PREM SINGH versus STATE (N.C.T) DELHI

Citation: [2009] 6 S.C.R. 960 · Decided: 24-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 6 S.C.R. 960 
~~ 
A 
PREM SINGH 
v. 
STATE (N.C.T) DELHI 
(Criminal Appeal No. 589 of 2002) 
B 
APRIL 24, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, V.S. SIRPURKAR AND ASOK 
KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
... 
Penal Code, 1860: s.307 - Conviqtion under- Affirmed 
c by High Court on ground that scientific evidence connected 
the weapon of appellant with the crime - Held: The injured 
did not identify the appellant to be the assailant - Merely 
because he was·owner of the weapon would not be ground to 
convict him under s.307 - Further no question was put to the 
D appellant in his examination under s.313 Cr.P.C regarding 
~-
his purported role - Conviction set aside - Arms Act,' 1950 -
s.27. 
Prosecution case was that the appellant fired a shot 
E at deceased which resulted in his death. Another fire was 
shot at son of deceased. Trial court convicted appellant 
under section 307 IPC and section 27 of Arms Act, 1959. 
High Court affirmed the conviction holding that since 
pistol was recovered from the appellant and since the 
F 
scientific evidence connected his weapon with the crime, 
his conviction was in order. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The injured did not identify the appellant to 
be the person who had fired the shot. Merely because 
• 
G 
y 
the appellant was the owner of the weapon cannot be a 
ground to convict him in terms of Section 307 IPC. 
Further, no question was put to the appellant in his 
examination under section 313 Cr.PC regarding his 
H 
960 
PREM SINGH v. STATE (N.C.T) DELHI 
961. 
;:--
purported role. The judgment of the High Court is clearly 
A 
... 
unsustainable and is set aside. The appellant is acquitted 
of the charges. [Para 6] [963-E-G] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 589 of 2002. 
B 
From the Judgment & Order dated 13.12.2001 of the High 
'-, 
Court. of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 
. 1997. 
Harinder Mohan Singh, Jasneet Kaur, Kaushal Yadav, c 
Manav Bajaj, Praveen Kumar Singh and Durgesh Yadav for the 
Appellant. 
SWA Qadri, Varuna Bhandari, Anil Katiyar, Vanita and 
D.S. Mahra for the Respondent. 
D 
·-~ 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is 
to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi 
High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 1997 which 
E 
dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant. The 
appellant, who had faced trial for alleged commission of 
+ 
offences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal 
Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 
1959 ( in short the 'Arms Act'). 
F 
2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant 
guilty and convicted him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 
three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default 
stipulation. Similarly for the offence punishable under Section 
• 
27 of the Arms Act, custodial sentence of three years and a 
G 
--+ -
fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation was filed. 
3. Background facts in a nutshell .are as follows: 
Preetam Pyare had agreed to purchase a plot from Prem 
H 
962 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R. 
A Singh and Sunder Lal and had paid Rs.2000/- as earnest 
.,, 
money to them. They, after accepting this earnest money, did 
·--
not sell the plot to Preetam Pyare and had sold it to someone 
else and when Preetam Pyare demanded back his earnest 
monev, they refused to return it. On 25.12.1992 at about 10.30 
B p.m. Prem Singh, Sunder Lal and Kakoo, came to the house 
of Preetam Pyare and took him away saying that they will return 
his earnest money. Preetam Pyare and his two sons Bhusan 
,~ 
Lal and Kamal Kishore came along with them for having talks 
on the return of money and they reached in front of H.No.407-
c D, while talking. The wife of Preetam Pyare, Smt. Shanti Devi 
also followed them and while they were talking, the talks 
became uncordial and abuses were hurled. Sunder Lal and 
Kakoo were having lath is in their hands and Sunder. Lal 
• 
exhorted them to beat them. On this Prem Singh took out a 
D revolver and shot him in his chest. He also shot at Bhushan Lal 
S/o Preetam Pyare, in his chest saying that, this is the way to 
~-
return the money. Kakoo and Sunder Lal had beaten Kamal 
Kishore, the younger son of Preetam Pyare as a result of which 
he received injuries on his head. When Smt. Shanti Devi 
E complainant, W/o Sh. Preetam Pyare raised an alarm, the 
accused persons ran away from the spot. Th

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