CASE BRIEF
Appellants- JARNAIL SINGH
Respondents- STATE OF PUNJAB
Decided On: 23.11.1995
Statues Referred-
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 34, Section 302, Section 307, Section 68.
Prior History:
Appeal From the Judgment and Order dated 19-5-1982 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl. A. No. 660-DB of 1981
Facts:
1. On October 27, 1979 at or about 9 A.M. the acquitted accused Sukhwinder Singh was preparing a path to his behak (farm house) by dismantling the water course of Sukhdev Singh (one of the 2 deceased) and his brothers running through their lands while Gurmej Singh (since acquitted, lather of the appellant and Sukhwinder Singh, was standing nearby.
2.Objection for this from Sukhdev Singh, his brothers Surjit Singh (the other deceased),Dhanwant Singh (PW4) and Manohar Singh (PW6) eventually led to an exchange of hot words and abuses between the parties.
3. Thereafter Gurmej Singh and Sukhwinder Singh left for their behak and the two deceased and; their brother for their village Khatra Khurt. When the latter group on the way to village had reached the janj ghar (place for marriage parties) the five accused alongside one Joginder Singh (since absconding) accosted them. Except Gurmej Singh, who was unarmed, all had rifles with them.
4. Gurmej Singh raised a lalkara saying that they should be taught a lesson for stopping them from preparing the path to their behak whereupon which Joginder Singh had fired from his rifle hitting Surjit Singh on his chest.
5. The appellant fired from his rifle hitting Sukhdev Singh on his back. Sukhwinder Singh also fired from his rifle hitting him on his left shoulder. On being so fired at, both of them fell down on surface.
6. The additional accused persons also fired from their rifles aiming at Dhanwant Singh and Manohar Singh but their shots hit the walls of the nearby house of Ajit Singh. Thereafter all the accused persons fled away.
7. The witnesses then took injured Sukhdev Singh and Surjit Singh to their house nearby but by then that they had succumbed to their injuries. Dhanwant Singh then visited Majithia police headquarters and lodged a FIR at the moment.
Issue;
Whether the appellant can/cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC?
Contentions by Parties-
Appellant’s Arguments
1. The appellant alongside four others, including his father, brother and nephew, was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar for rioting, committing murders and attempting to commit murders.
2. All he accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and contended that they had been falsely implicated and were being framed.
3. To prove its case prosecution examined twelve witnesses of whom Dhanwant Singh (PW4) and Manohar Singh (PW6), the 2 brothers of the deceased, figured as eye witnesses; and in their defence the accused persons examined live witnesses, including Swaran Singh (DW 5) who also claimed to have witnessed the occurrence of the event.
Respondent’s Arguments
1. Respondent argued before the court that the trial Court, however, held that the evidence of the above two eye witnesses was reliable as against the appellant and his brother Sukhwinder Singh which their evidence was strengthened by that of Swaran Singh (DW 5). The supreme court concurred with all the findings of the court but gave the advantage of doubt to Sukhwinder Singh as Swaran Singh (DW 5) didn’t mention him as one of the persons who fired at the deceased.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that both the trial Court and the High Court, having found the evidence of PW 4 and PW 6 unacceptable as against the opposite accused persons, shouldn’t have relied upon the self-same evidence to convict the appellant.
Judgment
The Court’s bench comprising of MUKHERJEE M.K. (J) Held the following:
1. It had been observed that the appellant can’t be convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC, but as he had fired at Sukhdev Singh with rifle he cannot escape his conviction for the plan to commit his murder. The last contention of Mr. Lalit, therefore, must be accepted.
2. The court allowed this appeal in part, set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant under Section 302 IPC and instead thereof convicted him under Section 307 IPC; and for the altered conviction sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The appellant, who was on bail, was to surrender to his bail bond to serve out the above sentence. The appeal was partly allowed.
Rule of Law–
The provision of the law which was under scrutiny by the Hon’ble court allowed this appeal in part, set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant under Section 302 IPC and instead thereof convict him under Section 307 IPC; and for the altered conviction sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The appeal was thus partly allowed.
Conclusion
In Conclusion it could be said that in this case that it is the prosecution’s responsibility to prove the standard of evidence in the court; but, where the accused is called upon to prove the burden, this is often mentioned because the onus of proof being on the accused to prove his case is under an exception.
The expression “Onus of Proof” refers to the responsibility to supply real facts which falls from one party to a different at any time during the evolution of evidence. In this, court held that the if the petitioner/ prosecution fails to present the satisfactory evidence in the court to discharge the burden and it does not depend upon that sort of evidence which was adduced by the accused for the support of their defense in the case.
If someone argues that a fact exists, the party has to prove it. Since it’s unclear who bears the burden of proof during a suit or proceeding, Section 102 of the Evidence Act is simple on now stating that the burden of proof during a suit or proceeding falls on the one that would lose if no evidence was presented on either side.
Prepared By Faigha Naz
