Full Judgment Text
A
MUKHTIAR SINGH AND ANR. ETC.
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB ETC.
JANUARY 4, 1995
B
(DR. A.S. ANAND AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.]
Criminal Procedure Code 1973-Section 354(1)(b f-Judgment of trial
court acquitting some accused and convicting others-Whether sus-
tainable-field, decision does not merely mean conclusion but also reasons
which fonn basis for arriving at conclusion--Judgment should enable appel-
C
late court to know basis of decision-Judgment of trial coU1t containing only
conclusions, held, cannot be sustained-Case remanded to trial court for dis-
posal on merits-Criminal trial-l'enal Code Ss. 148, 302/149, 120B, 397,
461>-Anns Act 1950, S.25-Tmorist Affected Areas (Special Coults) Act
1984, 14
D s.
Tmorist Affected Areas (Special Coults) Act 1984-S.14--Judgment of
trial court found infinn, and set aside-Whether case to be remanded to trial
coUlt or detennination of guilt to be undertaken by appellate court-Held, first
appeal being to Supreme Court, analysing evidence and detennining guilt by
this court would deprive concerned pally of right of appeal-Despite occur-
E
rence having taken place over a decade ago, case remanded to trial coU1t for
disposal on merits--Criminal trial-l'enal Code Ss.148, 302/149, 120B, 397,
46f>-rl.nns Act 1950, S. 25
Eleven accused person were tried for olJences"under Ss.148, 302/149,
120B, 397, 460 IPC and S.25 of the Arms Act 1950. The Special Court,
F
Ferozepur, which was the trial court in this case, convicted some of the
accused while acquitting others. Appeals were filed under the Terrorist
Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act 1984 challenging conviction and ac-
qnittals; Remanding the case to the trial court, this Conrt
G
HELD : 1. The judgment of the trial conrt is infirm. The trial conrt
appears to be blissfully ignorant of the requirements of S.354(1)(b) Cr.PC.
The trial court was dealing with a case of mnrder. The cryptic jndgment
of the trial court does not disclose the reasons for its decision. On the
plainest requirement of justice and fair trial, the trial court was expected
to notice, consider and discuss, howsoever briefty, the evidence of various
H
38
MUKHTIARSINGHv. STATE [DR.ANAND, I.]
39
witnesses and the arguments addressed at the bar. The trial court has not A
done so. A 'decision' does not merely mean the 'conclusion' - it embraces
within its fold the reasons which form the basis for arriving at the
'conclusion'. The judgment of the trial court contains only the'conclusions'
and nothing more. [45-B-C]
2. The exercise of analysing the evidence and determining the guilt B
or otherwise of the accused could have been undertaken by this Court,
particularly considering that the occurrence took place over a decade ago
and the conviction was recorded almost nine years ago, but this may
prejudice one or the other party as it would deprive the concerned party
of its right of first appeal to this Court. The case is, therefore, remanded
C
to the trial court for fresh disposal on merits. [ 45-E-F]
3. The accused shall continue to remain on bail, and shall remain
present before the trial court during the hearing of the case. The absence
of. either of the respondents in the trial court shall result in the cancella-
tion of bis/their bail and be/they shall be taken into custody till the
D
conclusion of the bearing by the trial court. [46-B]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
434 of 1985 etc ..
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.85 of the Special Court, E
Ferozepur in Sessions Cases No. 239 of 1984 and Trial No. 70 of 1985.
R.S. Sodhi and R.C. Kohli for the Appellants.
Mrs. Amita Gupta and R.S. Suri for the Respondents.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ANAND, J. These two appeals under Section 14 of the Terrorists
Affected Areas (Special Court) Act, 1984 arise out of a common judgment
of the Special Court, Ferozepur dated 19.4.1985. While Criminal Appeal
G
No. 434 of 1985 has been filed by Mukbtiar Singh and Jasbir Singh
challenging their conviction and sentence, Criminal Appeal No. 489 of 1985
bas been filed by the complainant, Soban· Lal, and is directed against the
acquittal of the acquitted co-accused of Mukbtiar Singb.
11 accmed persons were put up for trial before the learned Judge of H
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 1 S.C.R.
A the Special Court, Ferozepur for offences under section 148, 302/149,
120-B, 397, 460 !PC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The Trial Court
convicted Mukhtiar Singh son of Kar.tar Singh for offences under Section
302/34, 397/34, 460 !PC and Section 25 Arms Act and Jasbir Singh for
offences under Section 302/34, 337/34 and 460 !PC. Hazara Singh was
B convicted for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act while Jagrup
Singh for offences under Section 411 !PC and 25 of the Arms Act. The
remaining accused were acquitted of all the charges.
According to the prosecution case, on 10.6.1984 when Sohan Lal,
PW5 father of the deceased Jajpal Singh was watching television alongwith
his other family members, on hearing the firing of 8 or 9 shots, he came
C
out on to the courtyard and saw two persons standing near his son, Jajpal
Singh; deceased. One of them was armed with a gandassa while the other
had a P.istol in his hand. The person who was armed with a gandassa in the
presence of PW5, inflicted some injuries on Jajpal Singh while the other
D person took away the 12 bore DBBL gun belonging to Sohan Lal, PW5
which was lying near the cot in the courtyard where J ajpal Singh was sitting.
Sohan LaL, PW5 also noticed some 8 or 10 persons standing at a distance
in the darkness. On hearing noise, the assailants as well as the other 8/10
persons ran away. Finding Jajpal Singh in a seriously injured condition
E Sohan Lal, PW5 removed him to the Mission Hospital, Ferozepur. Dr. A.S.
Mann, Emergency Medical Officer sent information to the police regarding
the arrival of J asp al Singh in an injured condition at the hospital. On
receipt of telephonic information, Ratan Singh, SHO, police station Mal-
lanwala proceeded to the hospital. In the meanwhile, it appears J ajpal
Singh succumbed to his injuries. Statement of PW5, Sohan Lal was
F recorded by Ratan Singh, PW9 on reaching the hospital and that statement,
Ex. P-9, forms the basis of the FIR Ex. P-9/B. After conducting the inquest
proceedings and preparing the inquest report, Ex. P-2, the deed body
Jajpal Singh was sent for post-mortem examination by SHO Ratan Singh,
PW9. Further investigation was taken in hand and the place of occurrence
G was inspected and its rough site plan prepared. During inspection of the
place of occurrence some empties which were found lying in the courtyard
of the house of PW5 were collected beside the blood stained earth. Sealed
parcels were prepared of the empties and blood stained earth and the same
were deposited in the police Malkahana and later sent to Forensic Science
H Laboratory and Chemical examiner respectively.
MUKHTIAR SINGH v. STATE (DR. ANAND. J.) 41
Dr. Jaspal Singh, Emergency Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, A
Ferozepur performed autopsy on the dead body of Jajpal Singh on June
11,1984 at 10.00 a.m. he found the following injuries.
(i) Incised wound 20 ems x 3 ems x 3 ems at the middle of the
frontal region oblique in direction near the hairline with clotted
blood present. On dissection the underlying bone was found out B
completely. Extra dural and subdural haematoma was present and
the brain matter visible.
(ii) Incised wound 14 ems x 2 ems just 2 ems below injury No. 1
with clotted blood and underlying bone cut completely. Extra dural
and subdural haematoma was present. The brain matter was
visible.
c
(iii) Lacerated punctured wound with inverted and contused mar·
gins, dimensions being 0.75 cm x 0.5 cm at the right side of the
abdomen in middle with clotted blood present. D
(iv) Lacerated punctured wound with everted margins 3cms x 2-1/2
ems on the left side of the chest middle with clotted blood. On
dissection under injuries No. 3 & 4 the track was after performing
the intestine going upward and towards left side entering the thorax
and impairing the left lung lower part. Injuries No. 3. & 4 com-
E
municating with each other. The abdominal cavity was full of
clotted blood. The ribs under injury No. 4 were fractured. Injury
No. 3 was the wound of enterance and injury No. 4 the wound of
exit. There was clotted blood along the track.
F
(v) Terminal 1/4 parts of the index, middle and ring finger of the
right hand were found amputated with the margins of the wound
incised. Level was in one line. Clotted blood was present.
(vi) Lacerated punctured wound with inverted and contused mar-
gins 0.75 cin x 0.5 cm at the outer surface of the right ankle. On G
dissection the underlying bone was found fractured. A bullet was
taken out from the wound which was seized. Clotted blood was
present.
(vii) Lacerated punctured wound with inverted and contused mar-
gins, dimensions being 0.75 cm x 0.5 cm at the outer and the middle H
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1995] 1 S.C.R.
A of the left upper arm with clotted blood present. On dissection the
underlying bone was found fractured. A bullet was extracted from
the wound which was sized.
(viii) Grazed lacerated wound in the form of furrow 10 ems x 1-1/2
ems superficial on the outer and middle of the left fore-arm,
oblique in direction.
B
In the opinion of the doctor, death was caused due to shock and
haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries which were sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death. Dr. J asp al Singh also opined that
C injuries No. 3 & 4 were the result of one shot while injuries No. 6 & 7 were
the result of two shots. During the post-mortem· examination two bullets
M0-1 and M0-2, were taken out from the dead body and the same were
taken into possession by the policy vide Memo Ex. P-32. Various recoveries
were effected from the accused persons after their arrest on different dates
by the police.
D
The prosecution examined Dr. Jaspal Singh, PWl, Dr. A.S. Mann,
PW2 Shri Bhupinder Singh, PW3, Sbri Sunder Singh, PW4, Sohan Lal
PW5, Kasbrniri Lal, PW6, Shri J arnail Singh, PW7, Sbri Harcharan Singh,
PW8 and Shri Ratan Singh PW9. Some affidavits of police official whose
E evidence was of a formal character were admitted into evidence and placed
on record. After close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were
examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. They denied the prosecntion allega-
tions against them and alleged false implication. They, however, did not
lead any evidence in defe'll'e·
The Trial Court acquitted Surjit Singh observing in paragraph 28 :
F
"The learned Public Prosecutor in fairness to the Court and the
defence frankly conceded at the Bar that there was no evidence
on the record to connect Surjit Singh with the crime. The charge
against Surjit Singh accused was that he had conspired with his
co-accused. The witness in that connection was Dwarka Dass who
had refused to support the prosecution. As such the case of the
prosecution fails against Surjit Singh accused for want of evidence.
Surjit Singh accused is acquitted."
G
The Trial Court also acquitted Satnarn Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Sucha
H
I
MUKHTIARSINGHv. STATE [DR.ANAND,J.]
43
Singh, Kulwant Singh and Jagir Singh accused. Paragraph 29 deals with A
their acquittal :
Satnam Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Sucha Singh, Kulwant Singh and Jagir
Singh accused were arrested in this case. The statement of Kashmiri Lal
(PW6) brother of Sohan Lal (PW5) is that he had seen the aforesaid
accused proceeding towards the village abadi. Thereafter there were B
reports of firing and he saw them running away from the village abadi
towards the fields but from this circumstance alone I cannot spell out their
criminality. Accordingly I acquit Satnam Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Sucha
Singh, Kulwant Singh and Jagir Singh accused."
c
The conviction of Jagrup Singh and Hazara Singh for the various
offences as noticed above, was recorded, in paragraph 30 thns :
"Sohan Lal (PW5) at the trial on oath stated that Jasbir Singh
accused had given gandassa blows and Mukhtiar Singh had taken
away the gun. The gun was subsequently recovered from Jagroop D
Singh accused in pursuance of his disclosure statement Exh. P-23.
The gun is Exh. M.O. 3 which is the licenced gun of Sohan Lal
(PW5). In as much as the gun was taken away from the spot by
Mukhtiar Singh, J agroop Singh would be liable criminally under
Section 411 of the Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms E
Act. The only evidence against Hazara Singh accused is that he
was arrested by Shri Harcharan Singh Assistant Sub Inspector and
his search brought out pistol .315 bore Exh. M.0.4 and two
cartridges Exh. M.0.5 and M.O. 6 for which he had no licence.
Hazara Singh accused has to be convicted under Section 25 of the
Arms Act."
F
The learned Judge of the Special Court then proceeded to consider•·
the case of the prosecution against Mukhtiar Singh and Jasbir Singh,
appellants. The discussion in that behalf is found in paras 31 and 32 of the
judgment which read thns :
G
"The two empties recovered from the spot were found to ha~e been
fired from the pistol of J asbir Singh and two from the revolver of
Mukhtiar Singh accused. The Supreme Court in the case of Bhura
1985 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 33 in similar circumstances
had held the accused guilty setting aside their acquittal by the
H
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.
High Court.
A
Jasbir Singh and Mukhtiar Singh accused at the time of their
arrest were directed to keep their faces muffled and they refused
to participate in the identification parade on the ground that they
had been shown to the witnesses of the prosecution for which there
is not an iota of evidence. Both the accused had committed a tress
pass and there were fire-arm injuries on the body of Jajpa1. Their
act of talcing away the gun would make them criminal liable under
Section 397 r/w section 34 of the Penal Code and they wonld also
be liable under the Arms Act."
B
c
After recording these findings, both M ukhtiar Singh and J asbir Singh
were convicted for various offences as noticed above and sentenced.
We have gone through the judgment of the learned trial Judge and
D find that the same is far from satisfactory. Both, the order of acquittal as
well as the order of conviction, have been made by the Trial Court in a
most perfunctory manner without even noticing much less, considering and
discussing the evidence led by the prosecution or the arguments raised at
the bar. The trial court noticed the prosecution case, the medical evidence
and the material collected during the investigation of the case besides the
arrest of different accused persons on different dates in paras 1 to 23 of
E
the judgment. In paragraph 24 it noticed the names of the prosecution
witnesses and in paragraphs 25 and 26 it noticed the fact that the accused
had been examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. It was in paragraphs 28 to
32, notice above, that the orders of acquittal and conviction were made.
The trial Court was dealing with a serious case of murder. It was expected
F
of it to notice and scrutinize the evidence and after considering the
submissions raised at the bar arrive at appropriate findings. In vain have
we searched through the cryptic judgment of the Trial Court the reasons
which prevailed with it to acquit the respondents in Criminal Appeal No.
489 of 1985 or convict the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 434 of 1985.
G On the plainest requirement of justice and fair trial the least that was
expected of the trial Court was to notice, consider and discuss, howsoever
briefly, the evidence of various witnesses as well as the arguments address
at the bar. The Trial Court has not done so. The Trial Court apparently
failed in the discharge of its essential duties. There is no mention in the
judgment as to what various witnesses deposed at the tria~ except for the
H
•
MUKHTIARSINGHv. STATE [DR.ANAND.J.J 45
evidence of the medical witness. The judgment does not disclose as to what A
was argued before it on behalf of the prosecution and the defence. The
judgment is so infirm that we are unable to appreciate as to how the
findings were arrived at. The judgment of the trial Court is truely speaking
not a judgment in the eye of law. The trial court appears to have been_
blissfully ignorant of the requirements of Section 354(1)(b) Cr. P.C. Since, .B
the first appeal lay to this court, the trial Court should have reproduced
and discussed atleast the essential parts of the evidence of the witnesses
besides recording the submissions made at the bar to enable the appellate
court to know the basis on which the 'decison' is based. A 'decision' does
not merely mean the "conclusion" - it embraces within its fold the reasons
which form the basis for arriving at the "conclusions". The judgment of the C
Trial Court contains only the "conclusions" and nothing more. The judg-
ment of the trial court cannot, therefore, be sustain<;P, The case needs to
be remanded to the Trial Court for its fresh disposal by writing a fresh
judgment in accordance with law.
D
We are conscious of the fact that the occurrence took place more
than a decade ago and the conviction was recorded almost 9 years ago.
But, looking to the manner in which the judgment has been rendered by
the Trial Court, it appears appropriate to us to remand the case to the
Trial Court for writing a fresh judgment, after providing opportunities of
hearing to both the parties, on the basis of the material which is already E
on the record. We could have undertaken the exercise ourselves and
analysed the evidence to determine the guilt or otherwise of the accused
persons but we are of the opinion that our doing so may prejudice one or
the other party as it would deprive the concerned party of its right of first
appeal to this Court. We have, therefore, considered it proper, after setting F
aside the judgment under appeal, to remand the case to the Trial Court
for its fresh disposal in the light of the observations made by us above.
The appellants Mukhtiar Singh and Jasbir Sing were directed to be
released on bail during the pendency of the appeal in this Court by an
order of the learned Judge in chambers dated 19.7.1990. We do not G
consider it appropriate to cancel their bail during the fresh hearing of the
case by the Trial Court but we direct that t~ey shall remain present before
the Trial Court during the hearing of the case and in the event of their
being found guilty, they shall be remanded to custody. In case they or either
of them does not appear before Trial Court during the hearing,
the H
-
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
46 [1995] 1 S.C.R.
their/his bail shall stand cancelled and they shall be taken into custody till
A
the conclusion of the hearing by the Trial Court. The respondents in
Criminal Appeal No. 489/85 shall also remain present during hearing of
the case before the Trial Court and continue to remain on bail till the
hearing of the case. The absence of either of the respondents in the Trial
B Court shall result in the cancellation of his/their bail and he/they shall be
taken into custody till the conclusion of the hearing by the Trial Court. In
case of conviction of any of the accused persons, the sentence already
undergone by them as well as the period of detention before and during
the trial shall be set off against the period of sentence.
C Since, it is an old case, we direct the Trial Court (Judge, Special
Court, (Sessions Judge) - Ferozepur) to fa an early date for the hearing
of the case and dispose it of on expeditiously preferably within a
merits
-
period of three months from the date of the communication of this order.
Since, we are remanding the case for writing a fresh judgment by the
D Trial Court after hearing the parties in the light of the observations made
by us, we clarify that we have not expressed any opinion regarding the
merits of the case and nothing said by us hereinabove shall be construed
expressly or impliedly as any opinion on the merits of the case.
U.R.