal (A-3) and Shamsher Singh (A-7)
are based on evidence, in our view, there is no miscarriage
25
Page 25
of justice by the learned courts while arriving at the said
findings and we are not inclined to disturb the impugned
judgment
of the High Court in exercise of
our discretion
under Article 136 of the Constitution. The appeal preferred
by the Dilawar Singh(A-1), Yash Pal (A-3) and Shamsher
Singh (A-7) fails and is liable to be dismissed.
32.
Appeals
against Acquittal
qua Balkar Singh
(A-4), Ranbir Singh (A-6) and Charan Singh (A-8):-
aggrieved by
Singh (A-6)
Singh
Being
the acquittal of Balkar Singh (A-4), Ranbir
and Charan Singh
(A-8), State and Chanda
have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 826/2010 and
Criminal Appeal No. 830/2010.
33.
alibi.
A-6, Ranbir Singh
A-6,
Ranbir
Singh
has put forth defence plea of
was
a
practising
lawyer
at
Kurukshetra and he was working as a junior advocate in the
office of Senior Advocate, Mr. S.C. Sharma. Mr. Yudhvir
Singh, advocate was examined as DW-6, who was also
practising with Mr. S.C.Sharma. He stated that on the date
of occurrence
A-6, Ranbir Singh was in the office of Senior
Advocate and not at the place of occurrence. Trial Court has
26
Page 26
not accepted the plea of alibi raised by him only on the
ground that the Senior Advocate with whom A-6, Ranbir
Singh was practising was not examined. The High Court held
that evidence of DW-6 cannot be doubted as there was no
reason to disbelieve him and plea of alibi taken by A-6,
Ranbir Singh cannot be rejected on the ground that his
Senior Advocate Mr. S.C. Sharma was not examined and on
those findings as recorded, High Court acquitted Ranbir
Singh, the 6th accused. We do not see any perversity in the
appreciation of evidence by High Court and we find no
substantial ground to interfere with the acquittal of A-6.
34.
Insofar as A-4, Balkar Singh and A-8, Charan Singh
are concerned, the case of the prosecution is that A-4 gave
gandasi blow to Narinder Singh on his left arm and A-8,
Charan Singh gave a blow with his sword on the right leg of
Narinder Singh. PW-10, Dr. Surinder Singh stated that death
of the deceased was caused by sharp edged weapon and
could not have been caused by any blunt weapon. The High
Court was of the view that the overt act of A-4, Balkar Singh
and A-8, Charan Singh, do not find corroboration with
27
Page 27
medical evidence and on those findings the High Court set
aside the conviction of A-4, Balkar Singh and A-8, Charan
Singh and acquitted them.
35.
The court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere
with the order of acquittal unless the approach is vitiated by
manifest illegality. In an appeal against acquittal, this Court
will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because
on the evaluation of the evidence, a different plausible view
may arise and
correct.
views taken by the courts below is not
In other words, this
Court must come to the
conclusion that the views taken by the learned courts below,
while acquitting, cannot be the views of a reasonable person
on the material on record.
36.
In Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka
(2007) 4 SCC 415, the scope of power of appellate court
dealing with an appeal against acquittal has been considered
and this Court held as under:
“42.....(4)
An appellate court, however, must bear in mind
that in case of acquittal, there is double
presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly,
the presumption of innocence is available to
him under the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence that every person shall
28
Page 28
(5)
be presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved guilty by a competent court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is
further
reinforced,
reaffirmed
and
strengthened by the trial court.
If two reasonable conclusions are possible on
the basis of the evidence on record, the
appellate court should not disturb the finding
of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”
Unless there are substantial and compelling reasons, the
order of acquittal is not required to be reversed in appeal. It
has been so stated in State of Rajasthan vs. Shera Ram
(2012) 1 SCC 602.
37.
On evaluation of the evidence found by the High
Court while recording an order of acquittal, in our view, does
not suffer from any infirmity or illegality or manifest error.
We see no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal of
Accused 4, 6 and 8.
38.
We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal
preferred by accused (A-1, Dilawar Singh), (A3, Yash Pal),
and (A-7, Shamsher Singh). The appeal fails and the same is
dismissed.
The appeals against acquittal preferred by the
State and by Chanda Singh also are dismissed.
29
Page 29
....................................J.
(T.S. Thakur)
.....................................J.
(R. Banumathi)
New Delhi;
September 16, 2014
30
Page 30
No comments:
Post a Comment