STATE OF PUNJAB versus ATMA SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 549 · Decided: 08-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 8 S.C.R. 549 
• 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
A 
..... 
I\_, 
v. 
ATMA SINGH AND ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 695 of 2001) 
MAY 08,2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
·• 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302 rlw 149 and 307 rAy 149 -
Armed assault resulting in death of two persons on account c 
of gun shot wounds and injuries to three eye-witnesses -
-
Conviction of accused-respondents by Trial Court- Reversed 
by High Court - Propriety of - Held: On facts, not proper -
There was no reason for High Court to conclude that FIR was 
registered belatedly - High Court discarded the credible 
D 
evidence of eye witnesses on mere surmises and conjectures 
- Though there should not be interference with judgment of 
acquittal where the view taken is a possible view, but where 
conclusions are without any foundation, there is need to 
interfere with the judgment of appellate Court -On facts, 
E 
analysis done by trial Court was appropriate and High Court 
~ 
should not have on mere surmises and conjectures interfered · 
with the judgment of trial Court and directed the acquittal -
Appeal - Appeal against acquittal. 
According to the prosecution, the respondents 
F 
launched an armed assault on the prosecution party, 
resulting in death of the wife and son of PW1 on account 
of gun shot wounds and injuries to three eye-witnesses. 
The trial court convicted the respondents under s.302 r/ 
" 
w s.149 and s.307 r/w s.149 IPC. The High Court set aside 
G 
. 
' 
the conviction primarily on ground of delay in lodging of 
FIR, delay in delivery of special report to llaqa Magistrate 
and variance between ocular evidence and medical 
549 
H 
550 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 8 S.C.R 
' 
A evidence. Hence the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
• 
HELD: 1. The first aspect highlighted by the High 
8 
Court was purported delay in lodging the FIR. The trial 
Court noted that there was in fact no delay and even if 
there was some delay the same was satisfactorily 
explained. The occurrence took place at 6.30 p.m. on 
11.2.1993. FIR was lodged at about 12.00 mid night. The 
explanation given to explain the so called delay was that 
c two sons of PW1 were seriously injured and the first 
reaction was to provide the medical facilities to them and 
accordingly he took them to Amritsar, got them admitted 
to the hospital and immediately thereafter the FIR was 
registered. Therefore, there is absolutely no delay in 
D lodging the FIR. [Para 6] [555-E-H; 556-A] 
2. The trial Court noticed that if the special report 
reached late it was fault of the investigating officer. There 
was no reason for the High Court to conclude that the 
E FIR was registered belatedly. The investigating officer 
reached immediately after the occurrence, prepared two 
inquest reports, FIR number was also received and the 
same was put on the inquest reports and all the papers 
~ 
were required to be handed over to the Head Constable 
F (PW-9) who was deputed to take dead body to Mortuary. 
[Para 7) [556-A-C] 
3.1. The so called variance between the ocular 
evidence and the medical evidence was essentially 
because of the weapon that was used. The High Court 
G put unnecessary stress on the use of the expression 
'shot' and 'shots'. Illiterate witnesses hardly know the 
" 
difference. The exact words used by the witness are "on 
,, 
receiving the fire shots the deceased (son of PW1) fell 
down on the ground". Therefore, he has meant definitely 
H 
.. 
I 
STATE OF PUNJAB v. ATMA SINGH AND ORS. 
551 
' 
more than one shot and not one shot. Additionally, four 
A 
empty cartridges of 12 bore were recovered from the 
place of incident. Therefore, there should not have been 
one shot fired. Shots fired on wife of PW1 were clearly 
from the weapon described by the prosecution as wads 
and pellets were found in the wounds. The High Court 
B 
said that there was doubt about the weapon used on 
PW1 's son. Even if that be so, there was no scope for 
·( 
directing acquittal of the accused persons m respect of 
murder of PW1's wife. [Para 8] [556-D-H; 557-A] 
3.2. Coming to the question of testimony of three c 
injured eye witnesses, the trial Court noticed that their 
statements were flawless and nothing has come out in 
their cross examination on the basis of which any doubt 
could be created about their veracity. The place was a 
D 
secluded one. The incident took place on the turning of 
the passage. The incident continued sufficiently for a 
long time wh

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