LexJARNAIL SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 311 ' ' -· JARNAIL SINGH A v. STATE OF PUNJAB (Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2009) JANUARY 15, 2009 B [Al TAMAS KABIR AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM t _.. SHARMA JJ.) Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304 (Part II) - Death Caused - Three eye-witnesses - One turned hostile and the other c declared won-over - Evidence of sole eye-witness not in conformity with his police statement and FIR version given by him - Conviction u/s.304 (Part II) by trial court- In appeal by accused High Court convicting the accused u/s. 304 (Part I) - On appeal, held: Conviction liable to be set aside - D Prosecution version is doubtful and full of contradictions - Testimony of sole eye-witness cannot be relied on if it is full of embellishment and contradictions without corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony direct or circumstantial - High Court was also not justified in convicting E the accused of a higher degree of offence by altering the conviction to s.304 (Part I) from 304 (Part II) in absence of any State appeal - Administratio·n of Criminal Justice. CY Appellant-accused was prosecuted for having F caused death of one person. There were three eye- witnesses to the incident. Accused was charged u/s. 302 IPC. During trial PW-6 (eye-witness) turned hostile, while the other eye-witness was not examined as having been won over by the accused. PW-7 gave different version of the incident than those given before police and in FIR. G '( Trial court convicted the accused u/s.304 (Part II) IPC. In the appeal of the accused, High Court altered the conviction to one u/s.304 (Part I). Hence the present appeal. 311 H 312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R. A Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. High Court was not justified in converting the order of conviction and altering the same from Section 304 (Part II) IPC to Section 304 (Part I) IPC, 8 particularly when the prosecution did not file any appeal. By virtue of the order passed by the High Court, the appellant stood convicted of a higher degree of offence . - than that of Section 304 (Part II) IPC. If a person is .... charged under a grave Section, but however, it acquitted C under the said grave Section by the Trial Court, then it would amount to travesty of Justice if in his own appeal he is convicted under that grave Section, without th~re being any appeal from the State and without there being prior notice of enhancement issued by the appellate court. [Para 14) [319-D-G] D Rufi Ram v. State of Haryana (2002) 7 SCC 691 and Abdul Aziz v. State of Rajasthan (2007) 10 SCC 283, relied on E 2.1. The entire story sought to be put forth by the prosecution and by PW-7 particularly appears to be doubtful and full of contradictions. It will be unsafe to convict a person on the basis of such unreliable and untrustworthy evidence particularly when such statements are full of embellishment and contradictions, F without corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. [Para 20) [323-B-C] 2.2. It is no doubt true that conviction could be based on the sole testimony of a solitary eye-witness but in G order to be the basis of conviction his presence at the place of occurrence has to be natural and his testimony should be strong and reliable and free from any blemish. Since the case must stand or fall by the evidence of single witness, it is necessary to examine that evidence H critically. In the present case, PW- 7 is not trustworthy and JARNAIL SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 313 _ _. reliable witness, for he is changing his version frequently. A He had given one version in the F .l.R. which is reiterated during the course of investigation before the police whereas he had given a totally different version at the time of his statement before the court. [Paras 17 and 18) [321-F-H; 322-A-B) B Chuhar Singh v. State of Haryana (1976) 1 SCC 879 ,, ,. relied on 2.3. Evidence of PW-8, who stated that he was the owner and driver of a taxi and on the relevant date, the c accused hired the taxi of the deceased in his presence and after that the deceased never returned, is also found to be not worthy of reliance, for he did not produce any registration certificate. On his statement that he was _,._ owning a taxi, he later said that he had sold the taxi. He D also stated in his evidence that he is unable to recollect as to where from he had purchased the taxi or to whom he
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.