2016 (3) TMI 694 - SC - Indian Laws

Order of acquittal reversed - present appellant has been convicted by the High Court under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC ), and sentenced to imprisonment for life and directed to pay a fine ₹ 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine he is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months - Held that - There are three injured eye witnesses in the present case, namely, PW-1 Amrik Singh, PW-2 Sukhchain Singh and PW-3 Raj Singh. It is a case of day light incident. Injuries on the person of said eye witnesses have been corroborated by PW-4 Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu, PW-5 Dr. Manjit Singh and PW-14 Dr. S.P. Singla. Ocular testimony of eye witnesses cannot be discarded lightly. Once the prosecution has discharged its burden, the burden to prove that appellant Darshan Singh was not present with other accused at the place of incident and had gone elsewhere, lies on him. Injured eye witnesses have assigned specific role as to how he assaulted Santa Singh who suffered ante mortem injuries which gets corroborated from the autopsy report of Santa Singh. There are as many as five stabbed wounds out of the six ante mortem injuries. The word alibi means elsewhere . The plea of alibi is not one of the General Exceptions contained in Chapter IV of IPC. It is a rule of evidence recognized under Section 11 of the Evidence Act. However, plea of alibi taken by the defence is required to be proved only after prosecution has proved its case against the accused. In the present case said condition is fulfilled. After scrutinizing the entire evidence on record, we do not find any illegality in appreciation of evidence, or in arriving at the conclusion as to the guilt of the present appellant by the High Court.Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we find no force in this appeal which liable to be dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against judgment and order dated 02.09.2008 passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.

Analysis:
1. Conviction under Section 302 of IPC: The appellant was convicted by the High Court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine. The conviction was based on the prosecution's evidence and eyewitness testimonies, which were corroborated by medical reports and autopsy findings. The High Court found the appellant guilty of the murder charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. Conviction under Section 324 of IPC: Additionally, the appellant was found guilty of the offense punishable under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. The charge was related to causing hurt with a deadly weapon, and the High Court's decision was based on the specific role assigned to the appellant in the incident by the injured eyewitnesses.

3. Evidence and Witness Testimonies: The prosecution presented multiple witnesses, including the injured eyewitnesses and medical professionals who conducted post-mortem examinations. The defense also presented witnesses to support the plea of alibi. However, the High Court rejected the alibi plea after re-evaluating the evidence and witness statements.

4. Alibi Plea and Burden of Proof: The defense's plea of alibi was a key point of contention in the case. The High Court emphasized that the burden to prove the alibi lies on the accused after the prosecution has established its case. The court found inconsistencies in the appellant's alibi and concluded that it was false.

5. Legal Principles: The judgment discussed the legal principle of alibi as a rule of evidence under Section 11 of the Evidence Act. The court highlighted that the plea of alibi must be proved only after the prosecution has made its case, which was deemed satisfied in this instance.

6. Judicial Review: The Supreme Court thoroughly reviewed the evidence on record and found no legal errors in the High Court's appreciation of evidence or in reaching the conclusion of the appellant's guilt. The court upheld the High Court's decision and dismissed the appeal, ordering the appellant to serve the remaining part of the sentence.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, emphasizing the strength of the prosecution's evidence, the rejection of the alibi plea, and the proper application of legal principles in convicting the appellant.