LexAMAR SINGH versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 751 AMAR SINGH v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) (Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 2015) OCTOBER 12, 2020 [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w. s. 34 – Murder – Prosecution case is that when the victim/deceased along with his two brothers, PW-1 and PW-11 was moving on foot towards a taxi stand at about 10.00 pm. – Three accused persons attacked the victim with hockeys and a knife – When PW-1 and PW-11 tried to rescue their brother, all the three accused persons brandished their hockeys and knife and warned that whosoever will come to save victim will also be killed – Later, victim was taken to hospital and he was declared dead by the doctor – The trial Court convicted the accused persons u/s.302 IPC r/w. s.34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment – Before the High Court, inter-alia, it was contended that the prosecution case was based on eye witness on account of the incident, however, PW-11 and PW-5 did not support the prosecution case and thus it was not safe to rely upon the solitary evidence of the sole remaining eye witness PW-1 – However, the High Court found that the trial Court did not suffer from any infirmity or perversity and dismissed the appeal – On appeal, held: PW-11 and PW-5 turned hostile – The finding of guilt of the accused appellants is based on sole testimony of eye witness PW-1 – The assailants were only armed with hockey sticks and a knife and not with any firearms – The two brothers (PW-1 and PW-11) present on the spot did not make slightest attempt to intervene and save their brother when he was getting assaulted – This unnatural conduct against natural human behaviour casts a serious doubt of shadow on the presence of eye witness on the spot at the time of occurrence – Further, doctor who prepared the MLC stated in his evidence that one dead body was brought in the casualty of hospital by a head constable, which casts doubts on the prosecution story that two brothers of deceased accompanied him to the hospital – Also, there is material discrepancy between ocular testimony and medical [2020] 8 S.C.R. 751 751 A B C D E F G H 752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 8 S.C.R. evidence – As there were 15 injuries inflicted on the victim as per medical report and PW-1 stated that whole incident lasted 5 minutes – It is practically impossible to inflict 15 injuries within a short span of 5 minutes – This fact coupled with the fact that two brothers remained mute spectators when the third brother-victim was being assaulted in clear indication that PW-1 was not present on the spot and not an eye-witness to the incident – Therefore, the reasons given by the Courts below for convicting the appellants for the alleged offences are not convincing – The appellants must be given benefit of doubt – Thus, the impugned orders of the Courts below are set aside. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD:1. The assailants were only armed with hockey sticks and a knife and not with any firearms. It seems very unnatural that two brothers present on the spot will not even make slightest attempt to intervene and try to save the other brother being assaulted, merely on the threat extended by the assailants armed with hockey sticks and a knife. This unnatural conduct totally against natural human behaviour casts a serious doubt of shadow on the presence of eye witness on the spot at the time of occurrence. Moreover, the facts stated by PW-1 in this regard, as already discussed above, has not been corroborated by the other brother PW-11. [Para 20][761-E-F] 2. The other unnatural conduct of two brothers PW-1 and PW-11 just after the incident again makes their presence on the spot extremely doubtful. There was a medical clinic just nearby the place of incident and the first endeavour of the two brothers would have been to take injured brother to the clinic for immediate medical aid or try and get some medical aid from the clinic. Admittedly, according to the statement of PW-1 PCR Van arrived after about 15 minutes. During this period no effort was made to either take the injured brother to the clinic or to call the doctor for some first aid. This is totally against normal human behaviour. [Para 21][761-G-H; 762-A-B] 3. According to the prosecution story the two brothers, PW-1 and PW-11 accompanied the injured to the Hospital in the PCR Van and were present during his medical examination. A B C D E F G H 753 However, a perusal of the MLC Ex. PW-17/A filed in Volume- II of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.