LexJOGINDER SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 714 A JOGINDER SINGH \- v. STATE OF PUNJAB (Criminal Appeal No. 406 of 2009) B FEBRUARY 27, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGUL Y, JJ.] ' ' Penal Code, 1860: s.302- Conviction under- Gun shot c hitting head of deceased resulting in his death - Applicability of s.302, challenged on the ground that only one shot was fired - Held: Though one pellet was recovered and there was only one injury, but that would not take the offence out of the purview of s.302 as it was established that the accused aimed ~ D at the head of the deceased and fired the shot from a close . range which hit him on his head - s.302 was applicable to facts of the case. Evidence: Testimony of related/interested witnesses - E Reliability of - Held: When there is a/legation of interestedness, the same has to be established - Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate accused cannot be ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible. } F Prosecution case was that complainant along with deceased brother and others were standing in a queue to cast vote. The accused, constable challenged his brother and abused him and fired a shot from his rifle. The shot hit head of deceased and he died. G The trial Court placing reliance on the evidence of the eye witnesses recorded the conviction under s.302 IPC. High Court upheld conviction. H 714 ; ~ I.., .( ' .. JOGINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 715 In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that so called eye witnesses were related to the deceased and therefore their evidence should not have been relied upon and that one shot was fired and therefore Section 302 was not applicable. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Merely because the eye-witnesses were family members, their evidence cannot 'per se' be discarded. When there is allegation of inte·restedness, the same has to be established. Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. [Para 6] (719-B-E] Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab AIR (1953) SC 364; Gu/i Chand and Ors.v. State of Rajasthan (1974) 3 SCC 698; Vadive/u Thevar v. State of Madras AIR (1957) SC 614; Masalti and Ors. v. State of U.P. AIR (1965) SC 202; Punjab v. Jagir Singh AIR 1973 SC 2407; Lehna v. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 76; Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381; Babula/ Bhagwan Khandare and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 10 SCC 404; Salim Saheb v. State of M.P. (2007) 1 SCC 699 and Sone/af v. State of M.P. 2008(11) SCR 75, relied on. 2. In the present case though one pellet was recovered and there was only one injury, but that would not on the facts of the case take the offence out of the A B c D E F G H 716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 3 S.C.R. A purview of Section 302 IPC. It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that when there is one shot fired, Section 302 IPC is ruled out. It would depend upon the factual scenario, more particularly, the nature of weapon, the place where the injury is caused and the B nature of the injury. It has been clearly established that the accused aimed at the head of the deceased and fired the shot which hit him on his head and that too was fired ' from a close range. [Para 13] [721-E-G] r Case Law Reference: c AIR (1953) SC 364 relied on Para 7 (1974) 3 sec 698 relied on Para 8 AIR (1957) SC 614 relied on Para 8 D AIR (1965) SC 202 relied on Para 10 ? AIR 1973 SC 2407 relied on Para 11 (2002) 3 sec 76 relied on Para 11 E (2002) 8 sec 381 relied on Para 11 (2005) 1 o sec 404 relied on Para 12 (2001) 1 sec 699 relied on Para 12 > • F 2008(11) SCR 75 relied on Para 12 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 406 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 05.2.07 of the High G Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal No. 670- DB/1997. Sudh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.