LexSEWA SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
! s.c.:R.. SUPREME OOtmT RICPORTS this appeal must be allowed. We therefore allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition. The High Court allowed uo costs to the respondent. We think in the circumstances that the parties should bear iheir own costs. AppeJJl allowed. SEWA SINGH "· STATE OF PUNJAB (K. C. DAs GUl'TA, J. R. MuDHOLKAR and T. L. VENKATARAMA AlYAR, JJ.) • Murdtr-N,ature of gm1shot wound-Proximity of ahot-- Jledical evidence-Oonaideratio•-Witnessu-Evidence.-valu~ < oJ-AaaeBBment- Dodor'• evidence -Oroaa·eZtlmination -No ). challenge -Indian Penal Ooae, 1860 ( 46 of 1860), a. 302. The appellant was tried and convicted for murder and sentenced to death. Two eye witnesses testified that· he shot and killed "the deceased from a shop while the later was pass· ing on a motor cycle; The doctor who conducted the post· mortem gave evidence that the shot might have been fired from a distance of three or four feet. This evidence was not challenged in cross-examination; On ·appeal to the High Court the conviction and sentence were confirmed. The appeal came up before· the Supreme Court by way or special leave. The main contention on behalf of the appellant was that the characteristic of the wound which would. have shown that the deceased was shot from a distance of few inches and not from the distance stated by the witnesses were not taken into consideration by the High Court. It was contended that if the High Court had considered these factors the credibility of the witnesses would have become doubtful, · Held, that the nature and features of the fatal wound should ordinarily be taken into consideration in aslCSling the 1911 T/11 BetiN•l s • .- 0 otnmiuiOlflf' •• Sundnd•s Bhuin r-J. 1961 i.lf'il '"· 195• s.wa s;,,,,. ... Siar, •! l'rmj.b 546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] value of the evidence of the eye witnesses. On consideration of all the features of the wound as described by the doctor the conclusion is reached that the doctor's opinion, which wa1 not challenged in cross-examination, that the shot was fu ed from a distance of three to four feet is correct. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 196:!. Appea.l by speoia.l Lea.ve from the judgment a.nd order da.ted October 25, 1961. of the. Punjab High Court in Criminal Appea.l No. 890 of 1961 of Murder Reference No. 74 of 1961. Jai Gopal Sethi. G. L. Sare,en a.nd R. L. Kohli, for a.ppella.nt. Gopal Singh, D. Gupta, P. D. Menon, for respondent. 1962. April 27. The Judgment of the Court wa.s delivered by DAS GUPTA, J.- The Appellant was oonvic· ted by the SeBRions Judge, Pa.tie.la., of a.n offence under s.302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Gurdev Singh a.nd sentenced to death. The Punjab High Court dismissed his a.ppeal and confi. ned the sentence of death. The present a.ppea.1 is on the strength of special granted by this Court. The prosecution case is tha.t at about 2.30 p.m. on November 18, 1960 when Gurdev Singh wa.s pa.BBing the tea-stall of Charan Singh, not far from the Qourts a.t Barna.la. on a. motor cycle, the appellant Sewa. Singh, who wa.s at tha.t time in tha.t shop with a. don hie ba.rrel gun stood up and fired a. Bhot a.t him. Gurdev Singh was hit on the right aide of his ohest and died instantaneonsly. The appellant a.nd one Gogar Singh, who we.a with him, ra.n a.wa.y. · The a.ooused pleaded not guilty. It was not disputed that Gurdev Singh had died of a gun mot ; - .. . . _,,i, 2 S.C.R. ~ -SUPREME COURT REPORTS 547 injury at the time and place as alleged. _ It was str- enuously contended, however,, that he was not the culprit. . · . According to the prosecution this occur!ence was witnessed by Charan Singh, the owner of the shop and Mukhtiar Singh, a Student, ·and Bakhta'. war Singh, the two persons who ~ere. havmg tea in the shop. · • ' .-r · At the trial Charan Singh denied any knowl- edge a~ to who had fired the shot and was declared hostile by the prosecution. The other two witne- sses gave evidence that they saw the present appel- lant, who was known to them from before, firing the shot from a double barrel gun. Their evidence was believed by the Trial Judge and also by the High Court. ·' ' ·. · In support of the appeal it is contended by Mr. Sethi that we should look at the evidence ourselves as the High Court does not appear to have tak__!ln into c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.