NARINDER SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1022 · Decided: 06-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
NARINDER SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
APRIL 6, 2000 
[D.P. WAD HWA AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
India Penal Code 1860-Sections 34 & 302-Appellants acquitted by 
Sessions court in a murder trial-High Court reversed the order of acquittal 
as not justified by evidence on record-Interference by High Court-
Guidelines-If acquittal is manifestly erroneous based on improper apprecia-
tion of evidence; reasoning is incoherent, illogical and materially irregular 
and to correct miscarriage of justice but not when two views are possible, 
based on evidence, supporting both acquittal and conviction and the High 
Court prefers a view contrary to that of the Trial Court. · 
The appellants were brought to trial for having murdered one G. 
The Sessions Court acquitted them on the grounds that the prosecution 
failed to establish motive, that one of the main witnesses was got up, the 
recovery of the weapon by itself was not sufficient proof, and that "medical 
evidence and ocular evidence did not tally. The High Court reversed the 
findings and found the appellants guilty. On appeal before this court, it 
was submitted that the judgment of the Trial Court was not perverse, and 
the High Court erred by interfering. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. High Court has rightly interfered in the matter and 
F 
sentenced appellants accordingly. Both the appellants were acting in con-
cert. Their intention to do away G, was manifest when a couple of days 
before the occurrence they openly threatened to kill him in case he did not 
give up the post of Granthi of the Gurudwara of Village T. 
G 
H 
This is no argument for the defence that since the Granthi is ap-
pointed by the Management Committee of the Gurudwara, appointment of 
the appellant N as Granthi of Gurudwara would not have been automatic 
and, therefore, there was no occasion to hold a threat to G. Statement of H 
is cogent and reliable. He gets corroboration from B (PW 3). Both H and B 
are natural witnesses. It is not disputed that Amritdhari Sikhs always carry 
Kripan on their body and in that view of the matter it is not necessary for 
1022 
.; 
NARJNDER SINGH v. STATE [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 
1023 
appellants to carry any other arm or weapon. Kripan (Ext.p-1) was used to 
commit the murder. Trial Court went totally wrong when it said that the 
recovery of Kripan from the second appellant was of no consequence and 
was not sufficient to connect the appellants with the crime. Both the 
appellants committed the murder of G, in furtherance of their common 
intention. Mention of Section 34 in the judgment is not the requirement of 
law to convict a person. If the ingredients of the offence are present, 
conviction can be made. It is not material to bring the case under Section 34 
IPC as to who, in fact, inflicted the fatal blow. [1033-G-H; 1034-A-H] 
2. High Court while considering appeal against acquittal is not exer-
cising any extra-ordinary jurisdiction. Its power to consider and decide 
the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is same as against the judg-
ment of conviction. However, there are certain guidelines. One is that if 
there are two views on evidence which are reasonably possible, one sup-
porting acquittal and the other indicating conviction, High Court in an 
appeal against judgment of acquittal should not interfere merely because 
it feels that it would as a trial court have taken a different view. High 
Court will certainly interfere if it finds that the judgment of acquittal is 
manifestly erroneous and that the trial court has acted with material 
irregularity or its appreciation of evidence lacks coherence or it has made 
assumptions which are unwarranted or its evaluation of evidence is such 
as to shock the sense of justice and which has led to miscarriage of justice 
or its reasoning is unintelligible or defies logic or its conclusions are against 
the weight of the evidence. [1030-G-H; 1031-A-B] 
.CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 490 
of 1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.1.98 of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court in Cd.A. No. 291-DBA of 1991. 
Anil Kumar Gupta, Rajiv Dutta and Ms. Arnita Gupta for the appearing 
parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
D.P. WADHWA, J. The two appellants were tried for offence under 
Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). They were acquitted by 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1024 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000) 2 S.C.R. 
the Sessions 

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