Case: State Of Punjab Vs. Pritam Singh Etc. Etc

of the evidence led by the prosecution, we fell that the view taken by the High Court was not wrong. Apart from the circumstances mentioned by the High Court in its judgment there were certain important intrinsic circumstances which threw a good deal of doubt on the prosecution case. In the first place, it is admitted that there was serious enmity between the parties and there was sufficient motive for Pala Singh to have implicated the respondents at whose instance he was implicated in the murder of Toga Singh and eventually convicted to life imprisonment. Equally there was a motive for the respondents also to kill Pala Singh in order to wreck vengeance on him for having caused the death of the father of Gurmej Singh. Teja Singh and Bhan Singh. When the motives were thus equally balanced, the Court had to look to surrounding circumstances in order to find out the truth.5. One of the most extraordinary features of this case is that after Pala Singh left for the police station to lodge the F.I.R., Ajit Singh his brother whose wife and daughter had been killed stayed at the house though he had also witnessed the occurrence. He was, therefore, the most material witness to be examined in the case, because his near relations had been killed in his presence and yet Ajit Singh was not examined by the prosecution at all.6. Another important circumstances that militates against the prosecution version is that PW 4 Jaswant Kaur one of the eye witnesses clearly stated in her evidence that when Darbara Singh came to the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence she did not narrate the incident to him. Pala Singh had left for the police station and the only eye witness Jaswant Kaur who was present at the spot, for reasons best known to her, chose not to disclose the incident or the names of the assailants to Darbara Singh who was the only witness examined to corroborate the version of Pala Singh and Jaswant Kaur. Moreover, PW 5 Darbara Singh has stated in his evidence that he was informed about the occurrence and the names of the assailants by one Jita Sigh who, however, has not been examined. Thus the evidence of PW 5 Darbara Singh becomes valueless. In spite of the fact that to the prosecution Ajit Singh and Jita Singh were available to corroborate the eye witnesses, yet none of them was examined and the evidence of Darbara Singh PW 5 which remained was hearsay and, therefore, inadmissible.7. Another importance circumstances which throws doubt on the prosecution case is that although the party of the accused consisting of six person seems to have come variously armed, excepting the hand-grenade no other weapon appears to have been used in the offence, even though the hand-grenade missed the main target, namely, Pala Sigh. Although it is said that pistol-shots were fired by Gurmej Singh, yet there is no evidence to show that any wads or pellets were recovered from the place of occurrence or from near the pillar where Pala Singh had taken shelter. This circumstances, therefore, renders the story of pistol-shots having been fired by Gurmej Singh extremely doubtful. It is also not understandable why the other accused who had come armed with Gandasis did nothing at all, even though the object to kill Pala Singh had been foiled and there was sufficient opportunity for these persons to attack him with the Gandasis and to storm the place. This clearly shows that there was absolutely no occasion for the other accused to be armed with Gandasis and this has been introduced only as an embellishment to give colour to the gravity of the prosecution case.8. It is also not intelligible to us as to why, if the respondents chose to attack Pala Singhs house during day-break when there was sufficient light, they missed the target and having missed the same they made no attempt to kill Pala Singh at all although they were armed with hand-grenades, pistols and Gandasis. Such a story lends support to the suggestion of the defence based on the evidence of PW 9 Dalip Singh that probably the occurrence took place at about 4 a.m. when some assailants of the deceased placed a bomb near the cot of the deceased persons which having exploded caused fatal injuries to the deceased.9. The High Court has relied on the evidence of constable Dalip Singh PW 9 to prove the circumstance about the explosion. Dalip Singh PW 9 stated in his evidence that while he was on round he heard a sound of explosion of bomb at about 4 a.m. The only comment made by for the respondents against him was that Darbara Singh had filed a complaint against the victims alleging that he had taken utensils and one maund of grain. The witness denied this and no documentary evidence has been produced by the prosecution to show that the complaint was really filed and if so what action was taken thereon. In these circumstances, therefore, empty allegation made against the witness Dalip Singh is not sufficient to discredit his testimony, particularly when he appears to be a disinterested witness.10. Having regard to the cumulative effect of the circumstances mentioned above, the wholly interested and partisan nature of the testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the complete absence of corroborative evidence, which though in possession of the prosecution was not produced without any adequate explanation, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the reasons given by the High Court that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, this appeal is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the High Court and unless there are special circumstances or grave errors committed by the High Court leading to serious miscarriage of justice, this Court would not interfere in special leave in order to set aside an order of acquittal, and that too in a murder case.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Pala Singh had left for the police station and the only eye witness Jaswant Kaur who was present at the spot, for reasons best known to her, chose not to disclose the incident or the names of the assailants to Darbara Singh who was the only witness examined to corroborate the version of Pala Singh and Jaswant Kaur. Moreover, PW 5 Darbara Singh has stated in his evidence that he was informed about the occurrence and the names of the assailants by one Jita Sigh who, however, has not been examined. Thus the evidence of PW 5 Darbara Singh becomes valueless. In spite of the fact that to the prosecution Ajit Singh and Jita Singh were available to corroborate the eye witnesses, yet none of them was examined and the evidence of Darbara Singh PW 5 which remained was hearsay and, therefore,these circumstances, therefore, empty allegation made against the witness Dalip Singh is not sufficient to discredit his testimony, particularly when he appears to be a disinterested witness.10. Having regard to the cumulative effect of the circumstances mentioned above, the wholly interested and partisan nature of the testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the complete absence of corroborative evidence, which though in possession of the prosecution was not produced without any adequate explanation, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the reasons given by the High Court that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, this appeal is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the High Court and unless there are special circumstances or grave errors committed by the High Court leading to serious miscarriage of justice, this Court would not interfere in special leave in order to set aside an order of acquittal, and that too in a murder case.