Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Since both the appeals (supra) arise from a common verdict, made by the learned trial Judge concerned, upon Sessions case bearing No. 24 of 2003, hence both the appeals (supra) are amenable for a common verdict being made thereons.

2. CRA-D-318-DB-2005 is directed against the impugned verdict, as made on 7.2.2005, upon Sessions case bearing No. 24 of 2003, by the 1 of 41 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001493-DB CRA-D-124-DBA-2006 (O&M) -2- CRA-D-318-DB-2005 (O&M) learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa, wherethrough, in respect of charges respectively drawn against the accused qua offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B, 34 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, thus the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to record a finding of conviction against the accused Constable Sukhwinder Singh and Gurvir Singh @ Goga qua commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC. However, the accused Rajdeep and Sukhwinder Singh son of Jagdev Singh were acquitted of the charges framed against them.

Reasons for upholding the verdict of acquittal and dismissing the appeal filed by the State

66. Though the prosecution witnesses concerned, have stated, that they have last seen together the accused and the deceased, inclusive of the acquitted accused namely Rajdeep and Sukhwinder Singh alias Sukha son of Jagdev Singh. However, the prosecution witnesses concerned, irrefutably identified in Court only accused-convicts Constable Sukhwinder Singh and 38 of 41 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001493-DB CRA-D-124-DBA-2006 (O&M) -39- CRA-D-318-DB-2005 (O&M) Gurveer alias Goga. However, they did not irrefutably identify accused Rajdeep and Sukhwinder Singh son of Jagdev Singh. Moreover also when PW-20 had mis-identified accused Sukhwinder Singh son of Jagdev Singh as accused Rajdeep. The effect of the failure of the prosecution witnesses (supra) to unerringly identify in Court, accused Rajdeep and accused Sukhwinder Singh son of Jagdev Singh, is that, the said witnesses were unfamiliar qua the identity of the accused (supra), wherebys a necessity became cast upon the said witnesses to, in their previously recorded statement in writing, thus detail the key characteristic features of the accused (supra), so that, during the course of investigations, a test identification parade becomes conducted, whereins, the prosecution witnesses could identify both the accused (supra). Consequently therebys the identification made in Court, of the accused (supra) thus by the PWs concerned, rather would hold some evidentiary value. However, when the omission (supra) did occur, and, moreover when the witnesses (supra) failed to unerringly identify the accused (supra) in Court, therebys the previously made statements by the prosecution witnesses (supra), whereins, they stated that they had last seen together accused Rajdeep with the deceased, rather is not to be assigned any credence. As such, the incriminatory role assigned to accused Rajdeep becomes weakened.

67. In addition, when none of the prosecution witnesses identified co-accused Sukhwinder Singh son of Jagdev Singh in Court, therebys the incriminatory role assigned by the prosecution witnesses (supra) to the supra accused, thus banked upon theirs recording in their previously made statements in writing to the police, that he was last seen together with the deceased, but naturally falters.


                               39 of 41

                              Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001493-DB




CRA-D-124-DBA-2006 (O&M)           -40-
CRA-D-318-DB-2005 (O&M)

68. Moreover what further prompts this Court to affirm the finding of acquittal recorded vis-a-vis accused Rajdeep and Sukhwinder Singh son of Jagdev Singh, becomes borrowed from the factum, that the recovery of the clothes, as became effected at the instance of accused Rajdeep, through recovery memo Ex. PEE/1, rather became effected from an open place. Moreover when no recovery became effected from accused Sukhwinder Singh son of Jagdev Singh, besides also when the footwear moulds of both the accused (supra) become declared by the FSL concerned, to be not matching with the foot moulds, which were collected from the crime site. Resultantly the effect thereof, is that, therebys too, the criminal appeal filed by the State bearing number CRA-D-124-DBA-2006, is required to be dismissed.