1992 JTR(SC) 556
1992 AIR(SC) 1944 ; 1992 AIR(SCW) 2233 ; 1992 CriLR 626 ; 1992 3 Crimes(SC) 575 ; 1992 CrLJ 3592 ; 1992 EastCrC(SC) 640 ; 1992 4 JT 528 ; 1992 2 RCR(Cri) 473 ; 1992 2 Scale 193 ; 1992 Supp3 SCC 1 ; 1992 SCC(Cri) 946 ; 1993 1 SLJ 237 ; 1992 2 UJ 628 ; 1992 KHC 697
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND G. N. RAY, JJ.
Kuldip Singh, Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab, Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 1985, D/-19-8-1992.
Act
Referred
:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.313, S.174
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.302
(A) The Indian Penal Code Section 302 read with the Criminal Procedure Code Sections 313, 174, and 302 governs the adjudication of offenses involving unlawful homicide and custodial examination. Section 302 provides the substantive law defining murder and prescribing punishment, Sections 174 and 313 Cr.P.C. provide the procedural framework for investigating unnatural deaths and examining an accused in custody, respectively. This case falls within this statutory matrix where the accused is charged with murder under Section 302, subjected to a mandatory examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to test the accused's version of events, and investigated under Section 174 Cr.P.C. for the circumstances surrounding the death.
(B) Key legal principles include the high threshold of proof required to negate a deliberate act, the limited evidentiary value of procedural safeguards for the accused when contradicted by direct testimony, and the court's authority to assess the credibility of witnesses and medical evidence to reconstruct the sequence of events. The case underscores that an accused's explanation must be tested against the consistency of all evidence, including medical reports and witness credibility, to distinguish between an accidental act and a deliberate homicide.
Facts of the case:
The deceased died from a gunshot wound to the neck following an altercation with the accused, who claimed the death was accidental. The accused, who was intoxicated, retrieved a licensed firearm and fired at the deceased during a quarrel. The deceased was working in the kitchen at night when the incident occurred, and her mother, who witnessed the struggle and shooting, raised an alarm and provided a statement to the police. The medical examination confirmed the injuries were consistent with a deliberate act and sufficient to cause death.
Findings of Court:
The trial court rejected the accused's plea of accident, relying on the direct evidence of the eyewitness and the medical report indicating the injuries were not consistent with an accidental discharge during a grapple. The appellate court found the evidence of the accused and his witnesses unreliable and accepted the prosecution's version that the shooting was intentional, concluding there was no merit to the appeal.
Issues:
Whether the death was caused by an accident or a deliberate act; whether the trial court correctly evaluated the credibility of the witnesses and the medical evidence; and whether the accused's explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. discharges the burden of proof.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that the direct evidence of the eyewitness, corroborated by medical findings, established that the accused intentionally fired the gun, and the theory of accident was a fabrication without factual or medical support. The burden of proving an accident was not met by the accused's unreliable testimony.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed and the accused is held guilty of murder under Section 302.
(A) The Indian Penal Code Section 302 read with the Criminal Procedure Code Sections 313, 174, and 302 governs the adjudication of offenses involving unlawful homicide and custodial examination. Section 302 provides the substantive law defining murder and prescribing punishment, Sections 174 and 313 Cr.P.C. provide the procedural framework for investigating unnatural deaths and examining an accused in custody, respectively. This case falls within this statutory matrix where the accused is charged with murder under Section 302, subjected to a mandatory examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to test the accused's version of events, and investigated under Section 174 Cr.P.C. for the circumstances surrounding the death.
(B) Key legal principles include the high threshold of proof required to negate a deliberate act, the limited evidentiary value of procedural safeguards for the accused when contradicted by direct testimony, and the court's authority to assess the credibility of witnesses and medical evidence to reconstruct the sequence of events. The case underscores that an accused's explanation must be tested against the consistency of all evidence, including medical reports and witness credibility, to distinguish between an accidental act and a deliberate homicide.
Facts of the case:
The deceased died from a gunshot wound to the neck following an altercation with the accused, who claimed the death was accidental. The accused, who was intoxicated, retrieved a licensed firearm and fired at the deceased during a quarrel. The deceased was working in the kitchen at night when the incident occurred, and her mother, who witnessed the struggle and shooting, raised an alarm and provided a statement to the police. The medical examination confirmed the injuries were consistent with a deliberate act and sufficient to cause death.
Findings of Court:
The trial court rejected the accused's plea of accident, relying on the direct evidence of the eyewitness and the medical report indicating the injuries were not consistent with an accidental discharge during a grapple. The appellate court found the evidence of the accused and his witnesses unreliable and accepted the prosecution's version that the shooting was intentional, concluding there was no merit to the appeal.
Issues:
Whether the death was caused by an accident or a deliberate act; whether the trial court correctly evaluated the credibility of the witnesses and the medical evidence; and whether the accused's explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. discharges the burden of proof.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that the direct evidence of the eyewitness, corroborated by medical findings, established that the accused intentionally fired the gun, and the theory of accident was a fabrication without factual or medical support. The burden of proving an accident was not met by the accused's unreliable testimony.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed and the accused is held guilty of murder under Section 302.
N.D.GARG, Punit K.Bhalla, R.S.Suri, U.R.Lalit
JUDGMENT
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.:- This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Judge, Special Court, Ferozepur. The sole appellant was convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life for causing the death of his wife Malkiat Kaur, the deceased in the case. The case of the prosecution is that the father of the deceased died and on March 8,1984 his death anniversary was to take place in the village. A Bhog (meeting) was arranged in that connection. The deceased along with her husband, the accused, their children and relations gathered. After the Bhog was over, the accused wanted to leave for his Village Waring but the deceased wanted to stay on. There was some altercation. P.W. 3, the mother of the deceased intervened and sent the deceased along with her husband. P.W. 3 apprehending that there may be further altercation or trouble at the place of the accused went to the village of the accused on March 10, 1984. At about 8.30 P.M. on that day the deceased was working in the kitchen. Their children were in the house. The accused came in a drunken condition and started abusing the deceased in the name of her mother and the deceased retorted. There was some grappling between the two. Thereafter the accused went and brought his licensed gun and fired at the deceased hitting her in the neck. The deceased dropped down dead. P.W. 3 raised an alarm. The accused and the children ran way along with the gun. The village chowkidar was sent for. The children were at the house of Shamsher Singh, first cousin of the accused. P.W. 3 left for the Police Station and on the bus-stand Gurnam Singh, A.S.I. met her and recorded her statement at about 1 1 P.M. on the basis of which a case was registered. A.S.I. proceeded to the spot, prepared a panchnama, held the inquest and sent the dead-body for postmortem. The Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, found a lacerated wound with inverted margins on the right side of the neck which was the entrance wound and a corresponding exit wound on the left side of the neck with averted margins. The Doctor opined that the deceased died as a result of shock and haemorrhage due to the aforesaid injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The accused was arrested on March 16, 1984 who produced his gun along with licence. After investigation was completed the charge-sheet was laid.
2. When examined urder Section 313, Cr.P.C. the accused stated that a wordy quarrel ensued between him and his wife and at that time he was having a licensed gun with him. He was carrying the gun because of enemies in the village. He was in a drunken condition and during the grappling the gun went off accidentally as a result of which the deceased received a gun-shot injury and died. He appears to have filed an application before the D. S. P. stating these facts. He also examined D.Ws. 1 to 3 in support of his plea. The trial Judge accepted the evidence of the eye-witness P.W. 3, the mother of the deceased and also the medical evidence and held that the accused went and brought the gun and shot at the deceased. He rejected the plea of the accused and the evidence of D.Ws. 1 to 3. Therefore the question that arises for consideration is whether it was an accident as pleaded by the accused or was a deliberate shot at the deceased as per the prosecution version. D.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined to depose that P.W. 3 was later brought from her village and that she was not at the scene of occurrence. D. W. 2 was a panch witness in the inquest report which he attested and in which the presence of P.W. 3 is given as witness of the occurrence. D.W. 2 has no explanation except stating that he did not read the contents. Admittedly he knows Punjabi language in which the inquest report was written. Therefore his explanation is not acceptable. The evidence of D.W. 2 Harpal Singh therefore is not of much consequence. D.W. 3 Jagdev Singh deposed that he is brother-in-law of the accused and that his wife had taken the son and daughter of the accused from the village. His evidence is not of much consequence. D. W. 1 Shamsher Singh also deposed that he heard an alarm from the house of the accused and went to the house of accused and saw the accused and his wife grappling and he tried to intervene but before he could do so, the gun of the accused fired accidentally. Therefore he took the accused to D.W. 2. Harpal Singh, village Sarpanch and thereafter they went to the Police Station and gave a report. But as stated above D.W. 2 was a panch witness in the inquest report wherein the version was that he had deliberately shot at the deceased. No doubt, the contents of the inquest report cannot be treated as evidence but they can be looked into to test the veracity of D.W. 2. Thus the evidence of D.Ws. 1 to 3 is not of any help to the accused.
3. Even otherwise having regard to the question involved the Court can examine the medical evidence. To cause the injury on the neck, the gun must have come to a horizontal position because the track of the injury was straight. It was not even suggested to the Doctor that such an injury was caused by an accident due to grappling. In any event we have got the evidence of P.W. 3 the direct witness and she would be the last person to speak falsehood against her own son-in-law. The theory of accident is highly artificial and has been rightly rejected by the trial Court. The prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. We see no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
For Citation : AIR 1992 SC 1944