Full Judgment Text
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.