Gurdev Singh &
Ors. Vs. State of Punjab [2008] INSC 2125 (10 December 2008)
Judgment
CRIMINAL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.977 OF 2000 Gurdev Singh & Ors.
...Appellant(s) Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent(s) With Criminal Appeal
No.101 of 2001
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel
for the parties.
All the three
appellants of Criminal Appeal No.977 of 2000, namely, Gurdev Singh, Harpal
Singh and Jugraj Singh, along with two respondents of Criminal Appeal No.101 of
2001, namely, Balbir singh and Ajmer Singh, were tried and, by judgment
rendered by the Trial Court, were acquitted of all the charges. On appeal being
preferred by the State of Punjab, High Court upheld the order of acquittal in
relation to accused Balbir Singh and Ajmer Singh whereas convicted appellants
of Criminal Appeal No.977 of 2000 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the
Indian penal code, 1860, and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for life and to pay fine of Rupees five thousand each; in default, to undergo
further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Against the order of
acquittal, Criminal Appeal No.101 of 2001 has been filed on behalf of the State
of Punjab whereas three convicted accused persons have filed Criminal Appeal
No.977 of 2000 challenging their conviction.
Conviction of the
appellants of Criminal Appeal No.977 of 2000 is based upon the evidence of two
eye-witnesses, namely P.W.2 [Balaur Singh] and P.W.3 [Chand Singh]. We have
been taken through the evidence of these witnesses and, according to us, they
have consistently supported the prosecution case disclosed in the First
....2/- -2- Information Report as well as police statements made by them on
material particulars. In our view, the Trial Court was not justified in
refusing to place reliance upon their evidence on minor contradictions.
Having perused the
judgements rendered by the two courts below, we are of the view that the
judgement of acquittal in relation to accused Gurdev Singh, Harpal singh and
Jugraj Singh suffered from the vice of perversity; as such, the High Court was
quite justified in interfering with the same. So far as accused Balbir Singh
and Ajmer Singh are concerned, it appears that the view taken by the Trial
Court was a possible one and benefit of doubt could have been given to them; as
such, the High Court confirmed the same. We are of the view that the
prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt against
accused Gurdev Singh, Harpal Singh and Jugraj Singh. The order of acquittal and
its confirmation by the High Court in relation to accused Balbir Singh and
Ajmer Singh cannot be said to be perverse in any manner. In view of these
facts, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. In the
result, the appeals fail and the same are dismissed.
Bail bonds of the
three appellants of Criminal Appeal No.977 of 2000, namely, Gurdev Singh,
Harpal Singh and Jugraj Singh, who are on bail, are cancelled and they are
directed to be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining period
of sentence for which the matter must be reported to this Court within one
month from the date of receipt/ production of copy of this order.
......................J.
[B.N. AGRAWAL]
......................J.
[G.S. SINGHVI]
New
Delhi,
December
10, 2008.
Back
Pages: 1 2 3