PRITAM NATH AND ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 397 · Decided: 01-08-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

PRITAM NATH AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
AUGUST I, 2002 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Penal Code: Sections 302134 and 304-Part II. 
Criminal Trial: 
Murder Case-Accused acquitted on benefit of doubt-Reversal thereof 
by the High Court-Power of High Court-Scope and ambit of-Held, High 
Court could not upset an order of acquittal as if it is another trial Court to 
record conviction, when reasons furnished by trial Court are good and sturdy. 
A 
B 
c 
Testimony of eye-witnesses-Reliance thereon-Held, when material D 
contradictions, omissions and improvements were found in the evidence of 
prosecution witnesses and in the absence of corroboration of such evidence 
by independent witness, it cannot be relied on-Evidence Act, 1872. 
According to the prosecution, PW2 took the deceased, his wife, to E 
accused-appellant, Sadhus and their Chelas (appellant Nos. 2 and 3) for 
getting rid of evil spirits which had seized her. These accused and co-
accused tied the deceased to a tree and gave blows to her with iron rods, 
trishul and chimtas on various parts of her body. PW2 tried to intervene, 
but accused assured him that she would not die. She became unconscious 
during the night and died on the next day. 
F 
Accused were tried for offences under Section 302 read with Section 
34 IPC but were acquitted by the Sessions Court on the ground that the 
prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable 
doubt. On appeal, High Court reversed the Order of trial Court. Hence 
this appeal. 
G 
It was contended for the appellants that since the order of acquittal 
was not based on a misreading of evidence or otherwise perverse, it did 
not call for interference by the High Court; that there was an unreasonable 
delay of 18 hours in lodging of FIR; and that there was serious H 
397 
398 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A contradictions and omissions in t.he statements of PW2-the only eye-witness 
· in the case-whose evidence was unreliable and unsafe to convict the 
accused-appellants. 
Allowing the appeal, tbe Court 
B 
HELD: 1. The Judgment of the High Court shows that there is no 
reference to the statements of the witnesses at least on material aspects of 
the prosecution case. It only states that the case of murder was not spelt 
out as there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause death 
but they could be safely attributed with the knowledge that death could 
C be caused in such a situation and as such convicted them for offence 
punishable under Section 304-11 IPC. The approach of the High Court and 
consideration of the case, that too for reversal of the order of acquittal, 
has been unsatisfactory and casual. (403-E; 403-G) 
2.1. There was delay of 18 hours in lodging the FIR. No ligature 
D marks were found on the body of the deceased as against the prosecution 
story that the deceased was tied to a tree with rope and that was the 
position throughout the night. No burn marks were found on the clothes 
of the deceased as is evident from the statement of PWS, the Investigating 
Officer, though there were several burn injuries on the body of the 
deceased as per the prosecution. The body was not identified by PW2, the 
E husband of the deceased at the place of the occurrence or at inquest raising 
serious doubts about his presence itself. PWI, the doctor in his evidence, 
has stated that when he gave opinion, seized weapons were not shown to 
him by the police; the weapons when produced were not sealed; on them 
the name of the accused, case number and name of the deceased were not 
F mentioned. PW2, the sole eye witness, in his evidence has stated that when 
police went to the spot with him all these weapons were lying at the spot 
and were taken into possession. PW8, the Investigating Officer, has 
deposed that the weapons were recovered at the instance of co-accused 
(who is not before this Court). The rope with which the deceased was 
alleged to have been tied to the tree was also not recovered. These 
G infirmities gave rise to serious doubts as to the prosecution case and 
involvement of the appellants in the commission of the offence. When the 
material contradictions and omissions and improvements in the evidence 
of PW2 were found and there was no corroboration to his evidence by 
other independent witnesses. The trial Court was right in not relying oh 
H his evidence. Thus no interference by the High Court was called for or 
PRITAMNATH v. STATE OF P

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