DATAR SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1974] 2 S.C.R. 808 · Decided: 19-12-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

808 
DATAR SINGH 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB 
December 19, 1973. 
(M. H. BEG AND Y. V. CttANDRACHUD, JJ.) 
J 11ditu1 Penal Code-S. 302 read with Ss. 25 and 21 of the Arms Act-Appel-
lant conricted fol' n111rdering his own fatller--G'oncurrent 
finding of facts-
·w1tetlzer can be rei•iewed wizen there is indicatio11 of a serious miscarriagr of 
justh'e, · 
A 
B 
. The appellant was convicted u/s. 302 l.P.C. by the Sessions' Judge for murder-
ing his father and sentenced to death. The High Court accepted the death sen-
tence and dismissed his appeal. He was also convicted for an alleged · illegal 
possession of a gun and his convictions and sentences under secs. 25 and 27·of the 
C 
Arms Act were upheld by the High Court. The prosecution case was that the 
deceased was a wealthy landlord whose s,ister was the Maharani of Patiala. 
He 
h<id executed a wilt in favour of his wife and two sons on 24-8-1967. He cancelled 
this will and executed another in favour of his sister, Rani Prem Kaur, on 
18-4-1968 and got it registered at a place called Dburi, probably because P.W. 1, 
a friend of the deceased, was the Sub Registrar there. The deceased also alienated 
some property to a minor son of P.W. 1 sometime before 'the murder. The elder 
son of deceased had filed u JUit to pre-empt this sale and the suit was pending 
D 
nt the time of the occurrence. The relation betw~en the deceased, his wife aild 
children were strained and this background was said to provide the motive for 
murder. It is alleged that ·the appellant, on the day of occurrence, had entered 
the room, where the decea·sed was sitting with 2 of his friends, 
P.W. 1 and 
P.W. 2, in the blazing light of electricity and had shot his father with a gun. 
Before this Court, the appellarit raised several questions of law and contended 
that there has been a miscarriage of justice because the Courts below have ignored 
certain basic defects in the prosecution version .and misread Ute evidence. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, 
H·ELD : (i) It is not the practice of this Court in appeal by special leave te 
disturb concurrent findings of fact unless the case discloses some exceptional fea-
tures indicating 'that a serious .mis-carriage of justice has taken place. [809 G-HJ 
(ii) In criminal cases, it· is often difficult for courts of law to arrive- at the 
real truth. 
The judicial process can only operate· on h.c firm foundations of actual 
and credible evidence on record. 
Mere suspicion or suspicious circumstances can-
not relieve ihe prosecution' of its primary duty of proving its case against an accus-
ed person bi::yond reasonable doubt. Courts of justice cannot be swayed by senti. 
ment or prejudice againSt a person accused of the very reprehensible crime of 
patricide. 
If the pieces of evidence on which the prosecution choses to rest its 
case are so brittle that they crumble easily, the superstructure built on such 
insecure foundations also collapses. 
[810EJ 
(iii) The super-structure of the prosecution' case rests on the testimony of 
two alleged eye-witnesses whose evidence is not only of an inherently unreliable 
nature because of features disclosed by evidence, but the artificial and incredible 
versions of the shooting put forward by them are to0 unnatural to be accepted. 
(iv) P.W. 1 gave a false explanation to accept for his presence at the hoase 
of the deceased on the evening of 22-2-1970. 
He admitted, at the trial that be 
gave false information as to when he left for Patiala, but he pleaded that he did 
so at the instance of the S.D.O. who had put pressure on him not to tive evidence 
in the prosecution case against the appellant. 
If, as be h~d. admitted_. be was 
capable of making a false staten1ent under such pressure. 1t 1s not possible to des-
cribe this witness as thoroughly reliable. It is also difficult to believe that 8!1 
S.D.0. witl put pressure upon a Naib Tehsildar workiD;g under him 
tt;> 
commit 
perjury. 
Therefore, the testimony of the wi!ness is ~nherently. unrehab.le. 
He 
was both a chance witness and one who admitted having committed pefJUTY· 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
() 
E 
DATA!t SINGH v. PUNJAB (Beg, 1,) 
809 
(v) It is also difficult to b:lieve that P.W. 2, another eye-witness, who came ID 
the house of the deceased by chance, was really present at the time ef the occnr-
rence. Although this witness- did not tell ~ dclitierate lie but he bad written . a.. 
letter, exhibit 'X', wherein lte stated that he had not witnessed the murder at all.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.