Harjinder
Singh state of Punjab Vs. Karnail Singh & Orskarnail
Singh & Ors [1998] INSC 157 (6 March 1998)
G.T.
Nanavati, S.P. Kurdukar Nanavati. J.
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
WITH CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO.785 OF 1989
Both
these appeals arise out of the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
in Criminal Appeal No.59 of 1986. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside
the conviction and acquitted the respondents who were tried by the court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, in Sessions Case No. 26 of 1984.
The
three respondents were also tried along with six others in Sessions Case No.15
of 1984 for the same offences but on a complaint field by the injured victim Harjinder
Singh. As the two versions were totally different and the witnesses cited and
number of accused were also different, this Court had on an appeal filed by the
complainant Harjinder Singh, directed the two cases to be tried separately. In
both these cases the accused were tried for committing murders of Major Singh, Jit
Singh, Dayal Singh, Nazir Singh and Nachhattar Singh and for causing an injury
to Harjinder Singh. In Sessions Case No.26 of 1984, the learned Judge convicted
all the three accused (the three respondents in these appeals) under section
302 read with 34 IPC. In Sessions Case No.15 pf 1984 the convicted six accused
including the three respondents and acquitted the remaining three. The High
Court acquitted all the six convicted accused. Aggrieved by their acquittal in
the police case, the complainant Harjinder Singh and the State have filed these
appeals.
On the
basis of the same incident, same FIR, same investigation and same witnesses as
many as 19 persons including complainant Harjinder Singh were tried for the
offences punishable under Sections 147,353,447 and 307 read with 149 IPC in
Sessions Case No.9 of 1984. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted 8
accused and acquitted the remaining 11. In appeal (Criminal Appeal No.91-SB of
1986) the High Court confirmed their convection but reduced their sentence to
the period already undergone. In the appeal filed by those accused we have held
the neither the FIR was recorded truly not the investigation was conducted
fairly and even at the trial the accused had not received fair treatment at the
hands of the prosecution. Taking that view and disbelieving the evidence of
three police witness (who were examined as eye-witnesses in this case also) and
that of the two Investigating Officers we have allowed that appeal today by a
separate judgment and set aside the conviction of those convicted accused.
The
three policemen, Head Constable Chanan Singh, Constable Karnail Singh and
Constable Pawan Kumar, who were examined as eye-witnesses, deposed before the
Court consistently with the FIR lodged by Head Constable Chanan Singh and
further stated that the three respondents had fired at Harjinder Singh and his
companions in order to save themselves. The trial court had rightly held that
the said version given by those witnesses was not true and the whole incident
had not really happened in the manner stated by them. The trial court relying
upon the admission of the respondents that they had fired shots at Harjinder
Singh and his companions and the falsity of their defence as indicated by the
medical evidence and other circumstances held that the accused had failed to
establish that they had caused the deaths of those five persons in exercise of
the right of private defence. The trial court, therefore, held them guilty
under section 304/34 IPC for causing murder of each of those five deceased. However,
no separate punishment was imposed upon them as they were also convicted along
with six others in Sessions Case No.15 of 1984 under section 302 read with 34
IPC for the murders of those five deceased persons and were sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for life.
The
High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the respondents
as it was of the view that in absence of any substantive it was not permissible
to convict them under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. The High Court held that
the trial court by disbelieving the three policemen who were examined as
eye-witnesses and also disbelieving the plea of private defence raised by the
accused could not have legally convicted the respondents under section 302 read
with 34 IPC. There was nothing in the evidence of the eye- witnesses on the
basis of which the respondents could have been held guilty for causing the
murders of those five persons. On the contrary their evidence supported the defence
version. The respondents had merely stated in the statements under Section Cr.
P.C. that they had fired shots in self-defence without admitting that any of
their shots had hit anyone from the opposite party. There was no material
before the Court on the basis of which it was possible to say who had caused whose
death. There was no material before the Court on the basis of which it could
have been said that while firing shots from the guns they were acting in
furtherance of their common intention. Thus in absence of any reliable evidence
it was not proper to convict the respondents in this case for causing the
deaths of those five persons. The High Court was, therefore, right in setting
aside their conviction and acquitting them. As the FIR was recorded,
investigation was carried out and the trial was conducted in such a way that it
was bound to result into an acquittal of the respondents, we hold that the
acquittal of the respondents in this case shall have no bearing on the
conclusion that can be lawfully reached in appeal arising out of the complaint
case. As we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment of the High Court is
cored, these appeals are dismissed.
Back