Singh Vs. State of Punjab  INSC 141 (3 March 1998)
Nanavati, V.N. Khare Nanavati. J.
appeal is filed by the convicted accused against the judgment of the Punjab
& Haryana High Court in Crl.A. No. 57 of 1988 dismissing his appeal against
the judgment of the Sessions Court, Bhatinda in Sessions Case No. 108 of 1986.
appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC for causing death of Balwant
Kaur. The incident happened in the house of Balwant Kaur. To prove the case,
the prosecution had examined her two sons Daya Singh and Kulwant Singh who have
stated that the appellant along with another Nachhattar Singh had killed their
mother by giving blows with kulhari and gandasa. The trial court believed the
evidence of both those witnesses and convicted both the accused. On appeal the
High Court, though believed the presence of two eye witnesses at the time of
the incident gave benefit of doubt to the second accused on the ground that he
had no reason or motive to kill Balwant Kaur. It is difficult to appreciate the
reasoning of the High Court in this behalf but as he has been acquitted and
there is no appeal by the State, it is not necessary to point out how that
finding is not correct.
High Court has held that both Daya Singh and Kulwant Singh were present in the
house at the time of the incident. Their presence in their own house at that
time was quite natural. If they were present in their house then obviously they
could have seen the assault on their mother by the appellant. Both the courts
below have thought it proper to accept their evidence and we see no reason to
differ from the finding recorded in that behalf.
contention raised on behalf of the appellant was that the witnesses could not
have been in their house at the time when the incident tool place. It was late
evening time and therefore their returning to the house from their shop at that
time cannot be regarded as unnatural or improbable.
are of the view that the High Court was right in confirming the conviction of
the appellant on the basis of the evidence of the two eye witnesses this appeal
has to be dismissed.
appeal is, therefore, dismissed. During the pendency of the appeal the
appellant was released on bail.
bail is cancelled and he is ordered to surrender to custody to serve out the
remaining part of the sentence.