PRATAP SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 502 · Decided: 07-12-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
PRATAP SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
DECEMBER 7, 1990 
[KULDIP SINGH AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code,· 1860: Sections 302, 326/34. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 173. 
Criminal Trial-Accused charged under Sections 302 and 326 vic-
ariously with the aid of Section 34-0n the date of charge-sheet no 
C 
material with the prosecution to show that the accused actually parti-
cipated in crime and gave knife injury-During trial accused confronted 
with evidence accusing him of substantive charges under both offences i.e. 
inflicting knife injuries to the deceased and prosecution witness-Trial 
held prejudicial to the accused-Benefit of doubt given to the accused. 
D 
E 
The appeUant and his co•accused were convicted by the Addi-
tional Sessions Judge under Sections 302, 326 read with section 34 of the 
Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to rigorous Imprisonment for 
life and four years respectively. On appeal the High Court acquitted the 
co-accused but upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant 
(I) that the appellant was convicted for an offence for which he was not 
chargesheeted because In the charge-sheet he was charged vicariously 
with the aid of section 34 for both the offences i.e. under sections 302 
and 326, but at the trial contrary to charge-sheet he was confronted 
F 
with evidence accusing him of the substantive charge under section 302 
for causing death of the deceased and under section 326 for causing 
grievous hurt to the prosecution witness; (ii) the co-accused having been 
acquitted by the High Court, part of the testimony has been proved to 
be false and as such cannot be relied upon to support the conviction of 
the accused. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. The charge against the appellant was framed on the 
basis of the material collected dl1ring the investigation by the prosecu-
tion. On the date of the charge-sheet there was no material with the 
H 
prosecution to show that it was the appellant who gave knife injury to 
502 
• 
.. 
PRATAP v. STATE OF HARYANA [KULDIP SINGH, J.l 
503 
the deceased and the prosecution witness. Even otherwise when the 
police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
which is the basis of the chargesheet, implicated the appellant vicari-
ously with the aid of Section 34, I.P.C., it is difficult to rule out pre-
judice when at the trial, evidence was led to show that he actually 
participated in the crime and inflicted injuries to the deceased and 
grievous hurt to prosecution witness. In any case this cannot be certified 
as a fair-trial. The infirmities pointed out on behalf of the appellant 
when examined in the light of the charge framed against the appellant 
will show that it is difficult to carry the conviction of the appellant 
beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly the appellant-accused is given 
the benefit of doubt and acquitted. The conviction and sentence Is set 
aside. [507C-F] 
2. When the Trial Court and the High Court on appreciation of 
the evidence have believed the eye-witnesses and have based the convic· 
lion of the appellant on their testimony. It is not for the Supreme Court 
to reappreciate the evidence. [SOSE] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 332 of 1990, 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.9.1988 of the Punjab 
and Haryana High Court in Cr. A. No. 137 DB of 1987. 
\llrs. Kawaljit Kochhar and J.D. Jain for the Appellant. 
Rana Ranjit Singh and A.G. Prasad for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by; 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
KULDIP SINGH, J. Partap Singh and Parkasha accused were 
convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kamal under Sections 
302, 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were 
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and four years respecti-
vely. On appeal the High Court acquitted Parkasha but upheld the 
conviction and sentence of Part"ap Singh. This appeal via special leave G 
petition is by Partap Singh against the judgment of the High Court. 
The First Information Report was recorded on the basis of the 
statement of Nar Singh. According to the prosecution story Nar Singh 
and Krishan deceased were rickshaw pullers and used to live together 
in a room at Panipat. On August 26, 1986 at about 11 p.m. both of H 
504 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
them went out to ease themselves in a rickshaw driven by Mannu who 
A was

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