LexSURENDER SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. ' 'f "' ~ ' SURENDER SINGH A v. STATE OF HARYANA JANUARY 17, 2006 [H.K. SEMA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.) B Penal Code, 1860-Sections 392, 394 and 397/Arms Act, 1925-Section 25-Prosecution under-Accused apprehended with incriminating material- Panch-witness, injured witness and complainant turning hostile during trial- c Discrepancy in statements of witnesses--.::onviction by Courts below-On appeal, held: Conviction justified-Though the witnesses turned hostile in some aspects, their statements otherwise proved the prosecution case-The discrepancies in the statements of witnesses are minor and are not of such nature creating infirmity in prosecution case-Jn view of the facts and D circumstances of the case, interference with the concurrent finding of fact in Special Leave Petition not warranted-Constitution of India, I950-Article I36. Criminal Trial: Discrepancy in evidence of prosecution witnesses-Effect of-Held: Every E discrepancy in the. witness statement cannot be treated as fatal-The discrepancy which does not affect the prosecution case materially, doe· not create infirmity. Testimony of injured witness-Evidentiary value of-Held: Testimony of F injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy-Injury to the witness lends support to the testimony that witness was actually present during occurrence. Appellants-accused alongwith another accused-A-2 were charged for offences u/ss. 392, 394 and 397 IPC and oqe of the appellants-accused was charged u/s. 25 of the Arms Act. G The prosecution case was that complainant (PW-9) and PW-2, when were going to deposit Rs. 62,000 with Bank, the accused confronted them. One of the appellants-accused was armed with pistol and A-2 was having knife. One of the appellants-accused tried to snatch the bag, and on 431 H 432 %PRl::ME COuRT REPORTS [2006] I S.C.R. A resistance, A-2 gave knife blow on PW-2. Appellants-accused snatched the bag and ran away, while A-2 was caught by the public. PW-2 was medically examined. Police Inspector (PW-13) saw the appellants-accused being chased by public, and he apprehended them. From one appellant- accused a pistol, hrn live cartridges and currency notes amounting to B Rs.5000/- was recovered. From another appellant-accused currency notes amounting to Rs.10.000/- was recovered. PWs-3 and 4 were the Panch witnesses. During trial PWs2 and 9 and PWs 3 and 4 turned hostile. Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences charged. In appeal, High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence u/ss. 394 and 397 IPC. In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that conviction was C not justified as PWs 2,3,4 and 9 had turned hostile; that there was discrepancy in statements of the witnesses; that allegation of snatching Rs.62,000/- was not proved inasmuch only Rs.15,000/- was recovered; and that the recovered amount was not that which was alleged to have been snatched and the same was implanted by Police for false implication. D Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: I. The present case, in view of its evidence, is not of such a nature which would require interference of this Court under Special Leave jurisdiction. The finding of guilt recorded by the trial court and confirmed E by the High Court has been challenged mainly on the basis of PWs 3 and 4 who are panch witnesses turned hostile and even PW-2 who is an injured witness and PW-9 the complainant turned hostile. The challenge to the concurrent finding of guilt is also on the basis of minor discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. (436-A-B( F 2.The minor discrepancy is not of such a nature, which creates infirmity in the prosecution's case. Every discrepancy in the witness statement cannot be treated as fatal to the prosecution case. The discrepancy, which does not affect the prosecution case materially, does not create infirmity. (436-B-C] G 3. With regard to PWs 3 and 4 panch witnesses being turned hostile, the courts below held that their statements did not affect materially the prosecution story. Both the witnesses though stated that pistol or cartridges or currency notes mentioned in the Exhibits were not recovered in their presence, but they admitted their signatures over the Exhibits. Therefore, H both the courts correctly held that the Exhibits were recovered in the • , ,. ' ) SURENDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARY ANA 433 presence of PWs 3 and 4 who were panch witnesses. 1436-C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.