LexMOHINDER SINGH versus THE STATE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• .. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 821 saleable interest or interest as a tenant, ryot or under- 1950 tenure holder. S.ri Rt'lnga I agree in the conclusion reached by my learned N.tayam Rama brother. Kdshna Rao Appeals allowed. Agent for the appellant: M .S. Krishnamoorthi Sastri. Agent for the respondents: M.S.K. Aiyangar. MOHINDEI<. SINGH v. THE STATE [SAIYID FAZL Au, MuKHERJEA and (HANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.J Criminal trial-Jfiirder--I11juries ca.'l,tSed by lethal 1l'eapo1zs- Du.ty of p1·oserution·-Ini1Jortance of c.rpert evidence-Duty to prove whufe case-Evidence 1v.1.ntin'/ o,i mrttPrial point-Inipropriety of contJirtion-Proof of :ilibi-St,inilnrd of proof-S'llpreme Co~trt Criminal appea,l-Interfcrcn::e-Practicp_. In :t case where death is due to injuries or woun1ls caused by a leth:tl weapon, it has always been considered to be the duty of the prosecution to pr JVC by Expert cvii!ence th at it 'vas like]y or at least possible for the injuries to have been caused with the weapon V•tith \:vhich, and in the manner in which, they are allegerl to have been caused. Where in a case of n1urder, the prosecut!on case was that the accuser] shot the deceased with a gun, but it appeared likely that the injuries on the deceased were inflicted by a rifle and there was no evidence of a duly qualified expert to prove that tho injuries were caused by a gun, :tnd the nature of the irijuries,vas also such that the shots must have been fired by more than one person and not by one person only, and. the prosecLio:i hafl no evidence to sho\V that another person a!Ho shot, and the High Court, though realising that thel'e was thuq :t gap in the prose- cution evidence, convicted the accusec.l placing reliance on the oral evidence of 3 wiGnesses which was not disinterested: Held, that the present case fell w'thin the rule laid down in Pritam Sin1h v. Th• State ([1950] 8.0.R. 45:3) iuasmuch as the appellant had been convicted notwithstaniing the fa,t that evidence '\Vas wo.nting on a most materi'.11 parG of the prosecution case, and the conviction could not therefore be upheld, 10~ v. Kandrikori Ghtllayanima and Anothe,.. 1950 Oct, 17, 822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1950] 19~0 Held also, that the st~ndard of proof which is required in regard to the plea of alibi must be tbs same as the stundard Mohinder S1ngh which is applied to the prosecution evidence and in both cases it v. should be a reasonable standard. Th• 8"'''· APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1950. Appeal by special leave from a judgment of the High Court of Punjab (Falshaw and Soni JJ.) dated 30th December, 1949, upholding the conviction of the appellant under ss. 302 and 307 read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and confirming the sentence of death passed against him by the Sessions Judge of Ferozepore on the 20th July, 1949, in Criminal Appeal Case No. 325 of 1949. ]ai Gopal Sethi (R. L. Kohli, with him) for the appellant. B. K. Khanna, Advocate-General of the Punjab, (S. M. Sikri, with him) for the respondent. 1950. October 17. The judgment of the court was delivered by Fall Ah J. FAZL Au J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Punjab up- holding the conviction of the appellant, Mohinder Singh, under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and confirming the sentence of death passed against him by the Sessions Judge of Ferozepore. The case for the prosecution which has been substan- tially accepted by the trial Judge and the High Court is briefly as follows. Sometime in January, 1949, one Bachittar Singh; brother of Dalip Singh who is said to have been murdered, lodged a complaint before the Naib Tehsildar at Zira to the effect that a tree be- longing to him had been cut by 7 persons including Mohinder Singh, the appellant. On the 28th Febru- ary, 1949, which was the date fixed for the hearing of the case before the Naib Tehsildar, Jita Singh and Dalip Singh, the two brothers of Bachittar Singh, were attacked by the appellant and one Gumam Singh, 'I. lad of 17, near a Gurdwara at about mid-day, when ... - • s:c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 82'.f they were returning from their field. Jita Singh was llllilf then carrying a load of fodder on his head while Dahp , - , S' h h d' ' kl ' h' I d J't s· h h Mohtnder 81 .. flh wg a sic es m 1s rnn . 1 a wg was t e first to be attacked near a tail
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.