LexPARAMJEET SINGH @ PAMMA versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B 1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 11 S.C.R. PARAMJEET SINGH@ PAMMA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND (Criminal Appeal No. 1699 of 2007) SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 307 - Conviction under - Property dispute - Firing by accused resulting in death of C three and injuries to three - Conviction u/ss. 302 and 307 by courts below - Interference with - Held: Not called for - FIR was lodged promptly and accused was named as the person who committed the offence - All eye-witnesses including injured witnesses attributed commission of the offence only o to the accused in their statements uls. 161 Cr.P.C., though they turned hostile later - Unwarranted attitude bn the part of witnesses disentitles any benefit to accused who committed a heinous crime - The case otherwise is proved by circumstantial evidence - Prosecution case duly supported E by medical evidence as well as other material collected by Investigating Officer during investigation - Thus, no cogent reasons to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts by courts below - Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - ss. 161 and 313 - Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - F Witnesses - Hostile witness. It is alleged that the appellant was denied his share in the immovable property by his father 'HS'. On the fateful day in the morning, the appellant threatened his father 'HS' and brother 'IS' at the office of the Sub- G Registrar at place 'K'. In the evening, the appellant killed his brother 'IS' and his two nephews, and injured his father 'HS'and nephews PW 1 and PW 2. The incident was witnessed i:>y PW 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. PW 1 lodged the FIR. The investigations were carried out. The trial court H 1064 PARAMJEET SINGH @ PAM MA v. STATE OF 1065 UTTARAKHAND convicted the appellant of the offences punishable under A sections 302 and 307 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and_ 10 years rigorous rmprisonment. The High Court upheld the order passed by the trial court. Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court B HELD: 1. In a criminal trial involving a serious offence of a brutal nature, the court should be wary of the fact that it is human instinct to react adversely to the commission of the offence and make an effort to see that C such an instinctive reaction does not prejudice the accused in any way. In a case where the offence alleged to have been committed is a serious one, the prosecution must provide greater assurance to the court that its case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. D [Para 13) [1079-0] Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 159; State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh Baljit Singh and Anr. AIR 1973 SC 2407; Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of E Maharashtra AIR 1981 SC 765; Mousam Singha Roy and Ors. v. State of West Bengal (2003) 12 SCC 377; Aloke Nath Dutta and Ors. v. State of West Bengal (2007) 12 SCC 230 - relied on. Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 F SC 37 - referred to. 2. Though a conviction may be based solely on circumstantial evidence, this is something that the court must bear in mind while deciding a case involving the G commission of a serious offence in a gruesome manner. The prosecution's case must stand or fall on its.own legs and cannot derive any strength from the weakness-of the-. defence put up by the accused. [Para 14] [1079-F-G] Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra· AIR H 1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 11 S.C.R. A 1984 SC 1622; State of Uttar Pradesh v.- Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114; Krishnan v. fate represented by Inspector of Police (2008) 15 SCC 430; Ramesh Bhai and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (2009) 12 SCC 603; Subramaniam v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. (2009) 14 SCC 415; Babu v. State of B Kera/a JT 2010 (8) SC '560 - relied on. 3. The fact that the witness was declared hostile at the instance of the public prosecutor and he was allowed to cross examine the witness furnishes no justification C for rejecting en bloc the evidence of the witness. However, the court has to be very careful, as prima facie, a witness who makes different statements at different times, has no regard for the truth. His evidence has to be read and considered as a whole with a view to find out whether any weight should be attached to it. The court D should be slow to act on the testimony of such a witness; no
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.