STATE OF PUNJAB versus KARNAIL SINGH

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 593 · Decided: 14-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STA TE OF PUNJAB 
A 
v. 
KARNAIL SINGH 
AUGUST 14, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASA Y AT, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
Appeal against acquittal-Interference-Permissibility of-Held: C 
Interference is permissible only when there are compelling and substantial 
reasons-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136. 
Section I 54-FIR-Delay in lodging-Effect of-Held: Merely because 
FIR was not lodged due to distance, it cannot be said that there was a delay, 
more so when the area was terrorist infected area. 
Section 313-Statement of accused-Facts within special knowledge 
of accused, when not satisfactorily explained in a murder case-Effect. of-
Held: It is a factor against accused and sufficient to fasten guilt of accused 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 3: 
Partisen witnesses-Testimony in a murder case-Reliability of 
Normal discrepancies vis-a-vis material discrepancies-Effect of-Held: 
material discrepancies corrode the credibility of a case while normal 
D 
E 
discrepancies do not. 
p 
According to the prosecution, there was enmity between the deceased 
and accused persons. Deceased and one of his brothers used to reside in a 
dera in their fields. On the fateful day, when the deceased had gone to check 
up if the fields were, properly irrigated, PW-i and 2 - brothers of deceased -
heard the cry of the deceased for help. They saw accused persons armed with G 
weapons dragging the deceased towards their dera. On their intervention N 
frred a shot at the deceased, as a result of which deceased fell down. and 
respondent-accused assaulted the deceased with the Kirpan. PW-1-brother of 
the deceased raised alarm. Accused persons threatened PWl and PW2; being 
593 
H 
594 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A frightened they ran away to their village. Next day they told about the incident 
to Sarpanch. The headless body was found in the fields of the respondent-
accused and the severed head near his tube-well. Thereafter FIR was lodged. 
Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused persons. However, the High 
Court acquitted them. Hence the present appeal During pendency of the appeal, 
N expired and so his appeal abates. 
B 
Appellant-State contended that considering the distance between the 
place of occurrence, police chowk, police station and the Court, delay in lodging 
the FIR is no reason to discard the prosecution version; that the area was a 
terrorist infected area and terrorism was at its peak during the period; that 
C the conclusion of the High Court that there was unusual conduct in not 
informing the police or co-villagers at the night !loes not appear to be correct; 
arid that there was no explanation with regard to the dead body being found in 
the field of the respondent-accused and the severed head near his tubewell. 
Respondent-accused contended that the prosecution has failed to 
D establish its accusations; that the High Court has noted the infirmities in 
detail and no interference is called for considering the limited scope of 
interference in an appeal against acquittal; that since PWs 1 and 2 are close 
relatives of the deceased, their evidence should not have been acted upon; and 
that their evidence is also not consistent with regard to motive for the crime. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1. High Court was not justified in directing acquittal of the 
accused persons. Thus the order of High Court is set aside and the trial court 
is restored. Respondent-accused is directed to surrender to custody to serve, 
the balance of the imprisonment as ordered by the trial court [602-E, F] 
2. The principle to be followed by appellate court considering the appeal 
against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are 
compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is 
clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for interference. There is no 
embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence upon which an order 
G of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered 
with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further 
strengthe.ned by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of 
administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible 
on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused 
H and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused 
ST A TE OF PUNJAB v. KARN AIL SINGH 
595 
shou

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