9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (2) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he was pronounced dead in a hospital on July 31 1968, at 8.45 P.M. Did the husband cause the murder of his wife is for a. final judicial solution before us. The accused husband being charged under section 302/24 I.P.C., along with son others obtained an acquittal from the Trial Judge. Government's conscience was roused and the High Court on the State's appeal entered his conviction under section 302 I.P.C., Shrinking, however, from. administering the extreme penalty under the law. That is how the liter is before us in this appeal as a matter of right under section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act 1970. The entire story as given below is revealed by friend of the accused, approver jasbir Inder Singh ( 21) (PW 5), who was arrested along with teh accused on August 13, 1968. Accused Ravinder Singh and the approver were employed in the Air force department at Sirsa and were good friends. Bhau Parkesh Singh since acquitted is the cousin of the accused. Satinder Kumar (11) is the accused's brother. During his stay at Sirsa, when his wife Bimla Kaur who was insisting on developed his stay at Sirsa, when his wife Bimla was not the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t except the above five persons. The train stopped for some time at the next Railway Station. When it again started. the accused threw his wife Bimla on the floor of the compartment by catching hold of her by the neck. When she fell down in the compartment the approver caught hold of her by the feet and Bhanu Parkash Singh threw acid in her mouth . Satinder Kumar did not take any Part- The accused removed the pazebs from her feet and gold jhumkas from her ears. The accused threw Bimla from the running train in between the first and the second railway stations beyond Rewari. Some acid drops fell on the hands of the accused and Bhanu Parkash Singh and on their pants and on the accused's shirt. When the train reached Bhiwani the accused got down for purchasing two tickets-for Bhanu Parkash Singh and Satinder Kumar, but the Ticket Collector, Raghbir Singh (PW 29) detained him and he missed the train. Three of the aforesaid company reached Sirsa at 9.00 A.M. on July 31, 1968. When asked about the accused the approver told Bansi Lal (PW 25) and Yudhishter Kumar (PW 26) that the accused bad missed the train at Bbiwani and would be coming by the next train. The accused arrived at Sirs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prover, who was admittedly a friend of the accused, was a reliable witness and his statement did not suffer from any defect whatsoever. The High Court further held that the approver's statement was corroborated in material particulars by other evidence connecting the accused with the crime. Since the accused has come in appeal against the judgment of the High Court as a matter of right, we have heard his learned counsel at length and also examined the evidence with care. We are unable to hold that the High Court committed any error or injustice in interfering with the acquittal in this case. The most important material aspect in the case is with regard to the accused accompanying the deceased in the train on July 30, 1968. This is not only disclosed by the statement of the approver but is corroborated by evidence aliunde. The very fact that she was found away from, her home at a distant place by a wayside railway track is consistent with her traveling in the train on the fateful day. The defence of the accused that he left for Delhi on July 29, 1968 and my wife followed me with large gold and silver ornaments on her person and she was robbed and killed on the way is most ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy used the train at Bhiwani. The evidence of Shakti Parshaki Ghosh (PW 17), A.S.M., Sasni Railwaily Station. mines that the accused booked his cycle No. RK- 162872 Make Road king from Sasni to Sirsa on July 30, 1968, as per the forwarding noe. Ext- PW 16/A (original Ext. 17/A) which fact is also proved by PW 16, Surinder Kumar, A.S.M. PW 17 categorically states that the accused came to him for booking the cycle and filled in the forwarding note. It is pointed out that PW 17 did not see the accused at the Railway Station at the arrival of the train as he went to the brake-van direct. it was not at all natural for the witness to follow the movements of the accused after he bad booked the cycle. There is. therefore, nothing unusual in his no noticing the accused later on the arrival of the train. We also find from the approver's evidence that the accused went to the Doctor of the Air Force on August 4 to show the burns on his hands. This fact is deposed to by PW 50, sergeant R.N Singh , who worked as a Medical Assistant in the Unit of the First Aid Post at the Air Force Unit. According to him the accused came to him on August 4. 1968. at about 7.00 A.M. and reported that both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one of other independent credible evidence, would give the needed assurance for acceptance of his testimony on which a con- viction may be based. The approver here was a constant companion of the accused. He was arrested along with the accused on August 13. He was in police custody till August 27 when he was sent to the jail thereafter. He wrote through the Jail Superintendent to the Magistrate on August 29 expressing willingness to give evidence as sultani gawa originally (King's witness). He was then granted conditional pardon on September 6 and was examined therefater as a prosecution witness. Every approver comes to give evidence in some such manner seeking to purchase his immunity and that is why to start with he is an unreliable person and the rule of caution calling for material corroboration is constantly kept in mind by the court by time-worn judicial practice. Ignoring for a moment that PW 5 is an approver, there is nothing in his evidence to show that his statement otherwise is unreliable, unnatural or improbable. There is nothing to show that he had on any earlier occasion made any contradictory statement on any material point. It is true that an approver is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in material particulars. That acquittal, therefore cannot at all influence the decision against the present accused when the approver's evidence is amply corroborated in material particulars against him. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision, of this Court in Lalta and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ([1969] 2 S.C.R. 526) to support his submission that on the principle of issue-estoppel conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained because of the acquittal of Bhanu Parkash Singh, a co-accused, although in a separate trial. The crux of the principle of issue-estoppel may be stated in the words of Dixon, J. in The King vs. Wilkes, (77 C.L.R. 511 at 518) as follows Whilst there is not a great deal of authority upon the subject, it appears to me that there is nothing wrong in the view that there is an issue estoppel, if it appears by record of itself or as explained by proper evidence, that the same point was determined in favour of a prisoner in a previous criminal trial which is brought in issue on a second criminal trial of the same prisoner........ There must be a prior proceeding determined against the Crown necessarily involving an issue which a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Once the evidence of Sampat has been rejected by the court it should not be made a basis for judging the veracity of other evidence by the yardstick of that unreliable evidence. The Trial Court fell into that error. Again the reason given by the Trial Court for the rejection of the evidence of the Ticket Collector is also tenuous. There is no reason why the Ticket Collector would spin a story of his own if not given by the accused, particularly so when, even according to the,.-Trial Court, it does not fit in with the number of tickets actually needed for the journey. This absence of any attempt at padding of the evidence goes rather to establish the truth of the testimony of the Ticket Collector. The Ticket Collector only established the presence of the accused at Bhiwani Railway Station coming by the connecting train for Sirsa-Bhatinda. Because of these patent infirmities in the approach of the case and appreciation of the evidence, the High Court was right in interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. It is true that in an appeal against acquittal the High Court will be slow in interfering with the findings of the Trial Court which has the opportunity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
