1961 (10) TMI 111 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court: Major Singh Acquitted, Harbans Singh Conviction Upheld

Harbans Singh and Ors. Versus State of Punjab

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Major Singh, setting aside his conviction and restoring the acquittal order due to insufficient evidence ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the High Court had sufficient reasons to interfere with the acquittal order of the Additional Sessions Judge.2. The credibility and probative value of the dying declarations made by Hazura Singh.3. The correctness of the Trial Court's judgment regarding the delay in recording the First Information Report (FIR).4. The presence and reliability of witness testimonies, particularly those of Hira Singh and Bhag Singh.5. The application of legal principles by the High Court in overturning the acquittal.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. High Court's Interference with Acquittal:The main contention raised by the appellants was that the High Court had no sufficient reasons for interfering with the acquittal order made by the Additional Sessions Judge. The Supreme Court emphasized that interference with an order of acquittal should be based on 'compelling and substantial reasons.' The Court must examine questions of law and fact in all their aspects and closely scrutinize the reasons for acquittal. The High Court must interfere only if the lower court's conclusion is clearly unreasonable. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had correctly applied these principles, and there was little scope for further interference.2. Credibility of Dying Declarations:The Trial Judge had doubted the probative value of Hazura Singh's dying declarations, especially since multiple accused were named. The Supreme Court clarified that the law does not distinguish between dying declarations implicating one or several persons. A dying declaration stands on the same footing as other evidence and must be scrutinized for reliability. The Supreme Court found that the Trial Judge had erred in thinking that a dying declaration requires corroboration by other evidence. The statement made by Hazura Singh shortly after the occurrence was deemed credible, especially regarding the identification of Harbans Singh as the assailant.3. Delay in Recording FIR:The Trial Judge had based his doubts on what he considered a considerable delay in recording the FIR, believing it was recorded at 4:30 PM on July 24. The Supreme Court found that this was a misreading, as the correct time was 4:30 AM. The delay in reaching the Magistrate was attributed to possible negligence by the Constable. The Supreme Court concluded that the reasoning based on the alleged delay was unfounded.4. Witness Testimonies:The Trial Judge had doubted the presence and reliability of Bhag Singh and Hira Singh as witnesses. The Supreme Court found no valid reason to doubt Hira Singh's presence at the scene. The main reason for doubting Hira Singh's evidence was the perceived delay in lodging the FIR, which was incorrect. The Court found it unreasonable to disbelieve Hira Singh's testimony against Harbans Singh. However, the Court agreed with the Trial Judge's skepticism regarding Bhag Singh due to inconsistencies and unusual conduct.5. Application of Legal Principles:The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had misread the Trial Judge's judgment regarding Bhag Singh's statement in the Inquest Report. The High Court had also erroneously concluded that Major Singh was responsible for the fatal blows. The Supreme Court emphasized that a dying declaration does not require corroboration unless it suffers from specific infirmities. The Court found that the Trial Judge had misapplied legal principles regarding the probative value of dying declarations and the need for corroboration.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Major Singh, setting aside his conviction and restoring the acquittal order, as the evidence did not clearly establish his guilt. The appeal of Harbans Singh was dismissed, as the evidence, particularly the dying declaration, clearly established his involvement in the murders. The judgment emphasized the importance of correctly applying legal principles and carefully scrutinizing evidence in cases of appeals against acquittals.