1973 (8) TMI 170 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
2. Conviction under Section 148 IPC.
3. Conviction under Section 449 IPC.
4. Credibility of eyewitnesses.
5. Timing and credibility of the First Information Report (FIR).
6. High Court's reversal of the trial court's acquittal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC:
The appellants were convicted by the Punjab & Haryana High Court under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for the murder of Amrik Singh and Surat Singh, reversing the trial court's acquittal. The High Court found the evidence of the prosecution witnesses reliable and convincing, establishing that the appellants had caused the fatal injuries to the deceased. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, noting that the injuries were indeed caused by the appellants, as corroborated by the medical evidence and the testimonies of the eyewitnesses.

2. Conviction under Section 148 IPC:
Each appellant was also convicted under Section 148 IPC for rioting, armed with deadly weapons. The High Court found that the appellants were armed with kirpans, a gandasi, and a barchha during the attack. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's assessment, emphasizing the consistency in the eyewitness accounts regarding the weapons used by the appellants.

3. Conviction under Section 449 IPC:
Hazur Singh and Surjit Singh were further convicted under Section 449 IPC for house-trespass in order to commit murder. The High Court accepted the evidence of Avtar Singh and Pritam Singh, who witnessed the assault on Amrik Singh inside Charan Singh's house. The Supreme Court found no reason to disbelieve this part of the prosecution's case, thereby upholding the convictions under Section 449 IPC.

4. Credibility of Eyewitnesses:
The High Court found the testimonies of Mohan Singh, Jagdarshan Singh, and Amrik Singh (PWs) reliable, despite the trial court's view that they were interested witnesses. The Supreme Court noted that close relatives of the deceased would be unlikely to falsely implicate others while sparing the real assailants. The Court found no cogent reason to disbelieve their evidence, which was corroborated by the medical findings and other circumstances.

5. Timing and Credibility of the First Information Report (FIR):
The trial court had doubted the timing of the FIR, suggesting it was not lodged at the time it purported to have been done. The High Court disagreed, and the Supreme Court supported this view, noting that logistical issues, such as the lack of conveyance, could explain the delay in the FIR reaching the Talaka magistrate. The Court found the trial court's conclusion on this point to be unwarranted by the material on record.

6. High Court's Reversal of the Trial Court's Acquittal:
The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court has full power to review the evidence and reverse an acquittal if warranted. The High Court found the trial court's appreciation of evidence unreasonable and untenable. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the High Court's judgment, found no reason to interfere, as the High Court had given proper weight to the credibility of witnesses, the presumption of innocence, and the benefit of doubt to the accused.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, affirming the convictions and sentences of the appellants, and dismissed the appeal.