Criminal Appeal No. 133 of 1970
Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment – 16/04/1975
Judgment delivered by Justice Fazal Ali
This Special leave appeal preferred from the judgment and order dated the 21st January, 1970 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 318 of 1967 by the appellant Balaka Singh(first appellant), Joginder Singh, Pritam Singh, Darbar Singh and Jarnail Singh
The Session Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of The IPC and and other accused under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 149 of the IPC. On appeal, the High Court affirmed the conviction of the above mentioned appellants and acquitted the remaining four accused on the ground that the name of the acquitted four accused was mentioned on the top of the inquest report not in the body of the inquest report and it was an addition made by the police sub-inspector to help the prosecution.
The convicted five accused preferred appeal before Honourable Supreme Court of India.
Prosecution Story in Short:
There were inimical terms between a cousin of the deceased, who acted as his body guard and the first appellant and his party. Before the occurrence of this incident, cousin of the deceased was the chief prosecution witness of the case in which the first appellant was charged with an offence of murder. However, in that case appellant was acquitted by the High Court. Before the occurrence of this incident, the appellant filed an application under Section 107 of the CrPC against the cousin of the deceased and his party which created fresh grouse between both the parties. On the day of occurrence, it was alleged, that the cousin of the deceased saw the appellant and other 8 accused persons going towards the house of the deceased with deadly weapons. All the nine persons entered the house of the deceased and attacked him. The deceased was alleged to have fallen dead with the spear blow of the first appellant. When the wife of the deceased came to protect her husband she also got injured by the accused persons.
Point noted by the Honourable Supreme Court:
(1) The prosecution case against the five appellant has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court had given cogent and substantial reasons for acquitting the four accused but in that process it had given a finding which is completely destructive of the entire prosecution case itself. When once it is established that the names of the four accused were deliberately added in the inquest report at the instance of the prosecution, there is no guarantee regarding the truth about the participation of the other five accused persons in assault of the deceased. If the prosecution could go to that extent of implicating four innocent persons by insetting their names in the inquest report and in the F.I.R., they, could very well have put in the names of the other five appellants also because they were inimical to the prosecution party.
(2)Under the High Court circulars and Police rules it was incumbent upon the police to send a copy of the F.I.R. to the Ilaqa Magistrate immediately. In the instant case the F.I.R. which was recorded at 10 P.M. on the day of the occurrence reached the Ilaqa Magistrate at 11 A.M. on the following day. It is, therefore, clear that the F.I.R. was a belated document. If this were so, then , there was sufficient time for the prosecution party, who were undoubtedly inimical to the accused, to deliberate and prepare a false case not only against the fourth accused but also against the five appellants.
In view of the circumstances and the evidence discussed above, it is clear that prosecution case against five appellant has also not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the manner in which the F.I.R. and the inquest report have been made throws considerable doubt on the complicity of the five appellant in the crime. The result is that the appeal is allowed and the order of the conviction and the sentence passed on all the appellants is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them and are directed to be released forthwith. Appeal allowed.