LexPALWINDER SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 5 S.C.R. 1120 PALWINDER SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB (Criminal Appeal No. 2356 of 2009) MAY 08, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s.302134 and 392134 - Prosecution C for murder and robbery - By 4 accused including the appellant-accused - Conviction of all the accused by trial court - High Court convicting appellant-accused while acquitting rest of the accus'ed - Held: Prosecution case proved by evidence of eye-witnesses supported by medical o evidence and the recoveries made at the instance of the accused - Conviction of appellant-accused upheld. The appellant-accused, alongwith three other accused, was prosecuted for murder and robbery. There E were two eye-witnesses (PW-3 and PW-4) to the incident. There were recoveries of weapons of offence and the articles belonging to the deceased, on the basis of confessional statements of the accused persons. Trial court convicted all the accused ulss. 302/34 and 392/34 IPC. High Court upheld the conviction of appellant- F accused, while acquitting rest of the accused. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court G HELD: 1. The evidence led by the prosecution disclosed that the deceased died of ante-mortem injuries and that it was a homicidal death, which was fully supported by the version of P.W.1 (the doctor) who conducted post-mortem on the deceased. The injuries H 1120 PALWINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 1121 were all grievous in nature and the deceased met with A gruesome death. The recoveries made at the instance of the appellants also fully supported the case of the prosecution. [Paras 17 and 18) [1128-G; 1130-B-C] 2. Reliance placed upon the eye-witness account of 8 P.W.3 for.convicting the appellant with the aid of other witnesses is perfectly justified. It is true that with regard to the identity of the rest of the accused other than the appellant, PW-3 stated that he could name them only at the instance of the police personnel. As far as his presence at the place of occurrence was concerned, his C version read along with the evidence of P.W.4 discloses that the presence of both of them was beyond any pale of controversy. Even as regards the assault on the deceased, the version of P.W.3 was fully corroborated by P.W.4. Therefore, the presence of P.W.3 at the place of D happening of the occurrence was thus fully established with the support of P.W.4. The High Court made a close scrutiny of the version of P.W.3 and found that he was a totally independent witness and he had no axe to grind against the appellant. In fact, his statement that he could E not identify the other accused was a very fair statement. When he also belonged to the same village, there was no reason for him to implicate the appellant alone. Therefore, the conclusion of the High Court that such a fair statement made by the witness, namely, P.W.3 cannot be F used to totally erase his version, was perfectly justified. Further, because he did not make any attempt to go to rescue of the deceased cannot be put against the witness, inasmuch as when four persons were assaulting the deceased with dangerous weapons that too in the G night hour in the present day set up, one cannot expect an unarmed person to get himself entangled and suffer unnecessary harm to himself. Moreover, the occurrence took place late in the light at around 9 pm and, therefore, prudence might have dawned upon him not to fall a H 1122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R. A cheap prey at the hands of such criminals who were already assaulting a person with a dagger and other weapons. Equally his conduct in having come back to the place of occurrence in the early morning at around 7.30 am along with P.W.4 only shows his earnestness in B disclosing what he witnessed on the previous night to the police. [Paras 17 and 18] [1128-G-H; 1130-B-C] Govindaraju alias Govinda vs. State by Sriramapuram Police Station andAnr. (2012) 4 SCC 722: 2012 (5) SCR C 67; Lal/u Manjhi and Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand (2003) 2 SCC 401: 2003 (1) SCR 1 - held inapplicable. D Case Law Reference: 2012 (5) SCR 67 2003 (1) SCR 1 held inapplicable Para 19 held inapplicable Para 19 CRIMINAL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 2356 of 2009. From the Judgment and Order dated 12.09.2008 of the E High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 350-DB of 1998. F G H
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.