Full Judgment Text
2023 INSC 691
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1306 OF 2014
STATE OF PUNJAB ... APPELLANT(S)
VS.
PARAMJIT SINGH ... RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay S.Oka, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
2. This appeal against the acquittal takes exception
to the judgment dated 3rd April, 2013 of the High Court
of Punjab and Harayna by which the High Court by setting
aside the order of conviction of the respondent,
proceeded to acquit the respondent. The conviction of
the respondent was for the offence punishable under
Signature Not Verified
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Digitally signed by
Anita Malhotra
Date: 2023.08.09
13:56:59 IST
Reason:
1
3. The incident happened late in the night on 22nd
December, 1998. The prosecution has relied upon the
testimony of PW-7 Balwinder Singh who claims to be an eye
witness and whose statement was recorded in the afternoon
of 23rd December, 1998. Another piece of evidence which
is relied upon by the prosecution is alleged extra
judicial confession made by the respondent-accused before
PW-8 Sikandar Singh. The High Court after examination of
evidence of both the witnesses has disbelieved their
version by recording detailed reasons.
4. As we are called upon to decide whether the view
taken by the High Court is a possible view based on
evidence, we have perused the evidence of both the
prosecution witnesses and in addition, testimonies of PW-
9 and PW-12 who are the Investigating Officers.
5. After having perused the evidence of PW-7, we find
that the reasons recorded by the High Court for
discarding his testimony are cogent reasons. It has come
in the evidence of PW-7 that after the incident, the
witness did not complain to the police. Moreover, he knew
a close relative of the deceased Surjan Singh who was
available on phone. However, PW-7 did not inform him. In
the cross-examination, he admitted that after seeing the
2
offence being committed, he went back home to Bhatinda
via Jaitu bypass. He stated that he reached Jaitu bypass
around 10.30 p.m. and though there is a Police Station at
Jaitu, he did not inform the police. Thereafter, he
travelled for 2 to 3 hours and reached Bhatinda. He kept
quiet thereafter. He claims that he received a call from
Surjan Singh around 8.00-9.00 a.m. on 23rd December, 1998
informing him about the death of the deceased. It is
only thereafter, the witness proceeded towards the place
of incident. But he did not go the Police Station.
According to the version of PW-7, there was another eye
witness Surjit Singh who has not been examined by the
prosecution. The finding recorded by the High Court
regarding unnatural conduct of PW-7 Balwinder Singh is
certainly a possible finding which could have been
recorded on the appreciation of the evidence of PW-7.
6. There is one more aspect of the matter. Though the
prosecution case is that the statement of PW-7 was
recorded on 23rd December, 1998 when he reached the spot
around 12 noon in the afternoon, PW-9 ASI Baldev Singh
who was at the site has not stated that he recorded the
statement of PW-7. Moreover, the respondent was not
immediately arrested.
3
7. The claim of the prosecution is that on 6th
January, 1989 (more than 14 days from the date of
incident), the respondent-accused went to PW-8 Sikandar
Singh who was ex-sarpanch of the village. PW-8 Sikandar
Singh has not stated that he had previous acquaintance
with the respondent. Even otherwise, there is no
evidence adduced by the prosecution to show that the
respondent-accused closely knew PW-8 so that he could
have reposed implicit faith in him and confessed about
the alleged incident. In fact, the prosecution story of
the respondent-accused confessing after so many days to a
stranger is very doubtful and does not inspire
confidence. Going by the normal human conduct, the
accused would confess only to a person in whom he can
repose faith. Normally, he would not confess to a
stranger that too after a gap of 13 to 14 days from the
incident. That is how the High Court has disbelieved the
version of PW-8.
8. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the
findings recorded by the High Court are possible findings
which could have been recorded on the basis of the
4
evidence on record. Hence no case for interference is
made out. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
..........................J.
(ABHAY S.OKA)
..........................J.
(SANJAY KAROL)
NEW DELHI;
August 02, 2023.
5