http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: NACHHATTAR SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       03/03/1998

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, V.N. KHARE

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T NANAVATI. J.      This appeal  is filed  by the convicted accused against the judgment  of the  Punjab &  Haryana High Court in Crl.A. No. 57 of 1988 dismissing his appeal against the judgment of the Sessions  Court, Bhatinda  in Sessions  Case No.  108 of 1986.      The appellant  has been convicted under Section 302 IPC for causing  death of Balwant Kaur. The incident happened in the  house   of  Balwant   Kaur.  To  prove  the  case,  the prosecution had examined her two sons Daya Singh and Kulwant Singh who  have stated that the appellant along with another Nachhattar Singh  had killed  their mother  by giving  blows with kulhari  and gandasa.  The  trial  court  believed  the evidence of  both those  witnesses and  convicted   both the accused. On  appeal the  High  Court,  though  believed  the presence of  two eye  witnesses at  the time of the incident gave benefit  of doubt  to the  second accused on the ground that he  had no reason or motive to kill Balwant Kaur. It is difficult to  appreciate the  reasoning of the High Court in this behalf  but as  he has  been acquitted  and there is no appeal by  the State,  it is  not necessary to point out how that finding is not correct.      The High  Court has  held  that  both  Daya  Singh  and Kulwant Singh  were present  in the house at the time of the incident. Their presence in their own house at that time was quite natural.  If they  were present  in their  house  then obviously they  could have  seen the assault on their mother by the  appellant. Both  the courts  below have  thought  it proper to  accept their  evidence and  we see  no reason  to differ from the finding recorded in that behalf.      The contention  raised on  behalf of  the appellant was that the witnesses could not have been in their house at the time when  the incident tool place. It was late evening time and therefore  their returning  to the house from their shop at that  time cannot be regarded as unnatural or improbable. As we  are of  the view  that the  High Court  was right  in confirming the  conviction of  the appellant on the basis of the evidence  of the two eye witnesses this appeal has to be dismissed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    This  appeal   is,  therefore,  dismissed.  During  the pendency of  the appeal  the appellant was released on bail. His bail  is cancelled  and he  is ordered  to surrender  to custody to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.