Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the Additional Judge, Designated Court, Amritsar, which convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. The prosecution case was that in 1989, the complainant Swinder Singh settled the marriage of his sister Surinder Kaur with the appellant, but later refused to solemnise the marriage when the appellant joined a terrorist organisation. After the appellant was released from prison, he threatened to kill all family members if Surinder Kaur married elsewhere. Swinder Singh and Surinder Kaur left their village and stayed with Major Singh, whose daughter was a classmate and friend of Surinder Kaur. On the night between May 20 and 21, 1991, the appellant and another accused scaled the boundary wall of Major Singh's house. The appellant fired an AK-47 rifle at the inmates, killing Major Singh, his two daughters, two sons, and Surinder Kaur, and injuring Swinder Singh. Swinder Singh was taken to a primary health centre the next morning, where his statement was recorded, leading to registration of FIR. Investigation recovered 28 cartridges of AK-47 rifle and blood-stained earth. The other accused died, and charge sheet was filed only against the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed false implication after being tortured in police custody. The prosecution examined seven witnesses, and the defence examined two. The court found that the homicidal deaths were established by medical and other evidence and were not challenged by the defence. The crucial question was whether the appellant was the perpetrator. The prosecution relied solely on the testimony of Swinder Singh, the injured eyewitness, who detailed the incident including motive. The court found his evidence credible, corroborated by his presence at the scene, the prompt FIR, and the strong motive. The appellant's counsel contended that the witness did not disclose the appellant's name at the earliest opportunity to villagers and that unknown terrorists could have committed the murders. The court rejected these contentions, holding that the witness was terror stricken and dumbfounded after witnessing six ghastly murders and sustaining multiple injuries, and he disclosed the names as soon as he met the police. The court found no material to indicate false implication. The court agreed with the trial court that the prosecution proved the appellant committed six murders and attempted murder, upholding convictions under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. However, the court held that the trial court erred in convicting the appellant under Section 3 of TADA because the act did not answer the definition of terrorist act under the statute. The court set aside the TADA conviction and sentence. The court also observed that the trial court ought to have sentenced the appellant to death considering the brutality, but since the State did not prefer an appeal for enhancement and about six years had elapsed, no suo motu interference was called for. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Homicide and Attempt to Murder - Sole Eyewitness Testimony - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 307 - The appellant was convicted for six murders and attempted murder based on the testimony of the sole injured eyewitness whose presence at the scene was corroborated by two independent witnesses and whose prompt FIR contained the substratum of the prosecution case including motive. The court found no reason to disbelieve the witness, as the delay in naming the appellant to villagers was explained by the witness being dumbfounded and terror stricken after witnessing six ghastly murders and sustaining multiple gunshot injuries. Held that the prosecution conclusively proved the appellant committed the six murders and attempted murder, and the convictions under Sections 302 and 307 IPC were upheld. (Paras Not Mentioned) B) Anti-Terrorism Law - Terrorist Act - Definition and Scope - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 3 - The appellant's act of killing six persons and injuring one over refusal to solemnise marriage did not answer the definition of terrorist act under TADA, as it was a private act of vengeance rather than an act intended to overawe the government or create terror in the public. The court held that the trial court was not justified in convicting the appellant under Section 3 of TADA and set aside that conviction and sentence. (Paras Not Mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed six murders and attempted murder based solely on the testimony of the injured eyewitness; whether the appellant's conviction under Section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 was justified
Final Decision
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. It upheld the appellant's convictions under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and the corresponding sentences, agreeing with the trial court that the prosecution had conclusively proved the appellant committed the six murders and attempted murder based on the credible testimony of the sole injured eyewitness. However, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 3 of TADA, holding that the act of killing family members over refusal to solemnise marriage did not answer the definition of a terrorist act under the statute. The Court observed that the trial court ought to have sentenced the appellant to death given the magnitude and brutality of the crime, but declined to interfere suo motu after about six years in the absence of a State appeal for enhancement.
Law Points
- Conviction can be based on sole eyewitness testimony if found credible and corroborated by prompt FIR
- motive
- and medical evidence
- act of settling personal scores or private vengeance does not constitute a terrorist act under Section 3 of TADA
- 1987
- delay in disclosing assailant's name by injured eyewitness explained by trauma and fear does not discredit testimony
- court cannot enhance sentence suo motu after long delay in absence of state appeal
