LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus HARI SINGH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D. E F G H 725 STATE OF PUNJAB V, HARi SINGH & ANR. March 21, 1974 [M. Ji. BEG AND R. S. SAllKARIA, JI.] Indian Peno/ Code-S.302, 307 read wltli S. 34~M11rder-Wh<n t/14 evi. de nee, of eye' witnesses who were relatU to each otlwr a11d tlte victims cot11J he ~lied ~pon. The trial court had convicted the mpondents u/s. 302/34 LP.C. and u/s. 307 /34 1,P.C. for the death of two pmo-a&z, Tho occu~ loot place ~'!"'Ii ~ niibt bot- 18th It !!Ith June, 1969. Tho victims Used to c:ultivale jointly with others. The reopondents and the two •ai.uitled accused pmom -. brodlm who li"'!I in the same ·villas<. It is said that there was enmity -n the· cleccaoed pcnoos and the reopondents. Tho prosecution. case was that on the nlsht of 18th June 1969, the respoodents with two othen attacked GltZ and as a result G died but Z survived. lb• trial court bad comk:ltd the respondenta but the High Court ac:qaitted them. .. On appeal by the Slate, the main question was whother Ibo throe al1-d "f"':Witnesses, P,W.3, P,W.4 It P.W.5 who were nlated to each other and the Vlclims could bo relied upon, When ·corn>borated by other facts and cin:um- stanaa. . Allowina the appeal, . llEu> :-(I) lt is a principle, common to all criminal appeala by special lea.., that this Court will refrain fmm substitu~ ib own views about the appreciation of "evidence if the judgment of the Hish Court is bued on one of two altematiW> views each of which was reuooably cpcn to the Hish Coun to accept, If however, the High Court's approach is vitiated by eome baalcally erroneous assumptions, or it adopts reuoning which, QD the face of it, is umound, it may become the duty of ·this Court, to prevent a miscarriage of justice and to interfere with an order ·wh~ther it be of conviction or of acquittal. [729F) (2) In the present case, the trial court had accepted the testimony of 3 oye witnesses, dcspi.te the fact that they· are relations of the victims, It has been l'lll'Oltedly held by this Coun that the more fact that witness is related to the victim could not be a good enoueh ground for rejecting his testimony althouah it mly be a ground for scrutinizing his evidence more ctitically and carefully where facts ·and circuµlStances disclase that only relations have been produced and othei-s, presumably independent witneeses, who were available, were not produced. [729 HJ The ordinary presumption is that a witness speaking under an oath ls trothfut unless and until he is shown to be unreliable or untruthful. In any particular respect, witnesses· solemnly deposing on oath in the witness boX during a- trial upon a grave charge of murder, must be presumed to act with n full seme ·of responsibility of the consequences of what they state. It may be that what they say is so very unlikely Of' unreasonable that it is safer not to act ,upon it or even to disbelieve them. [730 ~ In the present !'"'e, the evidence of Z who boc~ IJll"'!'lS<ious ~ue to fatal bloin . bv the assailants, can bo accepted when his OVIdcnce .ts atrongly cmoboraled br medical and other evidence. Thereforo, the present .... is a lit ca9C wheto this court will intereferc. CRIMINAL APPELLATE ]UIUSDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 1970 .. ApPeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 17th Jiine. t 970 of the' Punjab and Haryana High Court. at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 2~8 of 1970. 726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1974] 3 S.C.R. Harbans Singh, for the appellant. Nuruddin Ahmed and U. P. Singh, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by : BEG, J, The State of Punjab has obtained special leave to appeal agamst the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and ffaryiµla, acquitting the two respondents from charges under Sections 302 and 302/34 Indian Penal Code and under Sections 307 /34 Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court had convicted the respondents under each of these two sections and sentenced Harl Singh to death under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and Gian Singh to life imprisonment under sections 302/34 l.P.C., and it had sentenced both to six years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,0~/-, and, in default of pa;y- ment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years under Sections 307 /34 I.P.C. The occurrence which gave rise to the prosecution of the two res- pondents together with two others, Milkiat Singh and Dalip Singh, who were acquitted by th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.