State
of H.P. Vs. Sukhvinder Singh [2004] Insc 71
(4 February 2004)
N.Santosh
Hegde & B.P.Singh Santosh Hegde,J.
Respondent
herein was found guilty of offences punishable under sections 302, 449 and 324
IPC by the Sessions Judge, Solan, Himachal Pradesh and was sentenced to undergo
life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000 for the offence under section 302,
10 years' RI with a fine of Rs.5,000 for an offence under section 449 and one
year RI with a fine of Rs.4,000 under section 324. In an appeal filed by the
respondent, the High Court of Himachal Praesh, Simla, allowed the same, setting
aside the conviction and sentence. It is against the said judgment of the High Court,
the State of Himachal
Pradesh is in appeal
before us. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are:
The
respondent was originally engaged to be married to one Amarjit Kaur PW-6. For
some reason or the other, said engagement was broken and she was married to Ranjit
Singh PW-2 who is the younger brother of Respondent No.2. This was about 7
years prior to the date of the incident which was on the night of 27.9.1994.
Prosecution alleges that being angered by the fact that his engagement was
cancelled the respondent was constantly threatening PW-6 who was residing with
her husband in the same building but in another part separately from the
respondent. On 27.9.1994 at about 9.30 p.m., PW-6 allegedly went to her
parents' house which was situated close- by in another block and informed her
father Mohan Singh PW- 1 about her fear that she may be attacked by the
respondent, hence PW-1, his wife (since deceased) and two sons of PW-1 PWs.3
and 5 accompanied PW-6 to her house with an intention of spending the night
with their daughter. It is the case of the prosecution that PW-2 also came back
from his business later in the night and joined them. Prosecution further
alleges sometime later the respondent entered the house of PW-2, armed with a
dagger, and picked up a fight with PW-1 during which fight he stabbed PW-1 on
his thigh who then became unconscious.
Thereafter,
he allegedly stabbed the wife of PW-1 on the chest and escaped from the place
when PW-1's sons PWs.3 and 5 tried to intervene in the fight. Prosecution
alleges that Mohinder Kaur died on the spot and PW-1 was taken to the hospital
by their children where the doctor informed the jurisdictional Police about the
incident in question, and PW-10 the I.O. went to the hospital, recorded the
statement and a case was registered for offences, as stated above.
In
support of its case the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs.1, 3, 5
& 6 as eye-witnesses. Out of them PW- 2 did not support the prosecution
case as he turned hostile. The trial court accepted the evidence led by the
prosecution and convicted the respondent, as stated above, and in appeal the
High Court noticed certain serious discrepancies and contradictions in the
evidence of the prosecution, hence, it thought it not safe to rely on the
prosecution case to base a conviction. Accordingly, set aside the conviction and
sentence imposed on the respondent.
Mr.
J.S. Attri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State, contended that
the contradictions noticed by the High Court in the prosecution evidence are
minor in nature and the same have been considered by the trial court which felt
that these short comings in the prosecution case would not, in any manner,
weaken the prosecution case. He further contended in that background the High
Court erred in allowing the appeal solely on the basis of the said discrepancies
or contradictions.
The
learned counsel has taken us through the evidence in the case as also the
judgments of the two courts below. In our opinion, there is lot of doubt
surrounding the prosecution case from the very beginning itself as noticed by
the High Court.
PW-10,
the I.O. in his evidence clearly states that he received a telephonic message
from the doctor in the hospital, hence, he went to the hospital where he
recorded the statement of PW-1 which is now treated as an FIR in this case;
whereas PWs.3 and 5, the sons of the deceased, unequivocally state that they
went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint there. Nextly, it is seen
that there is also contradiction in the evidence of PW-1 and 5 in regard to
their going to the house of PW-6. While PW- 1 states that he along with his
wife and sons went along with PW-6 to her house on the date of the incident,
PW-5 clearly states that he was staying for the past one week before the
incident in the house of PW-6. We also notice from the evidence of PW-10 that
when he visited the place of incident, he noticed a blood-stained dagger lying
on the floor of the house which he did not bother to recover. According to this
I.O., the dagger in question was recovered at about 8 a.m. the next day in the presence of Panch witnesses but from
the evidence of PW-5, it is seen that the I.O. had recovered the dagger from
the place of incident on the very day of the incident itself. There is also
considerable doubt as to the genuineness of evidence given by PW-6 who attested
the seizure of the dagger. He states that he stays far away from the place of
the incident and when he heard about the incident in question, next morning he
visited the house of PW-2 and when he reached there, a number of people had
already gathered there and Police with the I.O. was also there. If that be the
case, we do not find any reason whatsoever why the I.O. had to wait for PW-6 to
come before making seizure of the dagger which he had noticed the previous
night itself.
The
respondent has come forward with the case that since the marriage of PW-6 with
PW-2 had been solemnised nearly 7 years earlier, there was no question of his
entertaining any malice in regard to the same as against PW-6; more so because
of the fact that she was married to his own brother. The suggestion made in the
cross examination and his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. shows
that he was also present when PW-5 went to the Police Station which is
supported by the evidence of PW-5. But surprisingly PW-10 had in his evidence
stated that the respondent never came to the Police Station. All these
contradictions give us an impression that the prosecution has not come out with
the truth.
The
High Court having considered the above contradictions and omissions came to the
conclusion that they are very serious ones casting doubt on the prosecution
case. We find no reason to disagree with this finding of the High Court.
For
the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
Back