9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentencing to death. 2. Conviction under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 326 IPC. 3. Acquittal of co-accused Nand Lal Sehgal. 4. Corroboration of the approver's evidence. 5. Application of the principle of issue-estoppel. 6. Validity of the hand grenade arrangement as described by the approver. Detailed Analysis: 1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC and Sentencing to Death The appellant, Piara Singh, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge of Kapurthala. This conviction was based on the appellant's involvement in sending a bomb concealed in a parcel, which exploded and caused the deaths of Radhey Sham, Shadi Lal, and Charanjit Lal. The High Court confirmed this sentence, dismissing the appellant's appeal. 2. Conviction under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 326 IPC Piara Singh was also convicted under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment. Additionally, he received another five years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous injuries to several individuals. The High Court upheld these convictions as well. 3. Acquittal of Co-Accused Nand Lal Sehgal Nand Lal Sehgal, who was tried alongside Piara Singh, was initially sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Sections 109 and 113 IPC and to five years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act. However, the High Court acquitted Nand Lal Sehgal, finding no independent corroboration of the approver's evidence implicating him. The High Court dismissed the State's revision petition seeking enhancement of Sehgal's sentence. 4. Corroboration of the Approver's Evidence The prosecution's case heavily relied on the testimony of the approver, Mohinder Singh, who was granted pardon under Section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court found sufficient corroboration of the approver's evidence against Piara Singh from multiple witnesses, including Nazar Singh (P.W. 22), Gian Singh (P.W. 23), Sardara Singh (P.W. 24), Amrik Singh (P.W. 25), and Sri Niwas (P.W. 27). The Court held that these testimonies, along with physical evidence like pieces of cloth found at the crime scene, corroborated the approver's account. 5. Application of the Principle of Issue-Estoppel The appellant's counsel argued that the acquittal of Nand Lal Sehgal should lead to the rejection of the approver's evidence against Piara Singh, invoking the principle of issue-estoppel. The Court rejected this argument, clarifying that issue-estoppel applies only when the same issue has been distinctly raised and decided in earlier proceedings between the same parties. Since the parties in the present case were different, the principle of issue-estoppel was not applicable. 6. Validity of the Hand Grenade Arrangement as Described by the Approver The appellant contended that the hand grenade could not have been arranged as described by the approver, suggesting inconsistencies in the expert's report. The High Court examined this argument in detail and found no substantial reason to doubt the approver's description of the bomb's arrangement. The Court concluded that the approver's account was credible and consistent with the physical evidence. Conclusion The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the appellant. The convictions and sentences imposed by the lower courts were upheld, and the principle of issue-estoppel was deemed inapplicable in this case. The corroborative evidence was found sufficient to support the approver's testimony, leading to the affirmation of Piara Singh's guilt.
|
