Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard a criminal appeal filed by Joginder Singh against his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by the Special Court, Patiala. The case arose from an incident on 4 August 1984 at a flour mill in village Gulhari, where the appellant allegedly murdered Teja Singh after the deceased demanded Rs.1000 owed for thrashing wheat. The trial court sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2000, with default rigorous imprisonment for two months. The prosecution relied on eyewitnesses PW2 Jagdev Singh and PW3 Hawa Singh, corroborated by medical evidence, and on PW6 Gurmel Singh and PW7 Kundan Lal to prove a prior complaint and agreement to pay. The appellant challenged the conviction under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984, contending that the prosecution version was improbable because there was no electricity supply to the villages of Thaska and Gulhari from 3.45 a.m. to 8.40 p.m. on the day of the incident, and that the eyewitnesses and deceased could not have been at the flour mill. He also argued that the prosecution ought to have examined Prem Chand, from whom an account book was seized, to prove that wheat was left for grinding, and that the evidence of the related witness Jagdev Singh should be discarded. The State defended the conviction, asserting that the eyewitness testimony was consistent and corroborated by medical evidence. The Supreme Court rejected the improbability argument, noting that no advance notice of the electricity failure was given, and that the flour mill worker Gurmel Singh had opened the mill and left only to enquire about resumption of supply. The court found no serious infirmity in the eyewitness testimony; PW3 Hawa Singh had no reason to falsely implicate the appellant and remained near the dead body until police arrived. The minor inconsistencies in the evidence of PW2 Jagdev Singh did not warrant rejection, and being a near relative of the deceased did not by itself create doubt because there was no enmity with the appellant. Regarding the non-examination of Prem Chand, the court held that since the defence did not object when the Public Prosecutor dropped him and made no attempt at trial to demonstrate the relevance of the account book, no adverse inference could be drawn. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC, confirmed the sentence, and directed the appellant, who was on bail, to surrender to serve out the sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Conviction under Section 302 IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The prosecution proved that the appellant inflicted a stick blow on the head of the deceased after a demand for Rs.1000, causing death; eyewitness testimony of PW2 and PW3 was consistent and corroborated by medical evidence; Held that the injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death and the conviction under Section 302 IPC was rightly recorded (Pages 1-3). B) Criminal Trial - Appreciation of Evidence - Implausibility of Prosecution Story - Not mentioned - The appellant argued that presence of eyewitnesses at the flour mill was improbable because electricity supply was off from 3.45 a.m. to 8.40 p.m.; the court rejected this as no advance notice was given and the mill worker had opened the mill and gone to enquire about resumption of supply; Held that the prosecution version was not improbable (Pages 2-3). C) Criminal Trial - Adverse Inference from Non-Examination of Witness - No adverse inference when no objection to dropping witness - Not mentioned - The investigating officer seized account book Bahi from Prem Chand but the prosecution did not examine him; defence did not object when the Public Prosecutor dropped Prem Chand and made no attempt at trial to show the account book contained relevant daily records; Held that no adverse inference could be drawn and no grievance could be raised on appeal (Pages 2-3). D) Criminal Trial - Credibility of Related Witness - Evidence of near relative not discarded absent enmity - Not mentioned - The evidence of PW2 Jagdev Singh, a near relative of the deceased, had minor inconsistencies but no enmity with the appellant; court held such evidence need not be discarded when reliable and corroborated; Held that related witness testimony can be accepted if otherwise credible (Page 2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution version regarding presence of eyewitnesses at the flour mill was improbable due to non-supply of electricity; Whether non-examination of Prem Chand, from whom account book Bahi was seized, warranted an adverse inference; Whether reliance on the evidence of related witness Jagdev Singh was justified
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC, and confirmed the sentence of imprisonment for life and fine. The appellant, who was on bail, was directed to surrender to his bail bond to serve out the sentence.
Law Points
- Murder conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld
- eyewitness testimony accepted as credible
- medical evidence corroborative
- improbability argument due to electricity failure rejected without prior notice
- no adverse inference for dropped witness when no objection at trial
- related witness testimony not discarded absent enmity
