Case Note & Summary
The case arose from an appeal by special leave filed by the State of Haryana against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court acquitting Gurdial Singh and Pargat Singh of charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge, Karnal, had convicted both accused and sentenced them to death for the murder of Lal Singh, an elderly advisor to a wealthy landlord family in village Shamgarh. The prosecution alleged that on 11 December 1968, at about 10 p.m., while Avtar Kaur, widow of the late landlord Gurinder Singh, was conversing with Lal Singh in his room, Pargat Singh, accompanied by his brother Gurdial Singh (of Taraori) and another Gurdial Singh (of Ramana), entered the room. Pargat Singh was carrying a double-barrel gun belonging to Rajinder Singh. After a brief exchange, Pargat Singh fired at Lal Singh, killing him on the spot. The motive was a family dispute over land transfers and money; Lal Singh had recently demanded that Pargat Singh and his brother help Avtar Kaur with funds for a cold storage project, and had threatened to file a suit to recover transferred land. The High Court, however, found serious discrepancies in the prosecution evidence. The FIR was recorded after considerable delay and after consultation among family members. The prosecution witnesses, including Avtar Kaur, had given two contradictory versions of the occurrence: in their court testimony they stated that Pargat Singh shot Lal Singh and that Avtar Kaur witnessed the incident, but in their earlier statements to the police they had described a different sequence, suggesting that Gurdial Singh of Ramana was the actual assailant and that Avtar Kaur had not witnessed the occurrence. The police investigation initially concluded that Gurdial Singh of Ramana was the culprit and that Pargat Singh and his brother were innocent, as noted in the challan. The trial court had accepted the in-court version and convicted Pargat Singh and Gurdial Singh of Ramana, while the High Court held that the contradictions were fundamental and that the prosecution had attempted to improve its story to shield another person (Daljit Singh, the eldest son of the landlord). The Supreme Court, in dismissing the State's appeal, agreed with the High Court. It observed that when prosecution witnesses present two inconsistent versions of the same occurrence, one in court and one before the police, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. The Court noted that the High Court had rightly set aside the conviction, and there was no ground for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The appeals were accordingly dismissed, and the acquittal of both accused was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Trial - Appreciation of Evidence - Benefit of Doubt - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 34 - Contradictory versions of occurrence by prosecution witnesses - The prosecution witnesses gave two inconsistent versions of the occurrence: one in court implicating one accused and another in police statements implicating a different person; one version stated that a key witness had witnessed the occurrence, while the police version stated she had not. The High Court set aside the conviction noting the FIR was recorded after deliberation and consultation, and that the witnesses had supported another version. The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal, holding that the High Court rightly set aside the conviction and there was no ground for interference. Held that the benefit of doubt must go to the accused when the prosecution presents contradictory versions (Paras 664B-D).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction of the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code given the contradictory versions of the occurrence presented by the prosecution witnesses in court and in their prior police statements.
Final Decision
The appeals were dismissed; the acquittal of both accused was confirmed.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt must go to accused when prosecution witnesses give contradictory versions
- Conviction cannot be sustained if witness statements in court differ materially from police statements
- High Court acquittal upheld in appeal by special leave when no manifest illegality shown
- Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC requires proof of common intention beyond reasonable doubt
- Contradictory versions of occurrence by prosecution witnesses weaken prosecution case
