PURAN SINGH versus STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 491 · Decided: 10-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 1 S.C.R. 491 
~ .A 
PURAN SINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL 
(Crl. A. No. 437 of 2006) 
JANUARY 10, 2008 
B 
[C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
+ 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Homicidal Death - Due to 
fire-arm injury - Recovery of gun and empty cartridge - Held: 
As per Ballistic Expert's opinion, cartridge recovered not fired c 
from gun allegedly used by accused - Therefore, accused 
entitled to benefit of doubt,;_ High Court not justified in setting 
aside acquittal recorded by Trial Court. 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 136 - New plea in 
Supreme Court for the first time Normally not permitted. D 
However, in the facts of the case, new plea is considered since 
-.\ 
sufficient material is already on record in support of such plea. 
i 
,( 
According to the prosecution, appellant caused the 
homicidal death of his brother by firing gunshots at him. 
Appellant allegedly had animosity with deceased in view E 
of a property dispute. Trial Court acquitted appellant by 
giving him benefit of doubt. High Court set aside the order 
of acquittal and convicted accused-appellant under s.302 
IPC. 
Ir' 
F 
• 
The conviction of appellant is challenged before this 
Court on the ground that the bullet which caused injury 
to the deceased was not fired from the gun recovered from 
appellant. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
.... ).-
HELD: 1.1 According to the prosecution, the weapon 
' 
used by accused-appellant for commission of crime i.e. 
causing death of deceased was recovered along with two 
empty cartridges. PWS, Patwari stated in his substantive 
491 
H 
492 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 
A evidence, that he went to the house of the accused and 
)-. 
.,,. 
arrested him. He further stated that the accused gave him 
his licensed gun of single barrel twelve Bore (Ex.1) and 
two Cartridges (Ext.6&7) which were sealed separately. 
[Paras 18, 21] [499-A, F] 
B 
1.2. The Report of Forensic Science Laboratory 
states that the Laboratory received a letter from Chief 
Judicial Magistrate along with two 12 bore K.F. Special 
emptied cartridges marked as E.C.1 & 2 and one piece of 
c 
gun 12 bore single barrel No.1319. It was then stated that 
the examiner fired five shots from the gun which were 
marked as T.C. 1 to T.C. 5. T.C.1, T.C.2 and T.C.5 misfired 
and rest fired successfully. Regarding E.C.1 and E.C.2, it 
was stated that there had been signs of firing pin. But on 
E.C.2, the signs were not specific. Cap of E.C.1 had sign 
D of breach and E.C.2 had minor sign of breach. As per 
Ballistic Expert's opinion, cartridge E.C.1 was not fired 
t 
from the single barrel 12 bore No. 1319 said to have been 
" • 
used by the accused. Therefore, appellant is entitled to 
benefit of doubt. [Paras 22, 23] [499-G, H; 500-A, E] 
E 
2. As regards the point raised by the accused· 
appellant that the bullet in question was not fired from his 
gun, it was neither raised before the Sessions Court (Trial 
Court) nor before the High Court (Appellate Court). 
Though new plea is not permitted to be raised in this Court 
" 
F for the first time in an appeal under Article 136 of the 
• 
Constitution, it has been considered since sufficient 
material is already on record in support of such plea. 
[Paras 14, 15] [497-0, E] 
G 
CRIMINAL. APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeal No. 437 of 2006. 
~ A· 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 25.10.2005 of 
the High Court of Uttaranchal at Na in ital in G.A. No. 1006/2001. 
H 
Pawan Kumar Bahl, R.S. Rautala and Sudha Gupta for 
PURAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL 
493 
[THAKKER, J.] 
....., 
.;.\ 
the Appellant. 
A 
Rachana Srivastava and Noorullah for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. The present appeal is filed by the B 
appellant-accused against the order of conviction and sentence 
recorded by the High Court of Uttaranchal on October 25, 2005 
in Government Appeal No. 1006 of 2001. By the said order, the 
High Court set aside the order of acquittal recorded by Sessions 
Judge, Chamoli on February 6, 1981 in Sessions Trial No. 15 c 
of 1979, convicted the accused fo(an offence punishable under 
Section 302, Indian Penal Code (IPC) and ordered him to 
undergo imprisonment for life. 
2. Shortly stated the prosecution case was that one Pushu 
-
had two sons- (i) Bhawan Singh and (ii) Shag Chand. Bhawan D 
~ 
Singh had no issue and he died leaving behind him his widow 
~ -i 
Smt. Rukmani Devi. Shag Chand also died leaving behind him 
f

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