LexDALBIR KAUR & ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G DALBIR KAUR & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB August 20, 1976 [A. C. GUPTA AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.) Constitution of India-Article 136-Practice and procedure-W Ii ether a court of criminal appeal-Whether can interfere with concurrent findings of fact -interference when grave and substantial injustice. Indian Penal Code-Section 302-Non-examination of eye wimesses-ln- terested witnesses-Meaning of-Necessity of examining independent witnesses- Motive-Delay in lodging FIR and despatch to Magistrate-Identification parade, necessity of. The deceased Ajaib Singh had two sons, Dalbir Singh and Amir Singh. Dalbir Singh along with his wife Mrs. Dalbir Kaur and Mrs. Dalbir Kaur's brother Ajit Singh and her cousin, Puraon Singh were charged with having committed the murder of Ajaib Singh and Amir Singh. A partition had taken place between Ajaib Singh, Dalbir Singh and Amir Singh. After the partition Dalbir Singh separated and lived in a separate portion of the same house wherea.s Ajaib Singh and Amir Singh lived jointly. Mrs. Jaswant Kaur, the wife of Amir Singh had delivered a child and, therefore, her mother Shiv Kaur was in the house to look after Jaswant Kaur and the child. As the newly born child was not well, both Jaswant Kaur and her mother were awake at that time and electric bulb was burning in the courtyard. Ajaib Singh was sleeping near the stable outside the house and Amir Singh was sleeping in the house. All the male appellants were armed with kirpans and Mis. Dalbir Kaur was armed with datar. They went to the house of Ajaib Singh at about 1.00 A.M. Dalbir Singh had altercation with his father Ajaib Singh and expressed his dissatisfaction over the partition of the lands and asked his father and brother to get ready to meet the consequences and to call anybody for help if they liked. Thereupon Dalbir Singh gave a kirpan blow on the left jaw of Ajaib Singh and Mrs. Dalbir Kaur gave a datar blow on his right shoulder while Ajit Singh and Puran Singh gave kirpa·n blows on his chest. Thereafter, the appellants proceeded to the cot of Amir Singh who was caught hold of by Dalbir Singh and Puran Singh. Ajit Singh gave a kirpan blow on his right leg while Mrs. Dalbir Singh gave a datar blow on his left shoulder. Da·lbir Singh and Puran Singh thereafter dragged Amir Singh and put him over the body of Ajaib Singh and thereafter all the appel- lants caused further injuries to Amir Singh and Ajaib Singh. Both of them died on the spot. J aswant Kaur and Shiv Kaur raised alarm but they were threatened to keep quiet a6 a result of which those two helpless ladies shut themselves up in one of the rooms. Some time early morning the appellants left the house. Jaswant Kaur narrated the incident to Mukhtiar Singh and Mohinder Singh and ultimately left with Mohinder Singh and lodged the first information report at the police station which is about six miles awa~ at 9.00 a.m. The Sessions Court convicted the appellants under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the male appellants to death sentence and to the female appellant to imprisonment for life. In a-ppeals and confirmation pro- ceedings, the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. In an appeal by special leave, the appellants contended : 1. Since the special leave is granted, the appellants are entitled to argue H a-11 the questions of law and facts. 2. The only eye-witnesses, namely, Mrs. Jaswant Kaur and Mrs. Shiv Kaur are the interested witnesses and, therefore, their evidence should not be accepted. \ !D!l.LBIR KAUR V. l'UNJAB 2 81 3. No indepeadent witness has been examined to prove the recoveries. 4. There was no evidence of motive for the murder. 5. The prosecution case should be thrown out because of the n?n·exami· nation of four material witnesses, Mohinder Sing~, J?ayal Smgh w~o are alleged to have watched the .assau1t and Mukhtiar Smgh and Moh111· der Singh who went to the house after the assault was over. 6. There was delay in the lodging of the first information report and also in its despa.tch to the Magistrate. · 7. Jaswant Kaur and Shiv Kaur gave graphic description of the occur· rence by detailing the nature of injuries and t~e parts. of the body where they were inflicted. Such a photographic descnpt10n smacks of the evidence being tainted one. ' A B 8. The case of Ajit Singh· deserves special consideration. Shi.v Ka~lT
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.