DHANAJ SINGH @ SHERA AND ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 938 · Decided: 10-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DHANAJ SINGH @ SHERA AND ORS. 
v. 
ST A TE OF PUNJAB 
f\1ARCH 10, 2004 
B 
[DORAIS W AMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYA T, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: 
Section 157-Investigation-Procedure for-Defective investigation-
C Effect on prosecution's case-Held: Even if the investigation was defective, 
that pales into insignificance where ocular testimony was found credible and 
cogent-In the case of defective investigation Court should be circumspect in 
evaluating the evidence-Therefore, accused should not be acquitted solely on 
account of defective investigation-Constitution of India, Article 136. 
D 
E 
F 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
Section 45-0pinion of Experts-Blood stained earth not sent for 
chemical examination-Weapon of assault and pellets also not sent for ballistic 
examination-Effect on prosecution's case-Held: Not fatal-Criminal Trial. 
According to the prosecution, the appellants-accused with fire arms 
reach.ed the spot of occurrence and threatened that they would teach a 
lesson to the complainant party for committing the murder of their 
relations. The appellants chased the deceased and fired three shots killing 
him. After the appellants departed, one of the complainants, PW-3, was 
left at the spot to guard the dead body. The other complainant, PW-2, 
reported the matter to the police. But the police charge-sheeted the 
complainants, suspecting them to be the murderers but they were 
subsequently acquitted by the trial court. In the meantime, PW-2 filed a 
complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging that the 
Investigating Officer (IO) had made out a case as ifthe complainants were 
G the murderers in order to shield the appellants. Ultimately, the trial court 
convicted the appellants and the High Court upheld the conviction. The 
High Court found overall disturbing features as to how the IO had made 
out a new case to save the accused persons and implicate the complainant 
party. Hence the appeal. 
H 
938 
-
DHANAJ SINGH@ SHERA v. ST ATE OF PUNJAB 
939 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the police after A 
thorough investigation had concluded that it was the complainant party 
which caused the death of the deceased; that the pellets, wads and 
cartridges were not recovered from the spot; that the weapons of assault 
were not sent for ballistic examination; that the blood stained earth was 
not sent for chemical examination; that many persons who could have 
thrown light on the incident had not been exam:.1e<J; and that the evidence B 
of PWs. 2 and 3 being that of highly interested and inimical persons should 
have been discarded. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the case of a defective investigation the Court has to C 
be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in 
acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would 
tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the 
investigation is designedly defective. (942-E-F] 
Karan Singh v. State of MP., (1995) 5 SCC 518, Paras Yadav v. State 
of Bihar, [1999) 2 SCC 126 and Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1998) 
4 sec 517' relied on. 
1.2. Even if the investigation is defective that pales into insignificance 
D 
when ocular testimony is found credible and cogent. [943-C) 
E 
Amar Singh v. Ba/winder Singh, [2003) 2 SCC 518, relied on. 
2. Both the trial Court and the High Court have analysed the 
evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 with due care and caution keeping in view the 
correct legal principles and have found the accused persons guilty. Hence F 
there is no scope for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. 
[943-D-E) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 941 
of 2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.1.2003 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in Crl. A. No. 633-DB of 2000. 
A.T.M. Ranganujam, B.S. Jain for Shankar Diwate for the Appellants. 
G 
Bimal Roy Jad. Ms. Sunita Pandit, A.P.S. Deol, Manjit Dalal and Kamal H 
940 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 2 S.C.R. 
·A Mohan Gupta for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. There are some unusual cases when the 
complainant himself is treated as an accused and made to suffer a trial. The 
B present appeal is a case of that nature. But the persons against whom he made 
accusations subsequently faced trial, and are the accused so for as the present 
appeal is concerned. The appellants have been convicted for offence punishable
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.