LexPIARA SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
PIARA SINGH & ORS.
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
October 4, 1977
(S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.J
597
Evidencc-Evidentiary value of interested or inimical witnesses, explained.
Evidence Act (Act I of 1872), 1872, S. 45 Expert opinion-When tltere are
two confiictinR 1nedical opinions, the opinion of that expert which supports the
direct evidence n1ust be accepted.
('on.fe.~.~ion-Extra-judicial confession-Whether the evide11ce of an extra-
iudlcial confession should, in all cases, be corroborated.
The four appellan'l:'s were charged u/s. 302 r/w. section 34, I.P.C. for the
offence of murder of one Surjit Singh, a coUateral of the accused on the even-
ing of 14th November, 1967; but were acquitted by. the sessions Judge, Amrit-
sar, on the ground that the ocular evidence of the three witnesses· (P. Ws 3, 5
and 7) \'i'ho spoke to the fact that the appellants inflicted the injury on the
deceased with Kirpan, Gandasi. Barchhi and also with a bullet from the rifle,
wrts inconsistent with the medical evidence of the court witness No. 1, Dr.
Par:l:ri':ljit Singh to the effect that injllry No. '11 coUld not have been caused by
a fire-arm.
The opinion of Dr. Jatinder Singh who performed the post-niortem
in the case ¥/as that the gun shot injury with a \vound of entry and exit on the
left buttock which was found in addition to the 14 incised injuries including
se\·en punctured wounds could be caused by a fire arm including a rifle. -The
High court, on appeal by the State, against the acquittal, accepted the prose-
cutio11 e<lse, set aside the acquittal, convicted Piara Singh and Gian Singh u/s.
302, I. P. C., Kashmir Singh and Joginder Singh u/s. 302/34 I. P. C. and
sentenced them to imprisonment for life.
Disrnissing the aopeal u/s. 2 of the Supreme Court Enlargement of Crin1i-
nal Appellate Jurisdiction, 1970, the Court.
HELD : ( 1) Taking an overall view of the facts -and circumstances in the
present case, the High Court was fully justified in reversing the order of _acquit-
tal passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
There is sufficient evidence against
the accused to prove the charge of murder against them.
The evidence of the
eyc-\vitnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence, lhe evidence of the
recoveries, the evidence of the Ballistic expert and the evidence of P. W. Balbir
Singh who deoosed regarding the extra judicial confession made by the accused
Piara Singh. [599 F, 603 D-EG]
(2) The evidence of interested or inimical witnesses is to be scrutinised \Vith
care but cannot be rejected merely on the ground of being a partisan evidence.
If qn a perusal of evidence the court is satisfied that the evidence is credit-
worthy there is no bar, in the court relying on the said evidence.
In the instant case, though P. W.s 3, 5 and 6 were the relations of
the
deceased and bore animus against the accused, they were the natural witnesse<;
as the occurrence had taken place near the door of the house of the deceased
and they, were, in fact sitting in the court-yard when the occurrence took place.
The evidence of P.W. 7 to whom the whole occurrence was narrated immedia-
tely after the accused left the house, the extra judicial co"nfession of Kashinir
Singh to P. W. 17, the recovery of the blood-stained Kirpan- from the sugar-
cane field of Meja Singh and the recovery of the ernotv cartridge from the place
of occurrence fully corroborate their evidence. [599G, 600A-C, D]
(3) The evidence of a medical man or an expeit is merely an opinion whicli
lends corroboration to the dire\;t evidence in the case.
Where there is a glaring
inconsistency beh:i:een direct evidetice and the medical evidence in respect of
A
c
D·
E
F
G
A
B
D
E
598
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] I s.c.R.
the entire prosecution story, there is undoubtedly a manifest defect in the pro-
secution case.
Where there is a conflict between the opinion of two experts,
the courts should norn1a1ly accept the evidence of the expert whose evidence is
corroborated by direct evidence of the case, which according to the court is
reliable.
Where the opinion of a medical witness is contradicted by
another
medical witness, both of whom are equally competent to form an opinion, the
opinion of that expert should be accepted which supports the direct evidence
in the case.
In the instant case (a) the trial court was not justified in throwing out the
prosecution case merely on the basis of the evidence of Dr. ParExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.