STATE OF PUNJAB versus JAGGA SINGH ETC

Citation: [2014] 12 S.C.R. 505 · Decided: 17-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 12 S.C.R. 505 
STATE OF PUNJAB . 
v. 
JAGGA SINGH ETC. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 2329-2331 of 2009 etc.) 
DECEMBER 17, 2014. 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860- ss. 302 and 30211208 - Murder by 
seven accused - Two of the accused convicted uls. ;302 and 
A 
B 
s. 25 of Arms Act and their conviction confirmed by High 
C 
Court - Five of the accused convicted by trial court uls. 3021 
1208 and acquitted by High Court - Appeal against 
conviction order of two accused and acquittal order of the five 
accused - Held: conviction order against two accused is 
affirmed - The prosecution case against them is supported · D 
by evidence of eye-witnesses who are further corroborated by 
the evidence of finger-print expert - High Court rightly 
acquitted the five accused giving them benefit of doubt after 
proper appreciation of evidence - Arms Act, 1959 - s. 25. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1.1. The presence of PWs 1 and 2 being the 
family members in the house, is natural and the 
occurrence had taken place in the early morning hours. 
Their testimonies are cogent, natural and trustworthy. 
F 
Moreover, there is no material discrepam;y in their 
testimonies. The Courts below have rightly relied on their 
testimonies and the conviction and sentence imposed on 
the convicted appellants does not call for any 
interference. On a proper appreciation of evidence, the G 
High Court had given the benefit of doubt to 5 of the 
accused persons by acquitting them and no interference 
is called for. [Paras 16 and 17] [514-H; 515-A-C, G] 
505 
H 
... 
506 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2. According to the Investigating Officer, he 
arrested accused in. the presence of PW1. PWs 1 and 2 
have also identified both of them as assailants during the 
trial in the court. In such circumstances, the omission to 
mention their names in the complaint does _not affect the 
B prosecution case and there is no doubt about the identity 
of the said accused. [Para 12] [512-E-F] 
1.3. The evidence of presence of fingerpr[nts on the 
glass tu_mblers corroborates the testimonies of the eye-
C witnesses. The Fingerprint 
Expe~t reached the 
occurrence place on the occurrence day itself and raised 
the finger impressions on the two glass tumblers and 
duly packed them with his seal and date and handed over 
the same to ·the investigating officer for onward 
0 transmission to the finger print bureau. The seal was 
found to be intact 'by PW25 finger print expert who 
opened it for examination. The specimen finger print 
impression have been taken in the presence of Judicial 
Magistrate and there is no room for any suspicion as to 
E its bonafide. [Paras 13 and 15] [512-F-G; 514-A, B, E] 
F 
Mohd. Aman and Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) 10 
sec 44 - distinguished. 
Case Law Reference: 
(1997) 10 sec 44 
distinguished 
Para 14 
• 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: CriminafAppeal 
No. 2329-2331 of 2009. 
G 
From the Judgment & Order dated 17.09.2001 of the High 
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal 
Nos 65-DB, 90-DB and 101-DB of 2006. 
WITH 
H Crl Appeal No. 2327 and 2328 of 2009. 
STATE OF PUNJAB v. JAGGA SINGH 
507 
V. Madhukar, AAG, Anvita Kowshish, Mohit Nain, Dhruv 
A 
Mohan, Kuldip Singh, Kiran Bala Sahay, M.P. Jha, S.K. 
Devenkan, Rajneesh Bhaskar, Aditya Pratap Singh Naruka, 
Shubham Seth, Adarsh Tiwari, S.R. Setia, Yash Pal Dhingra, 
R.K. Talwar, Harikesh for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. All these criminal appeals have 
arisen out of the common judgment dated 17.09.2007 passed 
by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. 
2. The appellants/accused in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2327 
and 2328 of 2009 numbering 2, and the respondents/accused 
in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2329-2331 of 2009 herein numbering 
B 
c 
5, were the accused in sessions case Nos. 14,15 and 16 of 
2003 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and 
D 
the first two of them were convicted for the offences under 
Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act and· 
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life each and to pay a 
fine of Rs.2000/- each with default sentence for the offence of 
murder and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment 
E 
for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each with 
default sentence for the offence punishable under the Arms Act. 
Rest of them were convicted for the offences under Section 
3
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.