LexDARBARA SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2012) 7 S.C.R. 541 DARBARA SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB (Criminal Appeal No. 404 of 2010) SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] A B Criminal trial - Evidence - Inconsistency between medical evidence and ocular evidence - Effect of - Conviction of C appellant u/s.302 /PC - Challenge to - Defence plea that the manner in which appellant had been accused· of causing injury to the deceased was not at all possible because the medical evidence was not in consonance with the ocular evidence - Held: Not tenable - In the event of contradictions D between medical and ocular evidence, the ocular testimony of a witness will have greater evidentiary value vis-a-vis medical evidence and when medical evidence makes the oral testimony improbable, the same becomes a relevant factor in the process of evaluation of such evidence - It is only when E the contradiction between the two is so extreme that the medical evidence completely rules out all possibilities of the ocular evidence being true at all, that the ocular evidence is · liable to be disbelieved - In the instant case, the prosecution case was that upon seeing the accused, the deceased started F running and injuries were inflicted upon him by appellant and another accused - If the entire evidence with respect to the method and manner of causing injuries, is conjointly read, it is clear that the ocular evidence was in conformity and in consonance with the available medical evidence - The G deceased attempted to run upon the apprehension that, he would be attacked, and it was exactly at this time that the appellant caused injury to his head using a Kirpan - This explains the reason for the direction of such injury extending 541 H 542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R. A from the upper to the lower part of the back of the deceased - Had it been the case that the deceased was not running at the said time, the direction of the injury would have in all likelihood been straight - Penal Code, 1860 - s.302. 8 Criminal trial - Motive - Relevance of - Held: Motive has great significance in a case involving circumstantial evidence, but where direct evidence is available, which is worth relying upon, motive loses its significance - In a case where direct evidence of witnesses can be relied upon, the absence of C motive cannot be a ground to reject the case. Criminal trial - Defect in framing of charges - Effect - Conviction of appellant u/s.302 /PC - Chaflenge to - Defence plea that as appellant was never charged u/s.302 r/w 34 /PC, unless it was established that the injury caused by the D appellant on the head of the deceased, was sufficient to cause death, he ought not to have been convicted u/s. 302 /PC simp/icitor - Held: Not tenable - The defect in framing of the charges must be so serious that it cannot be covered ul ss.4641465 Cr.P.C., which provide that, an order of sentence E or conviction shall not be deemed to be invalid only on the ground that no charge was framed, or that there was some irregularity or omission or misjoinder of charges, unless the court comes to the conclusion that there was also, as a consequence, a failure of justice - The plea of prejudice has F to be in relation to investigation or trial, and not with respect to matters falling outside their scope - Once the accused is able to show that there has been serious prejudice caused to him, with respect to either of these aspects, and that the same has defeated the rights available to him under jurisprudence, G then the accused can seek benefit under the orders of the Court - In the instant case, the appellant was unable to show what prejudice, if any, was caused to him, even if charge under s.302 r/w 34 /PC was not framed against him - He was always fully aware of all the facts and he had, in fact, gone H alongwith two other accused with an intention to kill the DARBARA SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 543 deceased - Appellant caused grievous injury on the A deceased's head (a vital part of the body) with a kirpan - He clearly shared a common intention with the co-accused to kill the deceased - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.464 and 465. 8 The prosecution case was that accused 'K' and 'H' had gotten into a verbal feud with 'M' upon his refusal to give them liquor on credit basis, and that 15-20 minutes thereafter 'K' and 'H' returned alongwith the accused- appellant and upon instigat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.