PADAM SINGH versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 59 · Decided: 30-11-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

PADAM SINGH 
A-
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
-
NOVEMBER 30, 1999 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code-Sections 302, 307, 148, 452, 324, read with 149-
Appellant convicted for the murder .of one 'H' causing gunshot injuries-
Finding of Sessions Court and High Court based on inimical eye witnesses- c 
No independent witness-Occurrence in broad daylight-Death of three men 
of accused party unexplained-Held, prosecution failed to establish guilt of 
-
the accused beyond reasonable doubt-Conviction and sentence set aside. 
Practice and Procedure-Criminal Appeal-Appellant convicted for 
murder by Sessions Court-Division Bench divided over the conclusion- D 
Matter referred to a third judge-Third judge affirming the Judgment of 
conviction without discussing the trustworthiness of witnesses-Held, 
-
appellate court, like the trial court has to be satisfied affirmatively before 
upholding a conviction. 
The Appellant along with a co-accused 'D' were tried for offences under E 
Sections 302, 307, 452, 148, 324 read with 149 IPC, for causing the murder 
of one 'H'. The prosecution alleged that the Petitioners along with five to six 
others entered the house of PWl and started firing, due to which H died. It 
was further alleged that firing continued from both sides, that accused entered 
into the h~use of PWl searching for his father and when PWl 's wife-PW 4 F 
tried to stop them she was assaulted by the Petitioner and that when PW3 
started firing from the house of 'S' the accused escaped through a side lane. 
Bodies of accused party were recovered from the verandah of the house 
of PWl alongwith the body of H. While trying to chase the accused, PWl 
alongwith others found a dead body at a distance of four furlongs from his G 
house. A charge sheet was filed only in respect of Petitioner and deceased 
DI. The Prosecution examined eleven witnesses including four eyewitnesses 
viz., PWs 1-4. The Sessions Court relying upon the evidence of the 
eyewitnesses held that accused 'D' and the Petitioner alongwith others entered 
• 
the house of PWl and committed the murder ofH, convicted and sentenced H 
---
59 
60 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A the accused to undergo life imprisonment. 
-
Appeals were filed by both the accused before the High Court, but 
accused 'D' died during the pendency of his appeal. The appeal filed by the 
Petitioner was heard by a Division Bench consisting of Justice G.P. Mathur 
B 
and Justice Kundan Singh. Justice G.P. Mathur came to the conclusion that 
the p.rosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt 
against the Petitfoner and that be is entitled to benefit of doubt, that the very 
fact that the prosecution party has not explained as to how three of the accUSE.d 
persons died, including one unknown person, the prosecution case becomes 
doubtful and the veracity of the prosecution version becomes doubtful. He 
c further held that in view of admitted enmity between the parties and admittedly 
all the eye witnesses being inimical the prosecution must have examined some 
independent witness. Justice Kundan Singh differed from the conclusions of 
Justice Mathur, and inter-a/ia held that alleged omissions and contradictions 
of the four eye witnesses cannot be held to be material omissions, that non-
D 
examination of independent persons cannot be a ground to discard the evidence 
of eyewitnesses in the absence of any infirmity in the evidence and held that 
the prosecution case must be held to have been established beyond reasonable 
doubt. When the matter was placed before the third Judge, Justice Malviya, 
relying upon the sole testimony of PW4 wife of PWl, held that prosecution 
case has been conclusively proved, beyond reasonable doubt and agreed with 
E the conclusion of Justice Kundan Singh. 
In appeal to this Court, the Appellant contended that there is not an iota 
of explanation as to how the dead body of one unknown accused person could 
be found at a distance of four furlongs and when the prosecution has not offered 
F 
any explanation for the same, the entire prosecution case must fail, that the 
fact that there has been no seizure of blood-stained earth from the place of 
occurrence, would establish the defence version that the incident never 
happened inside the house of PWl as alleged by PWs 1 to 4 and consequently 
no reliance can be placed on them, that the investigation is so perfunctory 
and laconic that there has not been a single panch witne

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