9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the trial. 2. Admissibility of witness testimony. 3. Prejudice due to procedural irregularities. 4. Compliance with Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Trial: The appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The prosecution's story was that the appellant bore a grudge against the deceased due to a prior incident involving the appellant's brother. On the day of the occurrence, the appellant followed the deceased from a shop and shot him at point-blank range. The appellant was apprehended immediately with the pistol in his possession, and the first information report was made within 15 minutes of the occurrence. The motive for the crime was established and not challenged. 2. Admissibility of Witness Testimony: The occurrence was witnessed by several persons, but only five were examined by the prosecution. Two turned hostile, one was neutral, and the remaining two (Balbir Singh and Jaswant Singh) were believed. The main questions were whether the conviction could rest on their testimony and whether certain irregularities in the trial vitiated it. The appellant argued that Jaswant Singh's evidence was inadmissible because he was not examined by the Committing Magistrate. However, the court held that the Sessions Court has the power to examine witnesses not examined before the Committing Magistrate under Section 540 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court found no prejudice in this case as the appellant was aware of Jaswant Singh's role as an eye-witness from the first information report and the committal proceedings. 3. Prejudice Due to Procedural Irregularities: The appellant argued that the High Court used the evidence of witnesses before the Committing Magistrate as substantive evidence without observing the formalities prescribed by Section 288. The court clarified that the evidence of Balbir Singh and Jaswant Singh was sufficient for conviction, and the former statements were used for corroboration, not as substantive evidence. The court explained that even if the formalities of Section 145 of the Evidence Act were not observed, the former statements could be used to corroborate the evidence given in chief. The court found no substantial prejudice to the appellant. 4. Compliance with Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code: The appellant contended that there was no proper compliance with Section 342, which requires the accused to be questioned about the incriminating evidence against them. The court found substantial compliance in this case, noting that the facts were simple and the crucial matters were brought to the appellant's attention. The appellant's counsel was unable to specify how his client was prejudiced or what answers the appellant would have given to the questions that should have been put to him. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence of death. The appellant was caught red-handed with the pistol, and the first information report was recorded promptly. The eye-witnesses' testimony was believed, and the procedural irregularities raised did not prejudice the appellant. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of death was upheld.
|
