Accused entitled for acquittal =
the medical evidence does not support the prosecution -instead of going to the police station the witness went to the milk chilling centre to lodge the report -fire armswere not sent to a ballistic expert to show that these were the guns actually used during the occurrence.
A number of authorities were cited to show that ocular evidence should be preferred to medical evidence. We are not referring to those, since in our view each case has to be decided in its own facts. -The doctor was a prosecution witness and the prosecution cannot be heard to say that his statement should not be relied upon when the doctor be declared a hostile witness.
In the present case the medical evidence does not support the prosecution and we also find that there are other reasons to discredit the prosecution witnesses. No attempt was made by PW1 or 2 to take Satinder Pal Singh (deceased) inside the Hospital for treatment.
The first reaction of close relatives wouldbe to try and save their relative rather than rush to the police station.
This is especially so when the occurrence took place inthe Hospital compound itself.
The second doubtful feature is that instead of going to the police station the witness went to the milk chilling centre to lodge the report.
There is no reasonable explanation given except that since the police were present at the milk chilling centre when the elections took place, he went to the milk chilling centre. He himself admits that the elections wereover at 3.30 P.M. and the occurrence is of 4.30 P.M. Why would he expect that the police would still be present there at the milk chilling centre even after one hour?
Another aspect is that though the licensed fire arms of the accused were seized but they were not sent to a ballistic expertand there is no forensic evidence to show that these were the guns actually used during the occurrence. As far as the recovery of the Tata Sumo vehicle is concerned, it is not proved to be belonging to the accused. It belongs to some other person and the accused have not been linked to this.
According to the two eyewitnesses PW1 and 2, all the four fire arm shots hit the deceased on the head. According to the doctor there were only two entry wounds. This also belies the statement of the so called eyewitnesses according to whom the accused gave four fire arm injuries on the head of the deceased. The doctor was a prosecution witness and the prosecution cannot be heard to say that his statement should not be relied upon. The prosecution did not pray that the doctor be declared a hostile witness. Therefore, we have to go by the statement of the medical expert. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the aforesaid appeals and the same are dismissed.
1
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1560 OF 2019
PREM SINGH …APPELLANT(S)
Versus
SUKHDEV SINGH & OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1561 OF 2019
J U D G M E N T
Deepak Gupta, J.
These appeals by the victim as well as by the State are
directed against the judgment dated 24.07.2013 whereby the
High Court allowed the appeal of the accused and set aside the
judgment of the trial court whereby the respondents herein were
convicted for various offences punishable under Sections 148,
2
302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and Section 25
of the Arms Act, and sentenced to various terms including life
imprisonment.
2. We do not intend to give detailed facts of the case. The gist
of the case is that on 25.05.2005, accused Jagir Singh had
caused injuries to Palwinder Kaur, who is the sisterinlaw of
Prem Singh (PW1). Prem Singh (PW1) had gone to the milk
chilling centre at Lopoke, because his father was contesting
election being contested there. At about 3.15 PM, Prem Singh
(PW1), along with Major Singh (PW2) proceeded to Civil Hospital
at Lopoke to see his sisterinlaw, Palwinder Kaur. Satinder Pal
Singh (since deceased) was already there in the Hospital.
3. When these two witnesses reached the Hospital, they found
a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration no. PB02AL5478 was
parked outside the Hospital. Accused Sardul Singh alias Kalu
came out of the Tata Sumo with a knife in his hand. Accused
Sawinder Singh raised a lalkara (exhortation) that Satinder Pal
Singh should be killed. Thereafter, Sardul Singh inflicted a knife
blow on the person of Satinder Pal Singh which hit both sides of
his abdomen and chest. Satinder Pal Singh tried to run away,
but in the meanwhile accused Sukhdev Singh, Resham Singh,
3
Sawinder Singh and Swaran Singh, who were armed with rifles
came out of the sumo vehicle and fired at Satinder Pal Singh,
which hit him on the forehead, right ear, eye and back of the
head. Thereafter, he fell down. Prem Singh (PW1) and Major
Singh (PW2) raised alarm. All the accused ran away with their
respective weapons after jumping over the boundary wall of the
Hospital, leaving behind the Tata Sumo and one motorcycle.
4. The case of the appellant is that there was a land dispute
and Jagir Singh wanted to take possession of the land of the
complainant and hence the appeal. FIR was got lodged by Prem
Singh (PW1), at the milk chilling centre at Lopoke, because
according to him the police was present there. Thereafter, the
police came to the Hospital. After investigation the accused were
charged with committing murder of the deceased and other
offences. The trial court convicted them. The High Court, in
appeal acquitted them mainly on the ground that the medical
version was totally different from that of the eyewitnesses and,
therefore, reliance cannot be placed on the eyewitnesses.
5. We may now refer to the relevant portion of the statement of
Dr. Deepak Walia (PW13), who found the following injuries on
the deceased:
4
1. A lacerated wound with inverted margins 1 cm x 0.8
cm present center of upper eye lid, right abrasion collar
around it, phtisis (sic) of right eye ball present subconjunctival
hemorrage on right side.
2. A lacerated wound with inverted margins 4 cm x 2.8
cm on right side of fore head 1 cm above the right 1/3rd of
right eye brow. Clotted blood was present.
3. A lacerated wound 3.8 x 2.1 cm present on right
temporo parietal region 2 cm above pinna of right ear. Margin
were everted, brain matter coming out.
4. A lacerated wound 4.2 cm x 1.8 cm on right parieto
occipital region with everted margins. Clotted blood was
present at the site. Brain matter coming out.
5. An incised penetrating wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm on left
side of chest just below nipple in anterior axillary line, muscle
deep. No infiltration of blood and no clot was present in the
wound.
6. An incised penetrating wound 1.5 x 0.5 cm on left
side of abdomen in the left Lumber region. It communicated
with peritoneal cavity. No infiltration of blood in the wound.
7. An incised penetrating wound 3 cm x 1 cm obliquely
placed in right hyponchondric region, it communicated with
peritonial cavity. No infiltration of below was present in the
tissue.
He recovered a bullet from inside the brain and 12 pellets.
According to him, injury nos. 3 and 4 are the exit wounds,
corresponding to the entry wounds, which are injury nos. 1 and
2. He also states that injury 1 to 4 were antemortem and was a
result of fire arm, whereas injury nos. 5 to 7 were postmortem,
as a result of injuries caused by sharp pointed weapon.
6. The High Court held, and in our opinion rightly so, that the
version of the eyewitnesses that knife blows were given by
accused Sardul Singh is falsified by the testimony of the doctor,
5
who clearly states that the injuries caused by a sharp edged
weapon were postmortem. This is a major discrepancy in the
statement of eyewitnesses because both the eyewitnesses claim
that the knife blows were given first by Sardul Singh and,
thereafter when Satinder Pal Singh (deceased) tried to run away,
the other accused came out from the Tata Sumo with fire arms.
7. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the
FIR was lodged within two hours of the occurrence and all the
accused were named in the FIR and, therefore, no chance of
cooking up a false story arises. It is also urged that the doctor’s
statement is contradictory and according to learned counsel for
the appellants injuries bore entry wounds.
8. A number of authorities were cited to show that ocular
evidence should be preferred to medical evidence. We are not
referring to those, since in our view each case has to be decided
in its own facts.
9. In the present case the medical evidence does not support
the prosecution and we also find that there are other reasons to
discredit the prosecution witnesses. No attempt was made by
PW1 or 2 to take Satinder Pal Singh (deceased) inside the
Hospital for treatment. The first reaction of close relatives would
6
be to try and save their relative rather than rush to the police
station. This is especially so when the occurrence took place in
the Hospital compound itself. The second doubtful feature is that
instead of going to the police station the witness went to the milk
chilling centre to lodge the report. There is no reasonable
explanation given except that since the police were present at the
milk chilling centre when the elections took place, he went to the
milk chilling centre. He himself admits that the elections were
over at 3.30 P.M. and the occurrence is of 4.30 P.M. Why would
he expect that the police would still be present there at the milk
chilling centre even after one hour?
10. Another aspect is that though the licensed fire arms of the
accused were seized but they were not sent to a ballistic expert
and there is no forensic evidence to show that these were the
guns actually used during the occurrence.
11. As far as the recovery of the Tata Sumo vehicle is concerned,
it is not proved to be belonging to the accused. It belongs to some
other person and the accused have not been linked to this.
12. According to the two eyewitnesses PW1 and 2, all the four
fire arm shots hit the deceased on the head. According to the
doctor there were only two entry wounds. This also belies the
7
statement of the so called eyewitnesses according to whom the
accused gave four fire arm injuries on the head of the deceased.
The doctor was a prosecution witness and the prosecution cannot
be heard to say that his statement should not be relied upon.
The prosecution did not pray that the doctor be declared a hostile
witness. Therefore, we have to go by the statement of the medical
expert.
13. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the
aforesaid appeals and the same are dismissed. Pending
application(s), if any, shall also stand dismissed.
…………………………….J.
(Deepak Gupta)
……………………………..J.
(Aniruddha Bose)
New Delhi
October 17, 2019
the medical evidence does not support the prosecution -instead of going to the police station the witness went to the milk chilling centre to lodge the report -fire armswere not sent to a ballistic expert to show that these were the guns actually used during the occurrence.
A number of authorities were cited to show that ocular evidence should be preferred to medical evidence. We are not referring to those, since in our view each case has to be decided in its own facts. -The doctor was a prosecution witness and the prosecution cannot be heard to say that his statement should not be relied upon when the doctor be declared a hostile witness.
In the present case the medical evidence does not support the prosecution and we also find that there are other reasons to discredit the prosecution witnesses. No attempt was made by PW1 or 2 to take Satinder Pal Singh (deceased) inside the Hospital for treatment.
The first reaction of close relatives wouldbe to try and save their relative rather than rush to the police station.
This is especially so when the occurrence took place inthe Hospital compound itself.
The second doubtful feature is that instead of going to the police station the witness went to the milk chilling centre to lodge the report.
There is no reasonable explanation given except that since the police were present at the milk chilling centre when the elections took place, he went to the milk chilling centre. He himself admits that the elections wereover at 3.30 P.M. and the occurrence is of 4.30 P.M. Why would he expect that the police would still be present there at the milk chilling centre even after one hour?
Another aspect is that though the licensed fire arms of the accused were seized but they were not sent to a ballistic expertand there is no forensic evidence to show that these were the guns actually used during the occurrence. As far as the recovery of the Tata Sumo vehicle is concerned, it is not proved to be belonging to the accused. It belongs to some other person and the accused have not been linked to this.
According to the two eyewitnesses PW1 and 2, all the four fire arm shots hit the deceased on the head. According to the doctor there were only two entry wounds. This also belies the statement of the so called eyewitnesses according to whom the accused gave four fire arm injuries on the head of the deceased. The doctor was a prosecution witness and the prosecution cannot be heard to say that his statement should not be relied upon. The prosecution did not pray that the doctor be declared a hostile witness. Therefore, we have to go by the statement of the medical expert. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the aforesaid appeals and the same are dismissed.
1
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1560 OF 2019
PREM SINGH …APPELLANT(S)
Versus
SUKHDEV SINGH & OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1561 OF 2019
J U D G M E N T
Deepak Gupta, J.
These appeals by the victim as well as by the State are
directed against the judgment dated 24.07.2013 whereby the
High Court allowed the appeal of the accused and set aside the
judgment of the trial court whereby the respondents herein were
convicted for various offences punishable under Sections 148,
2
302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and Section 25
of the Arms Act, and sentenced to various terms including life
imprisonment.
2. We do not intend to give detailed facts of the case. The gist
of the case is that on 25.05.2005, accused Jagir Singh had
caused injuries to Palwinder Kaur, who is the sisterinlaw of
Prem Singh (PW1). Prem Singh (PW1) had gone to the milk
chilling centre at Lopoke, because his father was contesting
election being contested there. At about 3.15 PM, Prem Singh
(PW1), along with Major Singh (PW2) proceeded to Civil Hospital
at Lopoke to see his sisterinlaw, Palwinder Kaur. Satinder Pal
Singh (since deceased) was already there in the Hospital.
3. When these two witnesses reached the Hospital, they found
a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration no. PB02AL5478 was
parked outside the Hospital. Accused Sardul Singh alias Kalu
came out of the Tata Sumo with a knife in his hand. Accused
Sawinder Singh raised a lalkara (exhortation) that Satinder Pal
Singh should be killed. Thereafter, Sardul Singh inflicted a knife
blow on the person of Satinder Pal Singh which hit both sides of
his abdomen and chest. Satinder Pal Singh tried to run away,
but in the meanwhile accused Sukhdev Singh, Resham Singh,
3
Sawinder Singh and Swaran Singh, who were armed with rifles
came out of the sumo vehicle and fired at Satinder Pal Singh,
which hit him on the forehead, right ear, eye and back of the
head. Thereafter, he fell down. Prem Singh (PW1) and Major
Singh (PW2) raised alarm. All the accused ran away with their
respective weapons after jumping over the boundary wall of the
Hospital, leaving behind the Tata Sumo and one motorcycle.
4. The case of the appellant is that there was a land dispute
and Jagir Singh wanted to take possession of the land of the
complainant and hence the appeal. FIR was got lodged by Prem
Singh (PW1), at the milk chilling centre at Lopoke, because
according to him the police was present there. Thereafter, the
police came to the Hospital. After investigation the accused were
charged with committing murder of the deceased and other
offences. The trial court convicted them. The High Court, in
appeal acquitted them mainly on the ground that the medical
version was totally different from that of the eyewitnesses and,
therefore, reliance cannot be placed on the eyewitnesses.
5. We may now refer to the relevant portion of the statement of
Dr. Deepak Walia (PW13), who found the following injuries on
the deceased:
4
1. A lacerated wound with inverted margins 1 cm x 0.8
cm present center of upper eye lid, right abrasion collar
around it, phtisis (sic) of right eye ball present subconjunctival
hemorrage on right side.
2. A lacerated wound with inverted margins 4 cm x 2.8
cm on right side of fore head 1 cm above the right 1/3rd of
right eye brow. Clotted blood was present.
3. A lacerated wound 3.8 x 2.1 cm present on right
temporo parietal region 2 cm above pinna of right ear. Margin
were everted, brain matter coming out.
4. A lacerated wound 4.2 cm x 1.8 cm on right parieto
occipital region with everted margins. Clotted blood was
present at the site. Brain matter coming out.
5. An incised penetrating wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm on left
side of chest just below nipple in anterior axillary line, muscle
deep. No infiltration of blood and no clot was present in the
wound.
6. An incised penetrating wound 1.5 x 0.5 cm on left
side of abdomen in the left Lumber region. It communicated
with peritoneal cavity. No infiltration of blood in the wound.
7. An incised penetrating wound 3 cm x 1 cm obliquely
placed in right hyponchondric region, it communicated with
peritonial cavity. No infiltration of below was present in the
tissue.
He recovered a bullet from inside the brain and 12 pellets.
According to him, injury nos. 3 and 4 are the exit wounds,
corresponding to the entry wounds, which are injury nos. 1 and
2. He also states that injury 1 to 4 were antemortem and was a
result of fire arm, whereas injury nos. 5 to 7 were postmortem,
as a result of injuries caused by sharp pointed weapon.
6. The High Court held, and in our opinion rightly so, that the
version of the eyewitnesses that knife blows were given by
accused Sardul Singh is falsified by the testimony of the doctor,
5
who clearly states that the injuries caused by a sharp edged
weapon were postmortem. This is a major discrepancy in the
statement of eyewitnesses because both the eyewitnesses claim
that the knife blows were given first by Sardul Singh and,
thereafter when Satinder Pal Singh (deceased) tried to run away,
the other accused came out from the Tata Sumo with fire arms.
7. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the
FIR was lodged within two hours of the occurrence and all the
accused were named in the FIR and, therefore, no chance of
cooking up a false story arises. It is also urged that the doctor’s
statement is contradictory and according to learned counsel for
the appellants injuries bore entry wounds.
8. A number of authorities were cited to show that ocular
evidence should be preferred to medical evidence. We are not
referring to those, since in our view each case has to be decided
in its own facts.
9. In the present case the medical evidence does not support
the prosecution and we also find that there are other reasons to
discredit the prosecution witnesses. No attempt was made by
PW1 or 2 to take Satinder Pal Singh (deceased) inside the
Hospital for treatment. The first reaction of close relatives would
6
be to try and save their relative rather than rush to the police
station. This is especially so when the occurrence took place in
the Hospital compound itself. The second doubtful feature is that
instead of going to the police station the witness went to the milk
chilling centre to lodge the report. There is no reasonable
explanation given except that since the police were present at the
milk chilling centre when the elections took place, he went to the
milk chilling centre. He himself admits that the elections were
over at 3.30 P.M. and the occurrence is of 4.30 P.M. Why would
he expect that the police would still be present there at the milk
chilling centre even after one hour?
10. Another aspect is that though the licensed fire arms of the
accused were seized but they were not sent to a ballistic expert
and there is no forensic evidence to show that these were the
guns actually used during the occurrence.
11. As far as the recovery of the Tata Sumo vehicle is concerned,
it is not proved to be belonging to the accused. It belongs to some
other person and the accused have not been linked to this.
12. According to the two eyewitnesses PW1 and 2, all the four
fire arm shots hit the deceased on the head. According to the
doctor there were only two entry wounds. This also belies the
7
statement of the so called eyewitnesses according to whom the
accused gave four fire arm injuries on the head of the deceased.
The doctor was a prosecution witness and the prosecution cannot
be heard to say that his statement should not be relied upon.
The prosecution did not pray that the doctor be declared a hostile
witness. Therefore, we have to go by the statement of the medical
expert.
13. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the
aforesaid appeals and the same are dismissed. Pending
application(s), if any, shall also stand dismissed.
…………………………….J.
(Deepak Gupta)
……………………………..J.
(Aniruddha Bose)
New Delhi
October 17, 2019
