LexTEJINDER SINGH @ KAKA versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 802
TEJINDER SINGH @ KAKA
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 1279 of 2008 etc.)
APRIL 11, 2013
[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND V. GOPALA
GOWDA, JJ.]
PENAL CODE, 1860:
ss. 302, 376(2)(g), 201 and 506 - Gang rape and murder
- Conviction by trial court - Affirmed by High Court - Held:
There is major discrepancy in the testimony of witnesses and
also registration of FIR on the basis of information furnished
0 by the informant - Further, the Sarpanch to whom the accused
were stated to have made confessional statement, reported ·.
the matter to police after 16 days - His evidence. is not
believable - The narration of the alleged offences against the
appellants and other accused by prosecution witnesses is
most unnatural and unbelievable to convict and sentence
E them - Neither trial court nor High Court has examined their
testimony properly by re-appreciating the same to record
findings on the charges - There is no material evidence on
record to convict and sentence the appellants - Their
conviction and sentences are set aside - Circumstantial
F evidence.
Extra-judicial confession - Held: Is a weak form of
evidence and based on such evidence no conviction and
sentence can be imposed upon the appellants and other
G accused.
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950:
'
,
Art. 142 - Benefit of acquittal extended to non-appellant-
H
802
TEJINDER SINGH @ KAKA v. STATE OF PUNJAB
803
accused also - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 376 (2) (g), 201,
A
404 and 506 /PC.
An FIR was lodged at the Police Station on 25.5.2000
for offences punishable u/s 302, 376{2){g), 148, 201 and
404 read with s. 34 IPC, alleging that on 24.5.2000 at about
8
9 A.M. the deceased had gone to the fields to bring fodder
and did not return. At about 8 A.M. on 25.5.2000, the body
of the deceased was found buried in a fresh dug pit in
the sugar cane field belonging to accused 'SL'. The trial
court convicted accused 'GS' u/ss 302, 376{2){g) and 506
C
IPC amd accused 'RV'. 'HS', 'BS' and SL u/ss 302,
376{2)(g) and 404 IPC. All these five accused were
sentenced to imprisonment for life. Accused 'TS' was
convicted u/s 201 IPC and sentenced to 7 years RI. The
High Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence.
Except accused 'GS', all other accused filed the appeals.
D
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In so far as appellant 'TS' is concerned,
the charge is u/s 201 IPC. As could be seen from the
E
evidence of PW-8 and PW-9, there is major discrepancy
between. their statements of evidence. PW-8 has stated
that appellant 'TS' started digging a pit with spade in the
sugarcane field, whereas PW-9 has stated that the said
appellant was not present at that time. In view of the major
F
discrepancy and contradiction between the statements
of the witnesses, it not only creates a grave suspicion
regarding the said appellant being part of the offence but
also makes his presence doubtful at the place of
occurrence. Therefore, placing reliance by trial court
upon the testimony of the said witnesses and recording
G
the finding against appellant 'TS' on the charge and
passing an order of conviction and sentence which is
affirmed by the High Court is without proper appreciation
of the major discrepancy in the statements of PWs 8 and
9 regarding the presence of appellant 'TS' at the place of H
804
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 2 S.C.R.
A occurrence.
The courts below have also failed to take
into consideration the evidence of PW-10, wherein she
had deposed about the presence of other accused near
the place of occurrence, but she has not named appellant
'TS. Moreover, there is nothing substantive and positive
B evidence placed on record against appellant 'TS" by the
prosecution to prove its case against him. It cannot be
said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt.
The benefit of doubt should have
been extended to 'TS' in the impugned judgment by the
c High Court while re-appreciating the evidence on record
in exercise of its jurisdiction. [para 18, 20 and 21] [817-D-
E, F-H; 818-A-E, F-H]
D
Sukhram Vs. State of Maharashtra 2007 (9) SCR 44 =
2001 (7) sec 502 - relied on.
1.2 Thus, this Court holds that there is major
discrepancy in the testimony of witnesses PW-8 and PW-
9 and also registration of FIR on the basis of information
furnished by the informant. The finding of the trial court
E in this regard is erroneous in law for the reason thaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.