MUKHTIAR SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 361 · Decided: 20-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 1 S.C.R. 361 
"' 
MUKHTIAR'SINGH & ANR. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal 'Appeal No. 448 of 2007) 
JANUARY 20, 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
,._ 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
c 
s.302 rlw s.34 - Murder- Eye witness account of widow 
and son not believed by trial court - Accused acquitted -
Acquittal set aside by High Court - On appeal, Held: High 
Court discussed the law laid down by Supreme Court with 
-
~ 
respect to the formalities and pre-conditions required to be 
D 
followed and had given reasons in support of the setting aside 
the acquittal - Hence no interference called for. 
The appellants-accused were charged with the 
murder of the deceased. Trial Court acquitted both the 
E 
appellants on the ground that the testimony of the two 
eye witnesses could not be believed as the circumstances 
confirm absence of the eyewitness at the place of 
,;> 
occurrence and that the prosecution case was nothing 
· but a got up story, knitted after due deliberation between 
the police and the named eye witnesses. On appeal by 
F 
the State the High Court set aside the order of the trial 
court. It held that the trial court had discarded the 
testimony of two eye witnesses on feeble grounds and 
had enterta.ined unnecessary doubts despite there being 
clear and sufficient evidence pointing towards the guilt G 
--# 
of the accused. Hence the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
.... 
. HELD: 1.1. Though the trial court acquitted both· the 
361 
H 
362 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 1 S.C.R. 
A accused persons, the order of acquittal was, however, set 
aside by the Division Bench of the High Court. While 
doing so, reasons have been given by the High Court 
and that too after discussing the law laid down by this 
Court with respect to the formalities and pre-conditions 
B required to be followed by the court before setting aside 
the order of acquittal. The reasons given for setting aside 
the acquittal of the accused persons are cogent and 
strong. There are two eye witnesses to the occurrence, 
namely, PW-2, who happened to be the son of the 
c deceased, and PW-3, widow of the deceased. On the day 
of the alleged occurrence the deceased was going to 
meet his son 'B' and was at the Kahangarh Railway 
Station to catch a train at 5.00 a.m. Since 'B' was in jail, 
therefore, it was natural that not only the father, the 
0 deceased, but also his wife, son and other family 
members were accompanying the deceased so as to 
meet 'B', one of the family members in the jail. Much was 
said about the absence of any train ticket with the alleged 
eye witnesses but absence of the same was well 
E explained. The train was late from its scheduled time due 
to which the ticket counter was also not opened, and 
therefore, there was no question of purchasing the 
tickets for traveling in the train and production of the 
same in the trial. [Para 6] [369-B-H; 370-A] 
F 
1.2. It cannot be expected that a lady and a small boy 
of 15-16 years would dare to intervene in the attack made 
by the two accused persons being armed with sharp 
edged weapons in their hands. PW-5, SPO reached the 
scene of the occurrence immediately after the occurrence 
G and in fact he ran after and pursued the accused persons 
but was unable to catch them. While scrutinizing the 
evidence of PW-5, one could find no reason to disbelieve 
thll. statement of the said officer. He was not an 
investigating officer nor has he any connection with the 
H case apart from being a witness. He also flashed the 
MUKHTIAR SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
363 
• 
initial information which was received by PW-4, the 
A 
investigating officer, at Railway Police Station, Bathinda. 
Much was said about the aforesaid information, which 
was sent to the investigating officer stating only that a 
dead body is lying at the Railway Station, Kahangarh. 
There is no dispute that the aforesaid information was 
B 
very sketchy since the details of the incident were not 
given in the aforesaid information. But as it was a 
telegraphic information, therefore, it cannot be said that 
the absence of material information in any manner 
destroy the case of the prosecution. [Para 7] [370-8-F] 
c 
'-
2. PW-5 has clearly stated in his statement that no 
telephone was installed at the Railway Station, 
Kahangarh but there was a telephone installed at the 
__ ..,. 
Railway Control Room at the Railway Station which, 
D 
however, was found to be out of order. He also stated

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.