PREM SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2011] 13 S.C.R. 949 · Decided: 02-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
(2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 949 
PREM SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No.925 of 2009) 
SEPTEMBER 2, 2011 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302134 - Murder with common 
intention - Victim-deceased shot in broad daylight - PW-16, 
A 
8 
the brother of the victim-deceased was informed by his c 
neighbour 'VK' that some persons came in a car and fired 
shots at the victim-de.ceased causing him serious injuries -
Victim brought dead to hospital - As per the statement of 
widow of the victim, her husband had property dispute with 
accused 'DR' and the murder was committed as a o 
consequence of the conspiracy hatched by him along with the 
co-accused - Appellant and other co-accused arrested - · 
Appellant was arrested from jail where he was already 
incarcerated in some other cdminal case - Appellant was 
sought to be produced for a test identification parade but he 
E 
declined to do so - Statements of PW-11 and PW-12 claiming 
to be eye-witnesses to the murder on record - 'VK' who had 
informed about the incident to PW-16 was, however, not 
examined- Trial court acquitted the. accused holding that the 
charges levelled against them were not proved - High Court 
set aside the acquittal of the appellant and co-accused 'VB' F 
and convicted them u/ss. 302134 but upheld the acquittal of 
other co-accused - On appeal, lletd: per Harjit Singh Bedi, 
J: Non-examination of 'VK' was fatal to prosecution case -
The presence of PWs 11 and 12 was in serious dispute since 
they were resident of another city- In the light of the uncertain 
G 
eye witness account and the fact that 5 of the 7 accused stood 
acquitted on the same evidence, the order of the trial court of 
acquittal is restored - per Gyan Sudha Misra, J (Dissenting): 
949 
H 
950 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A Eye-witnesses PWs 11 and 12 gave a graphic description of 
the incident and stood the test of scrutiny of cross-examination 
but ttre accused had declined to participate in the test 
identification parade - If the accused-appellant had reason 
to do so, specially on the plea that he had been shown to the 
8 eye-witnesses in advance, the value and admissibility .of the 
evidence of T.I. Parade could have been assailed by the 
defence at the stage of trial in order to demolish the value of 
T.I. Parade - But merely on account of the objection of the 
appellant, he could not have been permitted to decline from 
C participating in the T.I. Parade from which adverse inference 
can surely be drawn against him at least in order to 
corroborate the prosecution case - Two eye-witnesses 
narrated the complete chain of incident in their depositions 
which were recorded merely after a few hours of the 
occurrence -
Version of the eye-witnesses was not 
D contradicted by the defence in any manner - Conviction of 
the appellant ulss.302134 confirmed -
In view of the 
divergence in views, the matter referred to larger Bench. 
The prosecution case was that on the fateful day, the 
E victim-deceased had gone for morning walk. PW-16, the 
brother of the victim-deceased was informed by his 
neighbour 'VK' that some persons came in a car and 
fired shots at the victim-deceased causing him serious 
injuries. PW-16 rushed to the place of occurrence. The 
F victim-deceased was taken to hospital where fie was 
declared brought dead. The statement of PW-16 was 
recorded in the hospital. PW-23, the Inspector went to the 
place of occurrence and recorded the statements of PW-
11 and PW-12 who claimed to be eye-witnesses to the 
G murder. He also recorded the statement of PW-13, the 
widow of the deceased who gave information that 
accused 'DR' had property dispute with her husband and 
the murder was committed as a consequence of the 
conspiracy hatched by 'DR' along with the co-accused. 
H The appellant an.d other co-accused were arrested. The 
PREM SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 
951 
appellant was arrested from jaii where he was already A 
incarcerated in some other criminal case. The appellant 
was sought to be produced for a test identification parade 
but he declined to do so. 
The prosecution examined PW-11, PW-12, PW-13 and B 
PW-16. 'VK' who had informed the incident to PW-16 was 
however not examined. The trial court acquitted two 
accused even prior to the recording of the statements of 
the accused 'under Section 313, Cr.P.C. for. want of 
evidence against them. The trial court acquitted rest of the C 
accused holdi

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