LexKAMALJIT SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
KAMALJIT SINGH A v. ST A TE OF PUNJAB OCTOBER 16, 2003 B [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] Criminal Trial : Appreciation of evidence-Medical and ocular evidence-Minor C variations between-Effect of~Held: Ocular evidence takes primacy over medical evidence notwithstanding minor variation between them unless medical evidence completely rules out all possibilities of injuries-Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 302 and 307. The al_)pellant-accused was tried for allegedly committing the D homicidal death of two persons and also for causing grievous injuries to another person. The trial court held that the prosecution case was suspect and directed acquittal primarily on the grounds that there was delay in lodging the FIR; that the medical evidence was at variation E with the ocular evidence; and that PW-5 was an interested witness and his evidence was not wholly reliable. However, the High Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 307 of the Penal Code, 1860. Hence the appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court F HELD : 1. It is trite law that minor variations between medical evidence and ocular evidence do not take away the primacy of the latter. Unless medical evidence in its term goes so far as to completely rule out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the G manner stated by the eyewitnesses the testimony of eyewitnesses cannot be thrown out. (790-G] Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR (1983) SC 484 and State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal, AIR (1988) SC 2154, relied on. H 785 786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A 2. When the acquittal by the trial court was found to be on the basis of unwarranted assumptions and manifestly erroneous appreciation of evidence by ignoring valuable and credible evidence resulting in serious and substantial miscarriage of justice, the High Court cannot in this case be found fault with for its well-merited B interference. [791-A-B] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1286 of 2002. C From the Judgment and Order dated 31.5.2002 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl.A. No. 493-DBA of 1992. Ranjan Lakhanpal, K.S. Barsi, Vipin Gogia and Mrs. Jaspreet Gogia for the Appellant. D Bimal Roy Jad for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. : Appellant-Kamaljit Singh was tried for E allegedly having committed homicidal death of two persons named Gurcharan Singh and Sucha Singh (hereinafter referred to as-'the deceased' by their respective names). He was also allegedly guilty of causing grievous injuries on one Udhain Gosha!. F Prosecution version as 1mfolded during trial is as follows : On 17.5.1989, Devinderpal Singh (PW-5) made statement before SI Harinderjit Singh, SHO PS Sadar, Patiala, near the gate of Punjabi University, Patiala. In the said statement it was alleged by Devinderpal Singh (PW-5) that he was working as a Foundary Engineer in Goetz G Factory, Bahadurgarh, Patiala for the last six years and that his father Gurcharan Singh-deceased was also working in the said factory for the last 30-32 years and was working as a Manager of Time and Labour Office. ·' It was alleged that in the said foundry, the workers used to perform their duties in shifts. It was alleged that on that day i.e. 17.5.1989, his shift H timings were from 6.30 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. At about 10.30 a.m. when he KAMALJIT SINGH v. STATE [PASAYAT, J.] 787 was working in the plant, at that time, his Incharge Udain Gosha!, (PW- A 6) was also present in the plant. In the meantime accused Kamaljit also an employee of the said factory, while wearing a gatra Kirpan around his neck, came there and told Udain Gosha! (PW-6) that he would teach him a lesson for getting him charge sh.eeted. Immediately thereupon, accused Kamaljit Singh took out his Kirpan from the gatra and thrust the same on B the right side of abdomen of Udain Gosha! (PW-6). On receipt of the said thrust blow, he (Udain Gosha!) raised an alarm and on hearing it, Harjot Singh, another Foundry Engineer, B.V. Raju, Deputy Manager Foundry and he (Devinderpal Singh-complainant) rushed towards Udain Gosha! (PW-6). On raising alarm by them, accused-Kamaljit Singh ran from the C spot and they followed him. It was alleged that when his (Devinderpal Singh's) father-Gurcharan Singh, deceased came out from the time office on hearing the raula, accused Kamaljit Singh gave a Kirpan blo~ on the bac
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.