1976 (8) TMI 157 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in criminal appeals by special leave.
2. Scope of arguments permissible in a criminal appeal by special leave.
3. Credibility and reliability of eye-witness testimony.
4. Non-examination of material witnesses.
5. Delay in lodging and dispatch of the FIR.
6. Identification of the accused.
7. Motive for the crime.
8. Appropriateness of sentences imposed.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeals by Special Leave:
The Supreme Court does not interfere with findings of fact unless "substantial and grave injustice has been done." The Court will only interfere if there is an error of law or procedure resulting in a serious miscarriage of justice. The assessment of evidence by the High Court is taken as final unless vitiated by errors of law, procedure, or principles of natural justice.

2. Scope of Arguments Permissible in a Criminal Appeal by Special Leave:
Once special leave is granted, the appellant is not free to contest all findings of fact but must confine arguments to points fit to be urged at the preliminary stage. The Court will not reappraise evidence or examine witness credibility unless there are exceptional circumstances.

3. Credibility and Reliability of Eye-Witness Testimony:
The Court found that P.W. 3 Jaswant Kaur and P.W. 4 Shiv Kaur were not "interested" witnesses as they had no animus against the accused. Their testimony was considered reliable and consistent, supported by corroborative evidence such as the birth register and electric fittings. The Court emphasized that close relatives of the deceased are often the most natural and reliable witnesses.

4. Non-Examination of Material Witnesses:
The non-examination of certain witnesses was justified as they were either relatives of the accused or had been won over by the accused. The prosecution provided a reasonable explanation, and the defense did not apply to examine these witnesses under Section 540 Cr.P.C. The Court found no deliberate or unfair withholding of witnesses.

5. Delay in Lodging and Dispatch of the FIR:
The delay in lodging the FIR was justified due to the threats made by the accused, causing the informant to wait until morning to go to the police station. The delay in dispatching the FIR to the Magistrate was explained by the absence of the Magistrate in his seat, and the Court found no reason to distrust the evidence on this point.

6. Identification of the Accused:
The Court found that the identification of Ajit Singh was doubtful as one of the witnesses failed to identify him at the test identification parade. The prosecution's failure to have Jaswant Kaur identify Ajit Singh at the parade was a significant lapse. Given the possibility of an honest mistake in identification, Ajit Singh was given the benefit of the doubt and acquitted.

7. Motive for the Crime:
The Court accepted the evidence of motive, finding that the appellant Dalbir Singh was dissatisfied with the partition of properties. Even if the motive was not proved, the evidence of the eye-witnesses was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.

8. Appropriateness of Sentences Imposed:
The Court affirmed the death sentences for Dalbir Singh and Puran Singh due to the gruesome and unprovoked nature of the murders. Dalbir Kaur @ Bhiro's life imprisonment was upheld, considering her role and the fact that she was a woman influenced by her husband.

Conclusion:
The appeal of Ajit Singh was allowed, and he was acquitted. The appeals of Dalbir Singh, Puran Singh, and Dalbir Kaur @ Bhiro were dismissed, and their convictions and sentences were affirmed.