1991 (4) TMI 454 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and sentencing of the accused under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
2. Reliability of witness testimonies (PW-3 and PW-4).
3. Use of the case diary by the defense.
4. Legality of the sentencing procedure under Section 235(2) of the CrPC.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction and Sentencing of the Accused under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC:
The first accused (A-1) was convicted for causing the deaths of four individuals (D-1 to D-4) and sentenced to death, subject to confirmation by the Supreme Court. Additionally, A-1 was convicted for attempting to murder PW-4 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years. Accused Sukhdev Singh (A-2) and Sohna Singh (A-3) were convicted for causing the deaths of D-1 to D-4 and sentenced to life imprisonment, and for attempting to murder PW-4, they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years. The sentences were to run concurrently.

2. Reliability of Witness Testimonies (PW-3 and PW-4):
The court examined the credibility of PW-3 and PW-4, noting that PW-4, the injured witness, had sustained multiple injuries during the incident. Despite the defense's contention that PW-4 did not disclose the names of the assailants immediately, the court found his testimony credible, especially given his critical condition post-incident. The court also found PW-3's testimony reliable, dismissing the defense's argument that he was a planted witness. The court emphasized that both witnesses had no motive to falsely implicate the accused.

3. Use of the Case Diary by the Defense:
The court highlighted that the defense's use of the case diary to contradict prosecution evidence was illegal and inadmissible. According to Section 172(3) of the CrPC, the case diary is not to be used as evidence by the accused. The court noted that neither the investigating officers nor the court used the case diary to refresh memory or for contradiction, thus rendering the defense's reliance on it invalid.

4. Legality of the Sentencing Procedure under Section 235(2) of the CrPC:
The court addressed the procedural issue of sentencing on the same day as the conviction, which contravenes Section 235(2) of the CrPC. This section mandates that the court must provide an opportunity for both the prosecution and the defense to present arguments and evidence on the appropriate sentence. The court referred to previous judgments (Allauddin v. State of M.P. and Anguswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu) to emphasize that sentencing on the same day is not in accordance with the law.

Separate Judgments Delivered:
The court modified the death sentence of A-1 to life imprisonment, considering that A-1 had already been incarcerated for six years. The conviction and sentence for attempting to murder PW-4 were upheld, and all sentences were directed to run concurrently. A-2 was acquitted of all charges due to insufficient evidence of his participation in the crime. The appeal was allowed to the extent of modifying A-1's sentence and acquitting A-2.