LexDARYA SINGH AND OTHERS versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
a $.C.R..
SUPREME COUR 1' REPORTS
a91
In Krishna Das Roy v. The Land Acquisition
Collector of Pabna ('), the Calcutta High Court, on
the other hand, seems to have taken the view and we
think, rightly, that if the owner wants to make an
application expressing his desire under s. 49 (1 ), he
has to make that application some time before the
award is actually made.
The result is, the appeal is allowed, the order
passed by the High Court is set aside and that of the
District Judge restored. There will be no order as to
costs.
Appeal all~.
DARYA SINGH AND OTHERS
v.
ST ATE OF PUNJAB
(P. B. G..1.JENDRAGADKA.R, K. N. WANOHOO,
and K. C. DAS GUPTA JJ.)
Criminal Trial-Murder-Eye wit11eBse8 relativeA of t4e
Vietim-J;tiidence of interested and hostile wit11ts•eA-Neculity
of corroboration-Exercise of powers of the court under s. 5'9 of
the Code ofCriminal Procwure-Indian Penal Code (Act }(LV
of 1860) s. 302-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (.4.et 6 of
1898), ... 172, 640.
The appellants alongwith their brother Ratti Ram were
alleged to have committed the ·murder of Inder Singh by inflict·
ing 1erious injuries with lathi and gandasa. The prosecution
case was that while he was being assaulted, lnder Sin h raised
an alaram, upon which his brother Dalip Singh (P.W.2), his
wife Dharam Devi (P.W.4) and his son Shamsher Singh
(P.W.3) rushed to the scene of the offence but out of fear they
had not the courage to go to the rescue of the victim. After
(1) (llllt Ii CJ; W, N. U7,
IHS
Stal• of Billar
••
Ku.U. SU.zh
G•j1nita11t/Ur J.
196>
Af>ri 125.
,
19'9
Al1rya SinKh
••
St4t1 of .,11njab
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] \rot.
the assailants left the place, they went near him and found him
dead. An information was lodged and after investigation the
appellants alongwith their brother were put on trial before the
SessionsJudge for an offence under s. 302 read withs. 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, as a result of which Ratti Ram was
acquitted and the appellants were convicted and sentenced to
imprisonment for life. On appeal, the High Court confirmed
the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants. ·The
State appeal challenging the acquittal of Ratti Ram was also
dismissed. On appeal by special leave the appellants contended
that in law the evidence of interested and hostile witnesses
cannot be accepted without corroboration and, therefore, the
High Court errecl in accepting the evidence of the three eye-
witnesses.
Held that on principle it is difficult to accept the plea
that if a witness is shown to be a relative of the deceased and It
is also shown that he shared the hostility of the victim towards
the assailant his evidence can never be accepted unless it is
corroborated on material particulaN. It would be impossible
to hold that such witnesses are no better than accomplices and
that their evidence, as a matter of law, must receive corrobora-
tion before it is accepted. That is not to say that the evidence
of such witnesses should be accepted light-heartedly without
very close and careful examination.
If the offence has taken place, as in the present case, in
front of the house of the victim, the fact that on hearing his
shouts, his relations rushed out of the house cannot be ruled
out as being improbable, and so, the presence of the three
eye-witnesses cannot be properly characterised as unlikely.
Rameshwar v. The State of Raja•than, [1952] S.C.R. 377 ;
Lackman Singh v. The State, [1952] S.C.R. 839, Karnail Singh
v. The State of Punjah, [1954] S.C.R. 904 and Vaikunt&m
Ohandrappa v. The State of Andhra Prade8h, A.J.R. 1960 S.C.
1340, held inapplicable.
Held further, that the powers of the court under s. 540
can and ought to be exercised in the interests of justice when-
ever the court feels that the interests •if justice so require, but
that does not mean that the failure of the court to have exercised
its powers under s. 540 has introduced a serious infirmity in the,
trial itself.
In the present case,
there is no . justification for the
as.umption that any eye-witness has been kept back from the
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
399
court, and so, the case cannot be sent back on the hypothetical
ground that the scrutiny of the police diary may disclose the
presence of an independent eye witness. The appeal therefore,
must be dismissed.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
Appeal No. 27 of 1962.
Appeal by special leave from the judgmentExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.