1995 (1) TMI 412 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms acquittal of Police Sub-Inspector, emphasizes timely trials. Criticizes Govt. Rs. 5 lakh compensation ordered.

State Of Punjab Versus Ajaib Singh

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's acquittal of the respondent, a Sub-Inspector of Police, under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. ... - Issues Involved:1. Acquittal under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.2. Right of private defense.3. Delay in lodging the FIR.4. Credibility of the prosecution's version.5. Injuries on the respondent and their implications.6. Procedural and administrative conduct of the Government.Detailed Analysis:1. Acquittal under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act:The primary issue was whether the High Court's acquittal of the respondent under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act was 'palpably erroneous or perverse.' The respondent, a Sub-Inspector of Police, was initially convicted for the murder of an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) and a constable, but the High Court later acquitted him, leading to the State's appeal.2. Right of Private Defense:The respondent claimed the shooting was in the exercise of the right of private defense. The trial judge and the High Court both examined whether the respondent's actions fell within the scope of Clauses I and II of Section 100 of the IPC. The High Court concluded that the respondent had a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous injury, justifying the use of his service revolver. The court noted, 'The respondent had nine injuries. They have been found not to be self-inflicted.'3. Delay in Lodging the FIR:The trial judge found the delay in lodging the FIR suspicious, as the two constables who accompanied the deceased allegedly hid in a field all night before reporting the incident the next morning. The High Court agreed, stating, 'The delay in lodging the FIR was not satisfactorily explained by the prosecution.'4. Credibility of the Prosecution's Version:The High Court disbelieved the prosecution's claim that the deceased and his companions were on a mission to apprehend robbers, as there was no entry in the daily diary (Rojnamacha) of the Police Station. The court found the prosecution's version less probable than the defense's, noting, 'The deceased and his companions were checking the trucks on the G.T. Road and extracting money from the truck drivers.'5. Injuries on the Respondent and Their Implications:The trial judge initially found the respondent's injuries to be self-inflicted, but the High Court disagreed, citing medical evidence. The High Court observed, 'The injuries on the person of the respondent were not self-inflicted as per the statement of Dr. Ashwani Kumar, P.W. 3.' This supported the respondent's claim of being attacked, justifying his use of the firearm in self-defense.6. Procedural and Administrative Conduct of the Government:The Supreme Court expressed disapproval of the Government's decision to reinstate and promote the respondent while the appeal against his acquittal was pending. The court stated, 'The Government would have been well advised to adopt the sealed cover procedure, a firmly established and well-known practice in service law.'Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's acquittal, finding no 'palpably erroneous' or 'perverse' errors in its judgment. The court emphasized the importance of timely trials and criticized the Government's procedural conduct. The respondent was ordered to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs with the High Court Registrar, to be distributed among the dependents of the deceased officers. The appeal was dismissed.