Case Note & Summary
The State of Punjab challenged the acquittal of two accused in a murder case registered under Section 302 IPC and Section 3 TADA. The accused were tried by the Designated Court, Hoshiarpur, for the murder of Bhag on 25-07-1987. The trial court acquitted both accused after disbelieving the prosecution's eye witnesses, Ranjit Singh (PW2) and Gurmel Singh (PW3). The State, aggrieved by the acquittal, preferred an appeal under Section 19 of TADA before the Supreme Court. On 25-07-1987 at about 9:00 am, Bhag was cycling from village Rampur to Fatehpur Kothi when accused Gurmit Singh (A-2) caught hold of him and co-accused Gurmit Singh @ Mita (A-1) inflicted multiple dagger blows, causing fatal injuries. The incident was witnessed by Ranjit Singh, who was working in his nearby fields, and Gurmel Singh, the Lambardar of village Chamiala, who reached on hearing the alarm. Ranjit Singh lodged FIR (Ex.PE) at 10:20 am with SI Avtar Singh, SHO, Police Station Mahilpur. The police arrested both accused from the jungle the same day, recovered a blood-stained dagger from A-1's pocket and blood-stained shirts from both. These articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, which reported that all exhibits were stained with human blood of group A, matching the deceased's blood group. The accused were charged under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 3 TADA. The Designated Court acquitted them, holding that the presence of eye witnesses was doubtful due to high reeds and walls on the bridge. The core issues were whether the trial court erred in rejecting the eye witnesses on assumed obstructions; whether the forensic report corroborated the prosecution; whether common intention under Section 34 IPC was established against A-2; and whether the acquittal was perverse. The appellant argued that the trial court misread the evidence of eye witnesses, that their testimony was credible and corroborated by blood group matching, and that the acquittal was unsustainable. The respondent counsel supported the acquittal, contending no interference was warranted. The Supreme Court noted that as a first appellate court under Section 19 TADA it could reappreciate evidence. It found the trial court's assumption about obstructions was based on surmises and erroneous. The Court accepted Ranjit Singh as truthful, noting he owned fields near the scene, his presence was natural for an agriculturist, and he promptly lodged FIR naming both accused. Gurmel Singh's testimony was consistent and trustworthy. The Forensic Science Laboratory report showing human blood group A on dagger and clothing of both accused, and the lack of any explanation from the accused under Section 313 CrPC, further corroborated the prosecution case. The defence witness, Sarpanch Karnail Singh, was rejected as unreliable because he did not inform the police about the dead body despite being a village official, and his evidence appeared tailor-made. The Court held that A-1 caused the death by dagger blows and A-2 by holding the deceased facilitated the murder, showing common intention. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the acquittal was quashed and set aside, and the accused were convicted for the offences charged. The judgment indicates A-1 was convicted under Section 302 IPC, and A-2 was held to share common intention under Section 34 IPC.
Headnote
A) Criminal Appeal - First Appeal under TADA - Reappreciation of Evidence - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 19 - The Supreme Court heard appeal under Section 19 TADA against Designated Court acquittal and held that as first appellate court it could reappreciate evidence. The trial court's finding that eye witnesses could not see due to high reeds and walls on bridge was based on surmises and erroneous assumptions. Held that the acquittal was unsustainable. (Paras 9-12) B) Criminal Law - Homicidal Death - Proof of Murder - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 34 - Medical evidence established homicidal death with twelve ante mortem incised injuries, one penetrating right pleural cavity and lung, causing haemorrhage and shock. The court concluded that Bhag met homicidal death due to incised injuries and that A-1 inflicted dagger blows while A-2 held the deceased, facilitating murderous assault. Held that A-2 shared common intention to commit murder. (Paras 10, 16) C) Evidence - Corroboration by Forensic Science Laboratory Report - Blood Group Matching - Not mentioned - The Forensic Science Laboratory report dated 3.9.1987 (Ex.PU) showed all exhibits (dagger, blood stained clothes, earth) were stained with human blood of group A, same as deceased's blood group. The accused offered no explanation in their statements recorded under Section 313 CrPC. Held that forensic report corroborated eye witness evidence. (Paras 14-15) D) Evidence - Evaluation of Defence Witness - Reliability - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 313 - The defence examined Karnail Singh (DW1), Sarpanch, who claimed high reeds and trees obstructed view of nearby fields. He did not inform police about dead body despite being a village official. The court rejected his evidence as tailor-made and unreliable. Held that prosecution evidence was unimpeachable. (Paras 15-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Designated Court's acquittal was sustainable in light of the evidence of two eye witnesses and corroborating forensic material; whether the accused shared common intention under Section 34 IPC for murder punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 3 TADA.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and order of acquittal quashed and set aside. A-1 convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC; A-2 held to share common intention under Section 34 IPC (based on para 16).
Law Points
- First appeal under Section 19 TADA permits re-appreciation of evidence
- Eye witness testimony accepted when natural and corroborated by prompt FIR and forensic evidence
- Common intention under Section 34 IPC inferred from conduct of holding victim while co-accused inflicts fatal blows
- Forensic Science Laboratory report showing human blood group matching deceased corroborates prosecution
- Absence of explanation by accused under Section 313 CrPC can be considered
- Trial court's rejection of eye witness evidence on surmises and erroneous assumptions is perverse
