LexPATTU LAL versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A PATTU LAL v. STATE OF PUN.JAB MARCH 27, 1996 B jG.N. RAY AND S.B. MA.JMUDAR, .I.I.) Penal Code : 1860 ; S.302-Accused causing death of his wij(:-Son of accused lodging FIR C and handing over accused to }Jo/ice with blood stained clothes and weapon of crinu.~Prosecation exanzining son of accused and investigating of- fice1-Son tumed hostile dwing uial-Evidence of Investigating Office1-He/d the factwn of lodging FIR by son and producing the accused with blood stained clothes and the weapon with which the nzllrder !tad been conunitted by the accused have been clearly established by the deposition of investigating D officer--171erc is no reason to discard the evidence of the investigating of- ficer--Conviction upheld. C1in1inal Law : Corroboration of evidence-Convboration is a rule of prudence- E Evidentia1y value of a deposition ivhich is othe1wise adnzissible is not just iviped out in the absence of co1Toboration-Even in the absence of co1Tobora- tion, a deposition for its quality may be safely accepted to be cmrect-It will be unfortunate if on account of over enzplzasis for convboration, a crinze goes un11unished by not givinK due weight to unco11nborated evidence when such F evidence is othenvisc reliable. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 1985. From the .Judgment and Order dated 28.11.84 of the Special Court G at Ferozepur in Case No. 96/84 and Trial No. 27 of 1984. O.K. Khullar and R.C. Kohli for the Appellant. N. Natarajan, A.C., Ranbir Yadav and R.S. Suri for the Respondent. H The Order of the Court was delivered by 1016 /' . ' PATTU LALv. STATE IG. N. RAY,J.] 1017 G.N. RAY, J. This is an appeal under Section 14(1) of the Terrorists A Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984. This appeal is directed against the order dated November 28, 1984 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Ferozpur, in Trial No. 27 of 1984 arising out of F.I.R. No. 141 of 1984 of the Police Station, Abohar, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The prosecution case in short is that the appellant had a strained relation with his wife Chameli Devi, the deceased, on account of Chameli Devi having illicit relation with one Kirpal Singh, On May 8, 1984. P.W. 1 B - Bishan Dial, his brother Tej Ram and the wife of Bishan Dial, Daropati, went to the house of the appellant Patlu Lal to get the dispute between C the deceased and Pattu Lal Settled. The deceased threatened to get divorce and marry Kirpal Singh. On the night of May 24 and 25 of 1984, PW.1 Bishan Dial, said Tej Ra;,, and Daropati slept at the house of Pattu Lal and at about 6.00 a.m. on May 28, 1984, Bishan Dial got up on hearing alarm and saw Pattu Lal giving injuries to Chameli Devi with 'toka' and D Chameli Devi died at the spot. PW.1 Bishan Dial took his father with his b1ood stained clothes and the said toka Ex.M/G/1 to the police station, Abohar, where he lodged the F.I.R. Ex. P. 1 at about 7.00 a.m. On the basis of the said F.l.R., a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. PW.3 Shri Thakur Singh, Additional Station House Officer, took up the investigation who placed Pattu Lal under arrest and the blood E stained toka and also blood stained clothes produced before him were seized. Thereafter, the said Investigating Officer (PW-3) proceeded to the spot and collected blood stained earth under memo of seizure Ex. P.7 and also seized the blanket and chadar of the deceased by seizure Memo effects Ex. P.8. Autospy of the dead body of Chamcli Devi was performed by Dr. F Dalip Kumar on May 25, 1984 at about. 3.30 p.m. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage due lo injury No. 1 which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The prosecution examined Bishan Dial PW.1. the son of the accused and also the doctor holding the post mortem examination (PW. 2 Dr. Dalip Kumar), the said investigating Officer PW. 3 and other formal witnesses G P.W. 1 Bishan Dial was, however, declared hostile and he was cross-ex- amined by the learned Public Prosecutor. It appears from the deposition of PW.1 that his father and the mother were living together and Bishan with his wife and brother Tej Ram had been living separately in a different hotKe. The said witness also admitted that at the police station he had given H 1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R. A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.