LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus POHLA SINGH AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF PUNJAB A v. POHLA SINGH AND ANR. SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] B Penal Code, 1860: S.302 r/w s.34-Four accused charged for causing death ofvictim- Trial court convicting two of them uls 302134-Acquittal by High Court C on the ground of delay In lodging FIR and the time alleged to have been chosen by accused -Held, it is not the time but unexplained delay in a case, which is of relevance-There is no material to support the conclusion reached by High Court-Incident took place at 5.30 in the morning- Question raised by High Court about time of incident is hypothetical and a conjecture-Judgment of High Court is indefensible and is set aside- D Delay in lodging FIR-Appeal-Appraisal of evidence by appellate court. Respondents and two other accused were prosecuted for offences under s.302 IPC. The prosecution case was that at about 5.30 A.M. on 11.6.1991, PW-3, who was irrigating his fields, and PW-2, who was E nearby, saw the accused, one of whom was armed with 'ghop', attacking the nephew of PW-2 who was sleeping at the tube well. PWs- 2 and 3 raised alarm, whereupon the accused fled away. The victim died at the spot. The trial court relied upon the prosecution evidence as regards participation by the two respondents in the crime, and F convicted and sentenced them u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC. The other two accused were given benefit of doubt. However, the High Court acquitted both the respondents holding that there was delay in lodging the FIR; and it was highly improbable that the accused would choose daytime for committing the murder. Aggrieved, the State filed the present appeal. G Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: I. There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. The paramount H 993 994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than the one arising from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to re-appreciate the evidence even where the accused has B been acquitted, for the purpose ofascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not. [998-G-H, 999-A-B) Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, JT (2002) 3 SC 387; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, C (1973) 2 SCC 793; Ramesh Babula/ Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225; Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana, JT (2000) 4 SC 114 and State of Punjab v. Kamai/ Singh, (2003) AIR SCW 4065, relied on. D Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, AIR (1953) SC 364, referred to. 2. It is not the time, but unexplained delay in a case, which is of relevance. In the instant case, the incident took place around 5.30 in the morning. The FIR was lodged at about 10.45 a.m. The distance between the police post and the Ilaqa Magistrate is about 20 K.M. and the special E report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate at 2.40 p.m. on the same day. Unfortunately, the High Court came to conclude on surmises and conjectures that the FIR was lodged after deliberation. There was no material to support such a conclusion. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that the High Court was wrong in holding that there was F delay in lodging the FIR and in sending the special report. (1000-B-H] 3. The other matter which seems to have weighed greatly with the High Court is time of occurrence. The High Court has raised a question of conjecture as to why somebody would choose a day break time to commit a murder. Since the question is hypothetical, the G answer to it would also be hypothetical. What is in the mind of a person and the reason for doing a thing is an aspect within the special knowledge of the accused. If crime is to be punished in a glosseme way niceties must yield to realistic appraisal. [1001-A-C) H Miller v. Minister of Pension, (1947) 2 All ER 373, referred to. - STATE v. POHLA SINGH [PASA YAT, J.] 995 4. The vulnerability of the High Court's judgment is amplified by A the fact that it has put great emphasis on the acquittal of two co- accused to discard the evidence of PW-5. That per se was not a ground to find the evidence as tainted. The eye-witnesses have described the incident with graphic detail and, except minor discrep
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.