STATE OF UTTARAKHAND versus DARSHAN SINGH

Citation: [2019] 14 S.C.R. 338 · Decided: 07-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
338
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
v.
DARSHAN SINGH
(Criminal Appeal No. 1856 of 2013)
NOVEMBER 07, 2019
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.147, 148, 149 and 302 – Murder –
Acquittal of accused by the High Court – Prosecution case was that
PW-1, his father, mother and maternal uncle-PW-4 were going on a
tractor and PW-2 was following them on a cycle – Father of PW-1
was driving the tractor, when they found that a bullock cart had
blocked their passage – The tractor stopped near the bullock cart
– The accused persons, who were hiding, armed with pistols and
other sharp-edged weapons attacked father of PW-1 – Consequent
to which, father of PW-1 died – FIR was lodged u/ss. 147, 148, 149
and 302 IPC – The Trial Court convicted accused persons u/s.302
r/w. ss.148 and 149 IPC – However, High Court acquitted the
accused – On appeal, held: There were material variations in the
evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 – There were contradictions in the
evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 as to who wrote the report in the police
station – PW-1 stated that he, his mother, maternal uncle and one
‘IS’ went to the police station and report was written by ‘IS’ – There
was no mention of PW-2 by PW-1, however, PW-2 stated that he had
also gone to the police station and stated in his cross-examination
that report was written by PW-1 – PW-4, one of the witness, turned
hostile – PW-1, his mother, PW-4 and PW-2 after the incident did
not rush to the hospital with the victim and post-mortem report
revealed that the body reached the hospital next day in the afternoon
– These aspects strengthened the judgment of the High Court –
Another contradiction came from the testimony of PW-2, who stated
that one of the accused fired the shot from behind after climbing in
the tractor which had struck at the back of deceased whereas PW-
1 deposed that all the accused stood at front and all three had fired
the shot – The gunshot injury no.4 at the back of deceased remained
unexplained – Further, no role was attributed to the two accused
 [2019] 14 S.C.R. 338
338
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
339
persons, however, when evidence opened PW-1 had gone on to
attribute specific overt act to them also – PW-2 had also stated that
he and other relatives had left the tractor at spot and had not taken
it to the police station to lodge the report as the dead body was on
it – On the other hand, according to PW-5-investigating officer, the
site of the dead body was the paddy field – Considering the apparent
variations in the evidence, the appellant was not able to make out a
case to interfere with the judgment of the High Court – Resultantly,
appeals were dismissed.
Law of Evidence – Medical and ocular evidence – discussed.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The incident allegedly unfolded when the
deceased along with PW1, his wife, and brother-in-law (PW4) were
coming back in a tractor. The case of the prosecution further is
that the accused came forward and committed the acts attributed
to them. There is an allegation that some relatives accompanying
the deceased were sitting on the mudguard of the tractor. There
is a case for the prosecution that the deceased fell from the tractor
when PW1 was asked how he went to the Police Station to lodge
the report and whether he had taken the tractor, his answer was
that since the body of his father was lying on it, they did not take
the tractor and they went on foot. Therefore, it must be taken
that the body was on the tractor. PW5-the Investigating Officer,
on the other hand, deposed that the dead body of the deceased
was lying in the paddy field at the side of the road. PW5-original
Investigating Officer does not speak a word about the tractor.
According to PW1, the tractor was left behind as the dead body
was lying on it. As noted, PW5 speaks otherwise and the dead
body was found at the paddy field at the side of the road. Whether,
therefore, the tractor was in fact used as claimed by the
prosecution? There is no evidence regarding any investigation
conducted by the Officer in regard to the tractor. The nature and
size of the tractor remains a mystery. [Para 42][363-D-H]
2. There are contradictions in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2
as to who wrote the report. Did PW1 himself write the report as
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. DARSHAN SINGH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
340
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
claimed by PW2 in his cross-examination or was it written by
‘IS’, who according to PW1 wrote

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