RUPINDER SINGH SANDHU versus STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

Citation: [2018] 6 S.C.R. 479 · Decided: 15-05-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Disposed off

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
479
RUPINDER SINGH SANDHU
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS
(Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2007)
MAY 15, 2018
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]
 Penal Code, 1860 – ss.299 and 304 Part-II r/w. s.34 –
Conviction under – Propriety of – PW3 & PW4 were travelling in a
Maruti Car driven by ‘GS’ – Dispute arose on the right of way
between the accused persons (A-1 and A-2) and ‘GS’ – Allegedly,
A-1 pulled ‘GS’ out of the vehicle and inflicted fist blows whereafter,
he died while being taken to hospital – FIR registered u/ss.304/34
against A1 and un-named second accused – Trial court acquitted
both the accused – High Court reversed the acquittal – Held: Medical
evidence is absolutely uncertain regarding the cause of death of
the deceased – The only fact established on evidence is that A-1
gave a single fist blow on the head of the deceased – No weapon
was used, nor was there any past enmity between the accused and
the deceased – There is no evidence of any concomitant brain injury
– Post-mortem report is silent in this regard – Pathologist’s report is
clear about the absence of any pathology in brain, however, he
noticed a large number of abnormalities in the condition of the
heart of the deceased – Such being the evidence on record,
conclusion of High Court that death of deceased was caused by
subdural hemorrhage but not cardiac arrest is not based on any
evidence on record and is a pure conjecture – A-1 cannot be held
to be responsible for causing the death of the deceased – Further,
as far as A2 is considered, the FIR mentioned the name of only A1
and the second participant in the incident was said to be a “clean
shaven man” and it did not mention that the clean shaven man either
attacked or inflicted any injury on the body of the deceased – No
material on record to indicate the basis on which the prosecution
came to the conclusion that A-2 was that clean shaven man –
Nothing on record to prove that he attacked the deceased or that he
shared a common intention with A-1 to commit the offence of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder– It is not safe to convict A-2 on
[2018] 6 S.C.R. 479
  479
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
480
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
the basis of the evidence of PWs 3 and 4, recorded some 7 years
after the incident – Judgment of High Court insofar as A2 is
concerned, is also set aside – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 –
ss.173 and 319.
Evidence – Related witnesses – Appreciation of.
Allowing the appeals of the accused and dismissing that of
the complainant, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the entire judgment of the High Court, there
are only two sentences which mention the name of the second
accused. There is no discussion in the judgment of the High Court
as to at what point of time during the course of investigation,
A-2 was identified to be the other clean shaven person travelling
with A-1 on the fateful day and what was the evidence on the
basis of which the prosecution reached such conclusion except
the statements (made after 7 years after the event) of PW-3 and
PW-4 made at the time of the trial.  It is unfortunate that the High
Court thought it fit to reverse the acquittal recorded by the
Sessions Court and to convict A-2 for an offence under Section
304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC on the basis of such frivolous
analysis. [Para 29] [494-D-E]
1.2  The FIR mentioned the name of only A1 and the second
participant in the incident was said to be a “clean shaven man”.
The FIR does not mention that the clean shaven man either
attacked or inflicted any injury on the body of the deceased.  It
only mentioned that he inflicted fist blows on PW3.  The material
on record is absolutely bereft of the information regarding the
fact as to at which point of time A-2 was identified to be that
‘clean shaven man’ who participated in the incident along with A-
1 by the investigating agency.  Nor is there any material on record
to indicate the basis on which the prosecution came to the
conclusion that A-2 was that clean shaven man. PW3 and PW4
were examined at the time of inquest over the dead body of the
deceased, which took place according to the prosecution at 3.30
p.m. on the date of occurrence. Even those statements of PW3
and PW4 do not mention the name or identifiable description of
A-2.  Admittedly, at no point of time a test identification parade
was held to establish the identity of the clean shaven man to be
A-2.  [Para 30] [495-B-D]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
481
1.3  From the analysis of the above material,

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