REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 589 OF 2002

Prem Singh  …..Petitioner

Versus

State of (N.C.T.) Delhi …..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.  Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single  

Judge of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 1997 which  

dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant.  The appellant, who  

had faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section  

307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) and Section 27 of the  

Arms Act, 1959 ( in short the ‘Arms Act’).

2. Learned  Additional  Sessions  Judge  found  the  appellant  guilty  and  

convicted him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a  

fine  of  Rs.  1,000/-  with  default  stipulation.   Similarly  for  the  offence  

punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, custodial sentence of three  

years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation was filed.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Preetam Pyare had agreed to purchase a plot from Prem Singh and  

Sunder Lal and had paid Rs.2000/- as earnest money to them. They, after  

accepting this earnest money, did not sell the plot to Preetam Pyare and had  

sold it to someone else and when Preetam Pyare demanded back his earnest  

money, they refused to return it. On 25.12.1992 at about 10.30 p.m. Prem  

Singh, Sunder Lal and Kakoo, came to the house of Preetam Pyare and took  

him away saying that they will return his earnest money. Preetam Pyare and  

his  two sons Bhusan  Lal  and Kamal  Kishore  came along with  them for  

having talks on the return of money and they reached in front of H.No.407-

D, while talking. The wife of Preetam Pyare, Smt. Shanti Devi also followed  

them and while they were talking, the talks became uncordial and abuses  

were hurled. Sunder Lal and Kakoo were having lathis in their hands and  

Sunder  Lal  exhorted them to  beat  them. On this  Prem Singh took out  a  

2

revolver and shot him in his chest. He also shot at Bhushan Lal S/o Preetam  

Pyare, in his chest saying that, this is the way to return the money. Kakoo  

and Sunder  Lal  had  beaten  Kamal  Kishore,  the  younger  son of  Preetam  

Pyare  as  a  result  of  which he received  injuries  on his  head.  When Smt.  

Shanti  Devi  complainant,  W/o  Sh.  Preetam  Pyare  raised  an  alarm,  the  

accused  persons  ran  away  from the  spot.  The  Mohalla  people  took  the  

injured to the hospital. She then lodged a complaint with the police on the  

basis of which, rukka was sent and on the basis of which case under Section  

307/34  IPC  r/w  of  Arms  Act  1959  was  registered  against  the  accused  

persons.  The MLC for the injured was obtained and the accused persons  

were arrested.  The revolver and the recovered bullet was seized and was  

sent for analysis to the CFSL and after completion of the formalities, the  

challan was filed in the court.

As accused abjured guilt, trial was held, accused was convicted and  

sentence was imposed.

Questioning correctness of the conviction and sentence as imposed the  

appellant filed an appeal.  The primary stand of the appellant was that there  

was no evidence worth a name and even the so called injured witnesses  

3

refused to identify the assailant.   The only evidence against the appellant  

was the alleged recovery of the pistol which was tested by the CFSL.  It was  

found  by  CFSL  that  the  bullet  recovered  from  the  body  of  the  injured  

matched those test fired through the same pistol.  The caliber also was the  

same.  The High Court held that since pistol has been recovered from the  

appellant,  he can be convicted under Section 307 IPC.   The High Court  

found  that  the  appellant  who  was  a  non-political  leader  belonging  to  a  

National Political Party was a man of great means and he appeared to have  

terrorized witnesses.   The High Court held but he could not tamper with  

scientific evidence.  The scientific evidence connects his weapon with the  

crime.  That being so the High Court held that the conviction was in order.

4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted  

that the conclusions of the High Court had clearly unsustainable.  Merely  

because the appellant was the owner of the weapon that did not bring out a  

case under Section 307 IPC so far  as  he is  concerned,  and in any event  

Section 27 has no application.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand supported  

the judgment.

4

6. We find that this is a case where even the injured did not identify the  

appellant to be the person who had fired the short.  Merely because he is the  

owner of the weapon that cannot be a ground to convict him in terms of  

Section  307  IPC.   Further,  no  question  was  put  to  the  appellant  in  his  

examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in  

short the ‘Code’) regarding his purported role. The judgment of the High  

Court is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of  

the charges.   The bail  bonds executed to give effect  to the order  of bail  

passed  by  this  Court  on 15.2.2002 shall  stand discharged.  The  appeal  is  

allowed.

…..…………………………..J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

………………….……………..J. (V.S. SIRPURKAR)

……..…………………………..J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi: April 24, 2009  

5