STATE OF PUNJAB versus JUGRAJ SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 998 · Decided: 14-02-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.P. SETHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ST A TE OF PUNJAB 
V. 
JUGRAJ SINGH AND ORS. 
FEBRLARY 14, 2002 
B 
[R.P. SETHI AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.j 
Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302 and 34: 
Murder case -Acquittal of accused by High Court by ignorinx the 
C convincing evidences of eye-witnesse' and other attending cin:umstances on 
the ground of non-examination uf the expert witnesses--Findings of lligh 
Court is erroneous both on facts and on law. 
D 
Criminal Procedure Cude, 1973: 
FIR Prompt fudging uf--Prompt lodging of FIR and its desoatch to the 
Magistrate go to show that there was no possibility uf either wrong persun 
being impleaded either as accused or eye-witness. 
Evidence Act, 1872: Eye-witne.1·se1·-
E 
Appreciution of testimony of ( :nda the circumstances of 1he cuse if the 
eye .. witnesses happen to he naturul witnesses, their testimony cannot be 
discarded on the ground that they are r.dutives of the deceased. 
Expert witnesses-Non-exwnination of Creditwnrthinuv of eye-
witnesses-In the presence of convincing evider.c e ff eye-w1111esses and also 
F other a/lending circumstances, non-e.ramination uf expert has no e.jfix I un 
cred1hility of the evidence. 
Constitution 1f !11dia, /IJ5U.· 
Article 136-Special leave jurisdiction- Re-appreciation of evidence 
G Supreme Court can interfere when High Court fails to appreciate true effect 
and material change in the versions of witnesse~· which result in failure of 
justice. 
H 
Complainant (PW2) alongwith his three nephews were working in their 
field on 23-10-198Q at about 5.00 p.m., when accused-respondents armed with 
998 
... . 
.., 
.. 
s·:-ATE OF PLNJAB v. JUGRAJ SINGH 
999 
Guns and Gandasa came out and fired shots and attacked with Gandasa on A 
two nephews of Complainant and killed them. Respondents-accused also fired 
~ 
at Complainant and his other nephew. Somehov. they escaped and saved their 
pa 
lives. Complainant informed the incident to others and lodged an F.I.R. Police 
reached the spot, prepared inquest report and seized the articles, viz., turban 
of deceased and a Gun recovered from the place of occurrence, However, B 
accused were not traceable immediately but were arrested subsequently. 
Police, on the basis of disclosure statement by the accused, recovered and 
seized the gun and cartridges as also the 'Gandasa'. Trial Court convicted 
" 
the respondents-accused under Section 302/34 l.P.C. and Sections 25 and 30 
of the Arms Act and sentenced them to life imprisonment for the main offence. 
• 
Aggrieved, accused-respondent filed appeal and High Court reversed the c 
Judgment of the Trial Court and acquitted the accused. State and the 
Complainant preferred appeals before this Court. 
It was contended for the respondents that the finding of facts arrived 
at by the High Court cannot be disturbed by this Court in exercise of powers 
nuder Article 136 of the Constitution of India; and that if two views of an D 
occurrence are possible, the view which is favourable to the accused should 
l. 
be preferred; .ind that there was no independent and legally admissible 
evidence available against the respondents. 
On behalf of the appellant-State, it was contended that the Judgment 
of the High Court acquitting the accused was based upon erroneous facts and E 
against the settled position of law and against the weight of evidence produced 
by the prosecution. 
·• 
Allowing the appeal5, the Court 
" 
HELD : 1. It is now well established that this Court does not, by special F 
leave, convert itself into a Court to review evidence for a third time. However, 
-' 
where the High Court is shown to have faded in appreciating the true effect 
and material change in the version given by the witnesses, in such a situation 
it would not be right for this Court to affirm such a decision when it occasions 
a failure of justice. This Court interferes only to avert miscarriage of justice G 
if the existence of perversity is shown in the impugned judgment The findings 
--
of the High Court have to be judged by the yardstick of reason to ascertain 
whether such findings were erroneous, perverse and resulted in mis-carriage 
of justice. If the conclusions of the Courts below can be supported by 
acceptable evidence, Supreme Court will not exercise its overriding powers 
to interfere with such a decision. (1003-G-H; 1004-AJ 
H· 
1000 
SUPRF\1E COURT Rl::PORTS 
[2002 J I S.C.R. 
A 
Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR (1950) SC 169; Sadhu Singh Harnum Singh 
v. The State of Pepsu, AIR (1954) SC 271 and Sta

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