2003 (8) TMI 582 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenged the acquittal order passed by HC - Murder - offence punishable u/s 302 of Indian Penal Code 1860 ( IPC ) - HELD THAT - From the evidence it is clear that the area was a terrorist infected area and terrorism was its peak during the period. These factors weighed with the Trial Court and in our opinion rightly. The High Court did not attach any importance to this vital factor and came to presumptuous conclusions. It is to be noted that there was no dispute by the accused regarding the presence of the dead body and the severed head in the field and in the tubewell of accused Karnail Singh. Though the prosecution has to lead evidence to substantiate its accusations if factors within the special knowledge of the accused are not satisfactorily explained it is a factor against the accused. NO explanation was given by the accused during examination under Section 313 of the Code except making bold denial. Though this factor by itself cannot be sufficient to fasten the guilt of the accused while considering the totality of the circumstances this is certainly a relevant factor. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is clearly cogent and without even properly analyzing their evidence the High Court came to the conclusion that their presence was doubtful. Merely because one of the witnesses stated that he was unaware of the illicit relationship that does not in any way dilute the evidentiary value of the evidence of other witnesses who have spoken about it. Keeping in view the legal principles and the factual scenario in our view the inevitable conclusion is that the High Court was not justified in directing acquittal of the accused persons. Accordingly the judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the Trial Court restored. Accused Karnail Singh is directed to surrender to custody to serve the balance of the imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Court. The appeal is allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the High Court's acquittal of the respondents.
2. Credibility of the prosecution's version and evidence.
3. Delay in lodging the FIR and its dispatch to the Magistrate.
4. Conduct of the witnesses and their reliability.
5. Appellate Court's scope of interference in an acquittal.

Summary:

1. Legality of the High Court's Acquittal of the Respondents:
The Supreme Court questioned the legality of the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment directing the acquittal of the respondents, Karnail Singh and Nirmal Singh, who were previously found guilty by the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fines. The High Court's decision was based on perceived delays and doubts about the presence of key witnesses.

2. Credibility of the Prosecution's Version and Evidence:
The prosecution alleged that the deceased had an illicit relationship with the wife of accused Karnail Singh, leading to enmity. On the night of the incident, the deceased was attacked by the accused, resulting in his death. The Trial Judge found the prosecution's version credible, relying on the testimonies of PWs 1 and 2. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court erroneously dismissed this evidence without proper analysis.

3. Delay in Lodging the FIR and Its Dispatch to the Magistrate:
The High Court acquitted the accused, citing unexplained delays in lodging the FIR. However, the Supreme Court found that the FIR was lodged at 8.00 a.m. at the police chowk, registered at 9.35 a.m. at the police station, and reached the Magistrate by 3.00 p.m. Given the distances involved, the Supreme Court deemed the delay reasonable and not suspicious.

4. Conduct of the Witnesses and Their Reliability:
The High Court doubted the conduct of the witnesses, who were brothers of the deceased, for not rescuing him and fleeing the scene. The Supreme Court, however, emphasized that the area was terrorist-infected, which justified their actions. It also rejected the notion that relatives' testimonies are inherently unreliable, citing previous judgments that support the credibility of such witnesses.

5. Appellate Court's Scope of Interference in an Acquittal:
The Supreme Court reiterated that an appellate court can review evidence in an acquittal if there are compelling reasons. It found that the High Court's judgment was based on erroneous assumptions and lacked substantial reasons for acquittal. The Supreme Court highlighted that ignoring credible evidence constitutes a miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the Trial Court's conviction and sentence. Accused Karnail Singh was directed to surrender to custody to serve the remaining imprisonment. The appeal was allowed.

← Previous Next →