PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNAJAB Vs. RESPONDENT: SARUP SINGH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/11/1997 BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, V.N. KHARE ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.T. Nanavati
Hon’bel Mr. Justice V.N. Khare
R.S. Sodhi, Kuldip Singh, Advs. for the appellant
Sudhir Walia, Adv. for Prem Malhotra, Adv. for the
Respondent
J U D G M E N T
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
Nanvati, J.
The State is challenging acquittal of the respondent in
this appeal.
The respondent was tried for the murder of Kulwinder
Singh and the trial court relying upon the evidence of
Kulwinder Kaur- PW 5 and Gian Singh – PW 4 which proved that
the accused and the deceased were last seen together and t
he evidence of recovery of currency notes and wrist watch of
the deceased, on the basis of a declaration made by the
accused, held him quality. The appellant was convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
The High Court held that Gian Singh was chance witness
and therefore it was risky to rely upon his evidence without
any corroboration. The High Court also held that identiy of
currency notes and the wrist watch was not established by
the proesecution beyond doubt and therefore it was not
possible to say that they belonged to the deceased. The High
Court, therefore, acquitted the respondent.
After going through the evidence what we find is that
the recovery of money and the wrist watch stated to be of
the deceased were recovered by the Investigating officer in
presence of Amar Singh – PW 10 – Maternal grandfather of t
he deceased. Thus, the recovery was not in presence of any
independent person. It was for this reason that the High
Court did not think it safe to place any reliance on the
recovery evidence. The evidence of PW 5 – Kulwinder Kaur
even if believed only establishes that the accused and the
deceased left together at 5.00 p.m. on 18.2.85. From that
circumstance alone no inference can be drawn that the
respondent had committed the murder of Kulwinder Singh.
We therefore see no good reason to interfere with the
acquittal order passed by the High Court. The appeal is,
therefore, dismissed.