State of
Punjab Vs. Sarup Singh [1997] INSC 869 (27
November 1997)
G.T.
NANAVATI, V.N. KHARE
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
THE
27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 Present:
Hon'ble
Mr. Justice G.T. Nanavati Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.N. Khare R.S. Sodhi, Kuldip
Singh, Advs. for the appellant Sudhir Walia, Adv. for Prem Malhotra, Adv. for
the Respondent
The
following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
Nanavati.
J.
The
State is challenging acquittal of the respondent in this appeal.
The
respondent was tried for the murder of Kulwinder Singh and the trial court
relying upon the evidence of Kulwinder Kaur - PW 5 and Gian Singh - PW 4 which
proved that the accused and the deceased were last seen together and t he
evidence of recovery of currency notes and wrist watch of the deceased, on the
basis of a declaration made by the accused, held him guilty. The appellant was
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
The
High Court held that Gian Singh was chance witness and therefore it was risky
to rely upon his evidence without any corroboration. The High Court also held
that idently of currency notes and the wrist watch was not established by the proesecution
beyond doubt and therefore it was not possible to say that they belonged to the
deceased. The High Court, therefore, acquitted the respondent.
After
going through the evidence what we find is that the recovery of money and the
wrist watch stated to be of the deceased were recovered by the Investigating
officer in presence of Amar Singh - PW 10 - Maternal grandfather of t he
deceased. Thus, the recovery was not in presence of any independent person. It
was for this reason that the High Court did not think it safe to place any
reliance on the recovery evidence. The evidence of PW 5 - Kulwinder Kaur even
if believed only establishes that the accused and the deceased left together at
5.00 p.m. on 18.2.85. From that circumstance
alone no inference can be drawn that the respondent had committed the murder of
Kulwinder Singh.
We
therefore see no good reason to interfere with the acquittal order passed by
the High Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Back
