Case Note & Summary
This criminal appeal arose from a judgment of the Special Court convicting three brothers for offences arising out of a fatal shooting at the house of Sadhu Ram on 28 April 1984. Husna was convicted under Section 302 IPC, Section 449 IPC, and Section 25 Arms Act; Rupa under Sections 302/34 IPC and 449 IPC; Jalour Singh under Section 25 Arms Act. The prosecution case was that two persons with muffled faces trespassed into the house armed with pistols; during a scuffle, Sadhu Ram snatched one pistol; one intruder's face unmuffled; at the exhortation of Rupa, Husna fired a shot hitting Satish Kumar on the face, causing his death. The FIR did not name any accused; a supplementary statement of Sadhu Ram recorded during investigation named the three brothers. Husna and Jalour Singh were arrested on 3 June 1984; Rupa was already in custody and formally arrested on 12 June 1984. The ballistic expert opined that empty cartridges recovered from the spot had been fired from a pistol recovered from Husna. The trial court acquitted Jalour Singh of Sections 302/34 and 449 IPC but convicted him under Section 25 Arms Act; it convicted Husna and Rupa as described. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that the supplementary statement was inadmissible under Section 162 CrPC because it was recorded during investigation and could not be treated as part of the FIR. Rupa had no overt act ascribed to him and his presence was not satisfactorily proved; the witness's failure to fire the snatched pistol before Husna fired appeared improbable; no empty recovered from the spot was connected to any pistol recovered from Rupa. Therefore, the Court gave Rupa the benefit of the doubt and acquitted him of all charges. For Husna, the eyewitness statement of Sadhu Ram, corroborated by medical evidence and the ballistic expert report, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that the empties were sent to the expert before Husna's arrest lent assurance to the correctness of the prosecution case. Jalour Singh's conviction under Section 25 Arms Act was upheld because the investigating officer's recovery evidence remained unchallenged and was supported by recovery memos. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of Husna and Jalour Singh and allowed Rupa's appeal, acquitting him with the direction to release him forthwith if not required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Benefit of Doubt - Accused Rupa named only in supplementary statement recorded during investigation; no overt act ascribed; witness's failure to use snatched pistol improbable; no ballistic link of empties to his pistol; presence at occurrence not proved; possibility of false implication due to brotherhood could not be ruled out; Supreme Court acquitted Rupa of all charges giving benefit of doubt (Paras 3-6). B) Criminal Procedure - Investigation - Section 162 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Supplementary Statement - Trial court could not rely on supplementary statement of PW1 recorded during investigation as part of FIR; names of accused absent in FIR; such statement hit by Section 162 CrPC and cannot be substantive evidence (Paras 3-4). C) Arms Act - Offence - Section 25 Arms Act, 1959 - Recovery of Weapon - Testimony of investigating officer as to recovery of pistol from accused Jalour Singh remained unchallenged in cross-examination and supported by recovery memos; conviction under Section 25 Arms Act affirmed (Paras 3-6). D) Evidence - Ballistic Expert Report - Firearm Injury - Ballistic expert opined empties recovered from spot were fired from pistol recovered from accused Husna; empties sent before arrest lent assurance; corroborated eyewitness account and medical evidence; conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 449 IPC affirmed (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in relying on supplementary statement of PW1 recorded during investigation; whether prosecution proved guilt of Rupa beyond reasonable doubt; whether convictions of Husna and Jalour Singh were sustainable
Final Decision
Appeal of Husna dismissed; appeal of Jalour Singh dismissed; appeal of Rupa allowed. Rupa acquitted of all charges with benefit of doubt, to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Convictions and sentences of Husna and Jalour Singh affirmed.
Law Points
- Section 162 CrPC bars substantive use of statements recorded during investigation
- prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
- benefit of doubt where presence not proved
- unchallenged recovery evidence can sustain conviction under Section 25 Arms Act
- ballistic evidence coupled with eyewitness testimony sufficient for murder conviction
