http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  605 of 1997

PETITIONER: State of H.P.                                                    

RESPONDENT: Sukhvinder Singh                                                 

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/02/2004

BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde & B.P.Singh

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

SANTOSH HEGDE,J.

       Respondent herein was found guilty of offences  punishable under sections 302, 449 and 324 IPC by the  Sessions Judge, Solan, Himachal Pradesh and was sentenced to  undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000 for the  offence under section 302, 10 years’ RI with a fine of Rs.5,000  for an offence under section 449 and one year RI with a fine of  Rs.4,000 under section 324. In an appeal filed by the  respondent, the High Court of Himachal Praesh, Simla, allowed  the same, setting aside the conviction and sentence. It is against  the said judgment of the High Court, the State of Himachal  Pradesh is in appeal before us. Brief facts necessary for the  disposal of this appeal are :

       The respondent was originally engaged to be married to  one Amarjit Kaur PW-6. For some reason or the other, said  engagement was broken and she was married to Ranjit Singh  PW-2 who is the younger brother of Respondent No.2. This  was about 7 years prior to the date of the incident which was on  the night of 27.9.1994. Prosecution alleges that being angered  by the fact that his engagement was cancelled the respondent  was constantly threatening PW-6 who was residing with her  husband in the same building but in another part separately  from the respondent. On 27.9.1994 at about 9.30 p.m., PW-6  allegedly went to her parents’ house which was situated close- by in another block and informed her father Mohan Singh PW- 1 about her fear that she may be attacked by the respondent,  hence PW-1, his wife (since deceased) and two sons of PW-1 \026  PWs.3 and 5 accompanied PW-6 to her house with an intention  of spending the night with their daughter. It is the case of the  prosecution that PW-2 also came back from his business later in  the night and joined them. Prosecution further alleges sometime  later the respondent entered the house of PW-2, armed with a  dagger, and picked up a fight with PW-1 during which fight he  stabbed PW-1 on his thigh who then became unconscious.  Thereafter, he allegedly stabbed the wife of PW-1 on the chest  and escaped from the place when PW-1’s sons PWs.3 and 5  tried to intervene in the fight. Prosecution alleges that Mohinder  Kaur died on the spot and PW-1 was taken to the hospital by  their children where the doctor informed the jurisdictional  Police about the incident in question, and PW-10 the I.O. went  to the hospital, recorded the statement and a case was registered  for offences, as stated above.

       In support of its case the prosecution has relied upon the  evidence of PWs.1, 3, 5 & 6 as eye-witnesses. Out of them PW-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

2 did not support the prosecution case as he turned hostile. The  trial court accepted the evidence led by the prosecution and  convicted the respondent, as stated above, and in appeal the  High Court noticed certain serious discrepancies and  contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution, hence, it  thought it not safe to rely on the prosecution case to base a  conviction. Accordingly, set aside the conviction and sentence  imposed on the respondent.

       Mr. J.S. Attri, learned counsel appearing for the  appellant-State, contended that the contradictions noticed by the  High Court in the prosecution evidence are minor in nature and  the same have been considered by the trial court which felt that  these short comings in the prosecution case would not, in any  manner, weaken the prosecution case. He further contended in  that background the High Court erred in allowing the appeal  solely on the basis of the said discrepancies or contradictions. The learned counsel has taken us through the evidence in  the case as also the judgments of the two courts below. In our  opinion, there is lot of doubt surrounding the prosecution case  from the very beginning itself as noticed by the High Court.  PW-10, the I.O. in his evidence clearly states that he received a  telephonic message from the doctor in the hospital, hence, he  went to the hospital where he recorded the statement of PW-1  which is now treated as an FIR in this case; whereas PWs.3 and  5, the sons of the deceased, unequivocally state that they went  to the Police Station and lodged a complaint there. Nextly, it is  seen that there is also contradiction in the evidence of PW-1  and 5 in regard to their going to the house of PW-6. While PW- 1 states that he along with his wife and sons went along with  PW-6 to her house on the date of the incident, PW-5 clearly  states that he was staying for the past one week before the  incident in the house of PW-6. We also notice from the  evidence of PW-10 that when he visited the place of incident,  he noticed a blood-stained dagger lying on the floor of the  house which he did not bother to recover. According to this  I.O., the dagger in question was recovered at about 8 a.m. the  next day in the presence of Panch witnesses but from the  evidence of PW-5, it is seen that the I.O. had recovered the  dagger from the place of incident on the very day of the  incident itself. There is also considerable doubt as to the  genuineness of evidence given by PW-6 who attested the  seizure of the dagger. He states that he stays far away from the  place of the incident and when he heard about the incident in  question, next morning he visited the house of PW-2 and when  he reached there, a number of people had already gathered there  and Police with the I.O. was also there. If that be the case, we  do not find any reason whatsoever why the I.O. had to wait for  PW-6 to come before making seizure of the dagger which he  had noticed the previous night itself.

       The respondent has come forward with the case that since  the marriage of PW-6 with PW-2 had been solemnised nearly 7  years earlier, there was no question of his entertaining any  malice in regard to the same as against PW-6; more so because  of the fact that she was married to his own brother. The  suggestion made in the cross examination and his statement  recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. shows that he was also  present when PW-5 went to the Police Station which is  supported by the evidence of PW-5. But surprisingly PW-10  had in his evidence stated that the respondent never came to the  Police Station. All these contradictions give us an impression  that the prosecution has not come out with the truth.

       The High Court having considered the above

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

contradictions and omissions came to the conclusion that they  are very serious ones casting doubt on the prosecution case. We  find no reason to disagree with this finding of the High Court.  For the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and the same is  hereby dismissed.