LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus KULWANT SINGH @ KANTA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-. [2008) 10 S.C.R. 1075 STATE OF PUNJAB A v. KULWANT SINGH @ KANTA (Criminal Apepal No. 493 of 2001) ,;--- . -( JULY 16, 2008 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ] Penal Code, 1860: s; 302 - Murder- Conviction by trial court - Acquittal by c High Court - HELD: Statement of sole eye-witness recorded affer about a· month - No explanation by prosecution in this regard - Investigating Officer also not examined - High Court found abnormal delay in filing the FIR and the person who ,)- informed the informant also not examined - Injuries on ac- D cused, on facts of case, were required to be explained - Ac- quittal directed by High Court cannot be faulted - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 378. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: E s. 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Powers of appellate court - Discussed. The respondent was prosecuted for commission of ~ offences punishable u/ss 302 and 307 IPC. The prosecu- F tion case was that PW-4 owned a 'Marriage Palace' and the three deceased, the respondent and PW-6 were em- ployed by him in the said marriage palace. On the infor- mation of one 'MS' who was given the work of construct- ing sheds in the marriage palace, PW-4 along with his brother and the said 'MS' went to the marriage palace at G .,.;. about 7.00 A.M. on 27.8.1996 and saw that bodies of two servants were burning there and the third one was lying dead in the adjoining room. They saw PW-6, the chowkidar, lying unconscious in the ground of the mar- 1075 H . 1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. .. t A riage palace. He was sentto the Civil Hospital with 'MS'. Thereafter they found the respondent lying inside the marriage palace. They got him also admitted in the Civil Hospital. Since no injury was found on the person of the respondent, he was suspected to have committed the ")-~- B crime. He was interrogated by the police and at his in- stance his shirt and pant stained with blood and ohe iron rod concealed in the marriage palace were said to have been recovered. The trial court found him guilty of com- mitting the three murders and awarded him death sen- c tence. However, the High Court acquitted him of the charges. In the instant appeal filed by the State, it was con- tended for the appellant that the High .Court erred in inter- fering with the well reasoned and elaborate judgment of --- D the trial court. ...;..__ Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 It is to be noted that the pivotal witness was PW-6. He claimed to be an eye-witness. In that sense, E this was not a case where prosecution relied on circum- stantial evidence. The High Court found that this· witness was examined after about a month of the incident. The only explanation offered was that the witness was hospi- talized and was lying in unconscious state for about one F week. Even if that be so, no explanation was offered as to >- why after PW-6 was released from the hospital he was not examined for about.three weeks. The investigating offic~r who could have thrown light on this aspect was not examined. No reason was indicted for such non-ex- G amination: [para ·s] [1083 A-C] 1.2 The other relevant factor is that the alleged inci-· ,\.._ dent took place around 12 midnight. The information was lodged at about 8.30 a.m. The High Court found that there was abnormal delay in lodging· the FIR. The prosecution H· case was that the informant (PW4) was told by 'MS' around . I -+ STATE OF PUNJAB v. KULWANT SINGH @ 1077 KANTA 7 .00 a.m. and some time was spent for taking the injured A person to the hospital and thereafter the FIR was lodged and, therefore, there was in fact no delay. It is to be noted that the High Court found that the said 'MS' w;is not ex- ,>- - -I' amined as a witness. His evidence would have thrown considerable light as to whether and when he informed B the informant as claimed. He is supposed to have taken PW-6 to the hospital. His non-examination has been rightly taken note of to be a vulnerable factor by the High Court. [para 5) [1083 D -1084 B] 1.3 There are certain other aspects which need to be c noted. PW-6 was stated to have been taken to the hospi- ·• tal at 7 .15 A.M. The doctor attending to him sent informa- tion to the SHO of the concerned Police Station at 7 .15 .. _ a.m . Interestingly, the respondent was taken to the hos- Ar" pital at 8.30 a.m. It has not been explained by the pros- D ecution a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.