Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges: Justice Harjit Singh Bedi, Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad
Date of Judgment: 8 September 2010
Facts of the Case: On 22nd January, 1996 at about 30 minutes past mid night, Paramjit Singh, Conductor No. 45 was on night duty at the Bus Stand Muktsar. He called Shri Jagdip Singh, General Mananger, Punjab Roadways, Muktsar and informed him that some noise was coming out of the office and that Hans Raj, a Gun Man, employed for security purposes, was lying in the office in an injured condition whereas Sukchain Singh, Conductor No. 24 was lying dead. This information was conveyed to the police on telephone by Shri Jagdip Singh on which the police came to the Depot and found the dead body of Sukchain Singh lying in the office and Hans Raj respondent lying seriously injured. It was also noticed that the locks of the cash box had been broken and the safe was also in a damaged condition. An inventory revealed that an amount of Rs. 5,61,704/- had been stolen from the cash room. On enquiry, the respondent informed the police that some unknown persons had fired at him and Sukchain Singh. An FIR against unknown persons was recorded. The inspection of the murder site also led to the recovery of one fired cartridge case of 12 bore shot gun and two live cartridges. The respondent, was interrogated on 29.2.1996 as he was under suspicion by Inspector Ashwani Kumar on which he made a disclosure statement which led to the recovery of Rs. 4,42,730/- and on a further interrogation on 2nd March, 1996 another sum of Rs. 1,14,800/- was also recovered. He was, accordingly, arrested and ultimately brought to trial for the offences aforementioned. The prosecution relied primarily on the statement of P.W. 6, Conductor Paramjit Singh, who claimed to have been an eye witness to the incident and also sought corroboration from the fact that a sum of more than Rs.5,50,000/- had been recovered at the instance of the accused respondent and that the cartridge recovered from the spot had been matched with the murder weapon, i.e. the gun given to the respondent in his capacity as a guard in the office. The Sessions Judge, accordingly, convicted him accused as already indicated above. An appeal was, thereafter taken to the High Court and the High Court has, by impugned judgment, allowed the appeal and acquitted the respondent. The findings of the High Court did not inspire confidence.
Judgment: The Court heard Mr. Jayant K. Sud, learned Additional Advocate for the State of Punjab and Mrs. K. Sarada Devi learned counsel for the respondent, appointed through the Legal Services Committee. The Court found that the view taken by the High Court was possible on the evidence. There seemed to be no plausible explanation as to why P.W. Paramjit Singh, who claimed to have been an eye witness, had kept quiet for ten days as his statement that he had kept quiet on account of fear is not borne out by the evidence as admittedly, the respondent had been arrested on the 29th February, 1996. Likewise, the prosecution story with regard to the manner in which Hans Raj suffered the injury on his hand appeared to be unfounded as the said injury could not be self-suffered.
Decision: The Court was of the opinion that merely because the recovery of cash had been made allegedly at the instance of the respondent was itself in doubt for the additional reason that the FIR had been recorded long after the date of the disclosure statements. Thus, the Court found that there was no merit in this appeal which was accordingly dismissed.
By: Roopali Mohan, 2nd Year, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, New Delhi