JAGJIT SINGH @ JAGGA versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 559 · Decided: 18-01-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. VENKATARAMA REDDI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

JAGJ!T SINGH @ JAGGA 
V. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
JANUARY 18, 2005 
[P. VENKATARAMA REDD! AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 460 and 458 rlw 34-Murder of three 
persons-Out of the two accused, one absconded-Conviction of the other 
A 
B 
. accused i.e. appellant on the basis of testimony of child witness-On facts, C 
held, th'3 child witness implicated appellant at the prompting of her father-
Delay in recording of evidence of the child witness, not explained-No motive 
for appellant to kill his own uncle-It is possible that the offence was committed 
by the other accused-Also there was nothing to connect appellant with the 
recfJvery made from the place of occurrence-Hence, appellant entitled to 
benefit of doubt. 
D 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 376-Rape-Chargefor, not.framed-Also 
no evidence suggesting commission of the offence-Conviction set aside. 
PW5-the father of appellant and his brothers had installed a tube-
well on their agricultural lands. For cultivation of the lands, they had E 
engaged 'S' who alongwith his wife, daughter 'J' and servant 'RB' resided 
at the tube-well itself. 
According to prosecution, on the fateful night, appellant along with 
'RB' assaulted PW6, apart from 'S'and 'J' both of whom lost their lives. 
'R', an uncle of appellant who used to reside at the tube well was also p 
fatally assaulted. PW6, the sole eye witness aged about 7 years at the time 
of occurrence was injured in the incident. 
Appellant alone was put up for trial since co-accused 'RB' was 
absconding. The Sessions Judge found appellant guilty under Sections 302, 
460 and 458 r/w Section 34 IPC and on coming to the conclusion that he 
had also raped 'J' before she was done to death, imposed death sentence 
upon him. High Court confirmed the conviction and affirmed the sentence 
of death. Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
559 
560 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] I S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: I. No charge was framed against the appellant under Section 
376 IPC. Nor is there any evidence suggesting that the appellant had 
committed the offence of rape. Even if the evidence of PW-6 is accepted 
in its entirety, there is not a word in her evidence to suggest the commission 
of rape on 'J' either by the appellant or by anyone else. In these 
B circumstances, it is not possible to sustain the finding of the Trial Court 
that the appellant was also guilty of having committed the offence of rape. 
[569-E) 
2.1. The evidence of PW-4 does not bear a close scrutiny. Apart from 
the fact that most of the statements made by him in examination-in-chief 
C were not stated when he was examined under Section 161 Cr. P.C., the 
assertions made by him in the course of his deposition are clearly false. 
He has denied the fact that he put questions to PW-6 when she was 
examined in the presence of the doctor PW-7, but there is the evidence of 
PW7 as well as that of PW-6 herself that the questions were put to PW6 
by him and the answers given by her were recorded by the doctor, PW-7. 
]) 
[571-D-E] 
E 
2.2. The statement of PW-4 that when he reached the place of 
occurrence he found that the dead body of'J' was lying naked, is also false. 
No other witness has said so. In fact, the lady doctor who performed the 
post mortem examination stated that when the body of the deceased was 
brought to her, the deceased was wearing green and orange printed salwar 
kameej, brassier of pink colour, silver colour neck chain, pink and red 
and green bangles on the right arm, golden coloured nose pin, long scalp 
hairs tied in a plait with balck parandi. This itself suggests that either this 
witness had not seen the dead body of 'J' at the time he claims to have 
p seen the dead body, or he is deliberately telling a lie to create a suspicion 
that 'J' had been subjected to rape before she was killed. [571-F-H[ 
G 
3. So far as PW-5 is concerned, this witness was declared hostile. No 
doubt, this witness had lodged the FIR, but nothing much turns on his 
evidence as he was not an eye witness. [572-B-C] 
4.1. The statement of PW6 was recorded by the Investigating Officer 
for the first time three days after the occurrence, and her statement was 
recorded by the J:.idicial Magistrate six days after the occurrence. No 
explanation is forthcoming as to why she was not examined for three days 
when the Investigating Officer knew that her statement had been recorded 
H by the doctor on 30th August, 1996. The Trial Court took the view that 
JAGJIT S

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