LexMOHAN SINGH versus PREM SINGH AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- I ~ ) MOHAN SINGH V. PREM SINGH AND ANR. OCTOBER I, 2002 [U.C. BANERJEE AND D.M DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860-Section 302 read with Section 34-Murder- Conviction-According to the prosecution accused allegedly causing death of A B a person-Motive being a pending civil /itigation-Tr.ial Court relying on C evidence and extra-judicial confession convicting accused-High Court rejecting the version of eyewitness, evidence of extra-judicial confession and recoveries of weapons as untrustworthy, acquitting the accused-On appeal held prosecution having failed to prove the genesis of the crime and the nature of incident, High Court justified in acquitting the accused D Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3-Section 313: Statement of accused-Acceptance of incu/patory portion-If exculpatory part of statement is false and evidence led by prosecution is reliable, inculpatory part of statement can be taken aid of to lend assurance to evidence of prosecution-If prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence to sustain E conviction of accused, inculpatory part of statement cannot be made the sole basis <'f conviction. Statement of accused-Can be used for appreciating evidence led by prosecution to accept or reject it-However, not being a substantive piece of evidence cannot be a substitute for the evidence of the prosecution. F According to the prosecution respondent No. I and respondent No 2 inflicted injuries on the appellant's son and caused his death. It is alleged that the motive of the crime was a pending litigation between appellant and father of respondent No. I regarding possession of a piece of land. When the appellant's son along with his father and PW 7 was returning G from field, respondent No. I and respondent No. 2 armed with weapons way-laid the appellant's son. Respondent No .. J allegedly gave a blow to deceased which the latter warded off and tried to escape but stumbled down after covering some paces and fell on the heap of earth lying in the 5 H 6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A courtyard of the house of one A. Respondernt No. 1 inflicted blow on the neck of appellant's son while respondent No .. 2 inflicted blow on the knee. Alarm was raised whereupon respondents ran away. Appellant's son was taken to the hospital whereupon doctor decla1red him dead. FIR was lodged and was conveyed to the Magistrate the next day. Investigation was carried B out. Two days after the incident the respondents made extra judicial confession to the Lambardar of the village and a week later they were produced before the AS! who arrested them .. Weapons were recovered on the dis~losure statement made by the respondents. Respondent No. 2 pleaded that he had been falsely implicated and respondent No. 1 denied having attacked or caused any injuries to the appellant's son. Trial Court C relying on eyewitnesses' account and extra judicial confession convicted respondent No. 1 under section 302 and respondent No. 2 under section 302 read with section 34 IPC. High Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court and acquitted the accused. Hence the present appeals. Respondent No. 2 contended that there was neither motive nor D evidence against him for his conviction with the aid of Section 34 IPC; that he has been attributed to have caused one skin deep injury, not on any vital part of the body of.the deceased; that as the evidence of extra- judicial confession and recovery of weapons was rightly rejected by High Court, there was no other evidence to hold that respondent No. 2 had E com.mon intention with respondent No. I to commit murder and that respondent No. 2 has rightly been acquitted by the High Court on justifiable reasons. F G Dismissing the appeals, thP. Court HELD: 1.1. High Court committed no error in acquitting both the accused and the conclusion of High Court that the prosecution has failed to prove the genesis of the crime and the nature of the incident is concurred with. The version of the alleged eyewitnesses, the evidence of extra-judicial confession and recoveries of weapon have h1:cn found to be untrustworthy. ' 117-EI 1.2. The evidence of alleged eyewitnesses that at about 8'0 clock in the night, they were following the deceased on way to the village does not inspire confidence siitce they did not intervene in the attack or rushed to the vi.llage for help, which itself is very unnatural and has rightly been found unreliable. The
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.