High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed criminal appeals against conviction for murder. The court held that unexplained FIR delay and fatal contradictions in eyewitness testimony about the incident at a de-addiction centre created reasonable doubt, necessitating acquittal.
Conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted and set at liberty.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
| Cr. Appeal No | .322 of 2018 a/w | |
|---|---|---|
| Cr. Appeals No.3 | 06,343 & 402/2018 | |
| Reserved on: Decided on: |
01.07.2024 16.07.2024 |
|
| ________________________ 1.Cr. Appeal No. 322 of 2018 |
_________________ | _____________ |
| Satnam Singh | Versus | …..Appellant |
| State of Himachal Pradesh | ……Respondent | |
| __________________________ 2.Cr. Appeal No. 306 of 2018 |
_________________ | ______________ |
| Baljinder Singh @ Bindu | Versus | …..Appellant |
| State of Himachal Pradesh | ……Respondent | |
| __________________________ 3.Cr. Appeal No. 343 of 2018 |
_________________ | ______________ |
| Kamal Jeet Singh & others | Versus |
…..Appellants |
| State of Himachal Pradesh | ……Respondent | |
| __________________________ 4.Cr. Appeal No. 402 of 2018 |
_________________ | ______________ |
| Harjinder Singh @ Nikka | Versus | …..Appellant |
| State of Himachal Pradesh __________________________ |
_________________ |
……Respondent ______________ |
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
2
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge
1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
| _____________________ For the appellant(s): |
________________________________ Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate, Legal Aid Counsel, for the appellant, in Cr. Appeal No. 322 of 2018. Mr. Vijay Bir Singh, Advocate, for the appellant, in Cr. Appeal No. 306 of 2018. Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Kshitij Thakur, Advocate, for the appellants, in Cr. Appeal No. 343 of 2018. |
|---|---|
| Ms. Kanta Thakur, Advocate, for the appellant, in Cr. Appeal No. 402 of 2018. |
|
| For the respondent/State: | Mr. I.N. Mehta, Senior Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Navlesh Verma, Additional Advocate General. |
Sushil Kukreja, Judge
Since all these appeals are the offshoots of the impugned judgment rendered by the learned trial Court, which has been challenged by way of the instant appeals, the same are being taken up together for disposal.
whereby the appellants-accused persons, namely Harjinder Singh,
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
3
Gurdeep Singh, Yashpal, Kamal Jeet Singh and Satnam Singh were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 120-B & 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and in default of payment of fine, they were further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Appellants/accused persons Baljinder Singh, Harjinder Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Yashpal, Kamal Jeet Singh and Satnam Singh were also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each for commission of the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, they were ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
4
witnessed the incident and when he woke up at about 07:00 a.m., he saw the corpse of Rajinder Singh in a room and the head of the corpse was smeared with blood. The accused persons shifted the corpse of the deceased from the ground floor to the first floor and on being inquired by the complainant, accused Lovedeep disclosed that the deceased was admitted in the hospital and after three days of the incident, on being again inquired by the complainant, accused Satnam Singh disclosed that the deceased was sent to his house and thereafter on 16.11.2014, accused Honey told the complainant that the deceased had died. The accused persons had murdered Rajinder Singh and disposed of his dead body. The complainant further stated before the police that on 16.11.2014, at around 03:00 p.m., Jora Singh, Sarpanch, came to the centre alongwith 7-8 persons and they opened the lock of the centre and thereafter the inmates of the centre, including the complainant, fled away to their respective houses. The complainant disclosed about the incident of 11.11.2014 to said Jora Singh. Some unknown person informed the police.On 17.11.2014 that Rajinder Singh had disappeared from the centre and in sequel thereto, ASI Rajinder Kumar visited the centre and recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C., on the basis of which, a formal FIR was registered. 3(b). During the course of investigation, statements of the inmates of the centre were recorded. It was unearthed that some of the inmates of the centre complained to accused Kamal Jeet Singh that the
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
5
deceased had assaulted them. The deceased was called on the first floor and the accused persons had thrashed him with danda and fanbelt till 05:00 a.m. During investigation, it also transpired that blood was oozing from the head of the deceased and the accused persons washed the blood stains present on the spot and the corpse of the deceased was shifted to the first floor. The dead body of the deceased was found at Ghatnalu nullah and postmortem was conducted at Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala and thereafter the same was handed over to his family members.
3(c). Accused Yashpal made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and got recovered a danda and fan-belt from the centre, which were taken into possession by the police. He also disclosed that he had disposed of the dead body of the deceased with the help of accused Baljinder Singh in the Indica car near Shahpur during the night hours. The police prepared the spot map, clicked photographs, recorded statements of the witnesses and procured the reports of postmortem as well as RFSL. After completion of the investigation, police prepared the charge-sheet and presented the same before the learned trial Court.
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
6
examined one witness in their defence.
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
7
evidence on the record to inculpate all the accused/appellants, as has been rightly concluded by the trial Court. He further submitted that the judgment of the trial Court being well reasoned, does not call for any interference and the instant appeals, which lack merits, be dismissed
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
8
rests upon the statements of PW-1 Sukhvinder Singh (complainant), PW-2 Gurpeet Singh, PW-3 Jora Singh, PW-4 Jeet Singh (father of the deceased), PW-5 Sukhchain Singh, PW-10 Dr. Keshav and PW-11 ASI Ajeet Singh (Investigating Officer).
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
9
he went to sleep and on the next day, they asked from Lovedeep about Rajinder @ Bhura, who disclosed that Rajinder @ Bhura was admitted in the hospital and after two days, they again asked from Lovedeep about Bhura and he told that Rajinder was sent to his house. Thereafter when on 16.11.2014 Panchayat came and they unlocked the centre, they ran to their respective houses and then they disclosed the incident to Sarpanch Jora Singh and on 17.11.2014 they came to RajaKhasa and police was also intimated. They could not inform the police after 11.11.2014 to 17.11.2014 because they were locked in the centre and were not allowed to talk to anybody. On 17.11.2014 they took Bindoo and Yashpal and handed over both these accused persons to the police. They handed over Bindoo to the police as they came to know that in his car, remaining five accused persons disposed off the dead body of Rajinder @ Bhura. Lovedeep was not present at the spot on the day of incident.
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
10
given beatings to them, who at that time was on the first floor, was called by Kamal and after that when Rajinder came down, all above four accused persons started beating him. Mintu was carrying a belt and Gaggi was carrying a d anda and thereafter Nikka took the belt and Kamal took the d anda and all five started giving beatings to Rajinder @ Bhura upto 5 am. The blood was oozing from his head and then he was taken to first floor by the accused persons and the blood on the floor was washed by them. After 2-3 days, Lovedeep came and when they inquired about Rajinder, he disclosed that Rajinder was admitted in the hospital. And 2-3 days thereafter, they again inquired about Rajinder from Lovedeep, who disclosed that Rajinder was sent to his house. On 17.11.2014 he alongwith other inmates and inhabitants of the village came to the centre and Bindoo and Mintoo also accompanied them as accused persons disposed of the dead body of Rajinder in the vehicle driven by Bindoo. At the time of incident, Lovedeep was not present in the centre.
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
11
Sukhwinder Singh met them, who told that on 11.11.2014 at about 1.30 am, Kamal, Mintu, Satnam, Gaggi, Honey and Nikka gave beatings to Bhura with the help of belt and Danda and killed him. Thereafter, all the boys present in the centre ran from there to their respective houses. On the next day, he alongwith Jeet Singh and boys of the centre as well as other persons came to Raja-Khasa and they brought Baljinder @ Bindoo and Mintu with them and handed over both these persons to the police. Bindoo told him that he took Indica car of Kamal and disposed of the dead body of Bhura.
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
12
asked the staff to open the gate of the centre and on inquiry, he was disclosed by Sukhwinder that Rajinder was murdered by Mintoo, Gaggi, Satnam, Kamal, Honey and Nikka by belt and Danda on 11.11.2014 and disposed of his dead body. He brought Bindoo and Mintu and handed over to police and they brought Bindoo with them because he disclosed to their villagers that he took car of Kamal to disposed of the body of Rajinder @ Bhura.
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
13
help of bucket. Thereafter, they slept and did not know what happened. Lovedeep was not present at that time in the centre and he came two days after the incident. They inquired about Rajinder from Lovedeep, who disclosed that Rajidner had been shifted to the hospital and two days thereafter, they again inquired about Rajinder from Lovedeep and he disclosed that he had been sent to his house after discharge from the hospital. On 17.11.2014, they alongwith panchayat came to Raja Khasa and handed over Baljinder @ Bindoo and Mintoo to the police as Baljinder disposed off the dead body of Rajinder with Kamal in the car of Kamal.
“ After going through the postmortem examination of the body, I am of the opinion that the cause of death is antemortem multiple bony and internal and vital organ injuries leading to internal bleed hemorrhagic shock and multiple neurogenic shock inflicted by multiple hits and subsequent hypotension leading to death. In my opinion aforesaid injuries are sufficient to cause death.”
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
14
the effect that one dead body was lying at Ghatnalu Nallah. Pursuant to this, he along with SI/SHO Partap Singh and other police officials visited the spot at Ghatnalu Nallah and observed that it was not a case of natural death. He recorded the statement of informant Ajay Kumar, Up Pardhan GP Siyun and sent the rukka through police station Shahpur upon which FIR No. 212/2014 was registered. He filled up form 25.35 (1)(A) & 25.35(1)(B) Ex.PW11/A (five leaves). Forensic team too visited the spot at Ghatnalu Nallah in his presence and blood samples were preserved and the same were handed over to him by the forensic team. Thereafter, they brought dead body from Ghatnalu to Zonal Hospital Dharamshala for conducting postmortem of deceased. He moved application Ex. PW10/A in this regard and on next day, the postmortem was got conducted at Zonal Hospital Dharamshala. In the meanwhile, they came to know that an FIR under Section 302 IPC was also registered at P.S. Indora and police team from P.S. Indora also visited ZH, D/shala for verifying the dead body and on 19.11.2014, he handed over documents i.e. Ex. PW11/A inquest papers, PMR Ex. PW10/B, letter addressed to FSL Junga for DNA profiling to Inspector/SHO Tilak Raj in presence of HHC Shahi Pal and HC Mohinder Singh. On 18.11.2014. he handed over the dead body to SHO for further investigation.
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
15
in the absence of any reasons justifying the same and on account of unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the very base of the prosecution story becomes doubtful. They further contended that there are many inconsistencies in the deposition of the various witnesses and contradictory depositions cannot be relied on to convict the appellants as the inconsistencies go to the root of the matter. That presence of the so called eye witnesses at the spot is doubtful in the absence of any corroborative ocular or documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, like the forms, admission register of the centre etc.
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
16
statement of Sukhwinder Singh.
"15. This Court has consistently highlighted the reasons, objects and means of prompt lodging of FIR. Delay in lodging FIR more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultation, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Thus, FIR is to be filed more promptly and if there is any delay, the prosecution must furnish a satisfactory explanation for the same of the reason that in case the substratum of the evidence given by the complainant/informant is found to be unreliable, the prosecution case has to be rejected in its entirety.”
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
17
regard to the effect of delay in lodging FIR has held as under:-
"22. In cases where there is a delay in lodging a FIR, the Court has to look for a plausible explanation for such delay. In absence of such an explanation, the delay may be fatal. The reason for quashing such proceedings may not be merely that the allegations were an after thought or had given a coloured version of events. In such cases the court should carefully examine the facts before it for the reason that a frustrated litigant who failed to succeed before the Civil Court may initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the other side with mala fide intentions or the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the other party. Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustrations by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal court. The court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. In such a case, where an FIR is lodged clearly with a view to spite the other party because of a private and personal grudge and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal proceedings, the court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law in the facts and circumstances of the case. (vide :Chandrapal Singh &Ors. Vs. Maharaj Singh &Anr., AIR 1982 SC 1238; State of Haryana &Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal &Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604; G. Sagar Suri &Anr. Vs. State of U.P. &Ors., AIR 2000 SC 754; and Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. &Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 531).”
24. In Jai Prakash Singh Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2012)
4 SCC 379 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that extraordinary
delay in lodging of FIR raises grave doubt regarding the truthfulness of allegations. The Hon'ble Court held as under:-
"12. The FIR in a criminal case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence though may not be substantive piece of evidence. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR in respect of the commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye- witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. If there is a delay in lodging the FIR, it looses the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of large
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
18
number of consultations/deliberations. Undoubtedly, the promptness in lodging the FIR is an assurance regarding truth of the informant's version. A promptly lodged FIR reflects the first hand account of what has actually happened, and who was responsible for the offence in question."
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
19
the help of water. After that, according to PW-1, he went to sleep and on the next day, they asked Lovedeep about Rajinder @ Bhura, who disclosed that he was admitted in the hospital. He further deposed that after two days, when they again asked Lovedeep about Bhura, he disclosed that Rajinder was sent to his house and when on 16.11.2014 Panchayat came and they unlocked the centre, all of them ran to their respective houses and thereafter they disclosed the entire incident to Sarpanch Jora Singh. He also deposed that on 17.11.2014, they came to Raja-Khasa and police was also intimated. He further deposed that they could not inform the police from 11.11.2014 upto 17.11.2014 because they were locked in the centre and were not allowed to talk to anybody. PW-2 also deposed that on 11.11.2014, at about 1.30 a.m., Kamal, Gaggi, Mintu and Satnam gave beatings to Rajinder @ Bhura upto 5 a.m. and blood started oozing out from his head, after that body of Rajinder was taken to first floor and the blood was washed by them and thereafter all of them slept. He also deposed that after 2-3 days, Lovedeep came and when they inquired about Rajinder, he disclosed that Rajinder was admitted in the hospital and 2-3 days thereafter, they again inquired about Rajinder from Lovedeep, on this, he disclosed that Rajinder had been sent to his house. PW-5 Sukhchain Singh also deposed that on 11.11.2014, at about 1.30 am, Kamal, Satnam, Mintu and Gaggi came from outside and they started giving beatings to Rajinder till 5 am. and thereafter, he sustained injuries on his body and
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
20
blood started oozing out. He further deposed that at 5 am, Rajinder was taken to first floor and the blood which was lying on the floor was got washed away and then they went to sleep and did not know what had happened. He also deposed that when they inquired about Rajinder from Lovedeep, he disclosed that Rajinder had been shifted to hospital and two days later, they again inquired about Rajinder from Lovedeep, who disclosed that Rajinder had been sent to his house after having been discharged from the hospital.
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
21
to 17.11.2014, which is quite unnatural. It is also highly improbable that the incident had occurred in the centre during midnight at about 1.30 am and after the incident, all the inmates had gone to sleep without reporting the matter to anybody. Further,it is highly improbable and unnatural that none of the said witnesses alongwith 30-40 inmates and the staff members raised alarm or tried to rescue the deceased from the clutches of the accused persons. In cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that they came out of the drug de-addiction centre on 16.11.2014 at about 4 pm and thereafter they did not go to Police Station to report the matter, rather he had gone to his village after leaving the drug deaddiction centre. It has not been explained by him as to why he had not reported the matter to the police when he came out of the centre on 16.11.2014 at about 4 pm. PW-3 Jora Singh deposed that on 16.11.2014, he came to know that Rajinder Singh @ Bhura has been murdered in the de-addiction Centre at Raja Khasa and on this, he alongwith Jeet Singh and others went to de-addiction Centre, where Sukhwinder Singh told them that on 11.11.2014 at about 1.30 a.m., Kamal, Mintu, Satnam, Gaggi, Honey and Nikka gave beatings to Bhura and killed him. PW-4 Jeet Singh, father of the deceased, also deposed that on 16.11.2014, his grandson received phone of Rampa, who disclosed that Rajinder Singh was murdered and thereafter they proceeded to drug de-addiction centre, where on inquiry, PW-1 Sukhwinder had disclosed that Rajinder was murdered by Mintoo,
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
22
Gaggi, Satnam, Kamal, Honey and Nikka by belt and danda on 11.11.2014.The prosecution has failed to explain as to why PW-3 & PW4 had not reported the matter to the police when on 16.11.2014 they came to know that Rajinder Singh had been murdered. The conduct of PW-3 and PW-4 is highly improbable as on 16.11.2014 they came to know that the deceased had been murdered, but they did not bother to go to the police station to lodge the report rather they went to the deaddiction center first. Hence, the delay in lodging the FIR corrodes the credibility of the prosecution story. Since the FIR was lodged by the complainant after an inordinate and unexplained delay of six days, the story of the prosecution has become wholly unreliable.
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
23
found to be not minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. In such circumstances, witnesses may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with other evidence or with the statement already recorded, in such a case it cannot be held that prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt ( Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 11 SCC 334 ).
Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and others Vs. State of Maharashtra,
(2010) 13 SCC 657 , has held that:-
“30. While appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/ omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. The trial court, after going through the entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons. (Vide State v. Saravanan (2008) 17 SCC 587)
31. Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of a witness and the other witness also makes material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it cannot be safe to rely upon such evidence. (Vide State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Singh (2009) 11 SCC 106).”
Karnataka, (2017) 13 SCC 98 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed
that:-
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
24
“32. ……...the minor variations and contradictions in the evidence of the eyewitnesses will not tilt the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused but when the contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses proves to be fatal to the prosecution case then those contradictions go to the root of the matter and in such cases the accused gets the benefit of doubt.
33. ..……..As said by Bentham, "witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice". In the facts on hand, we feel that the evidence of these witnesses is filled with discrepancies, contradictions and improbable versions which draws us to the irresistible conclusion that the evidence of these witnesses cannot be a basis to convict the accused.”
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
25
Singh stated in cross-examination that lock was not broken, however, it was asked to be opened. There is also nothing on record to suggest that how and when the body of Rajinder was taken out from the centre.
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
26
The Investigating Officer, who appeared in the witness-box as PW-21, admitted that he did not take into possession any document to show that the accused persons were the inmates of the Drug de-addiction Centre.
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
27
the drug de-addiction centre itself. Furthermore, PW-7 Sanjeev Kumar did not support the prosecution case with respect to the disclosure statement allegedly made by accused Yashpal @ Mintu made to the police. As such, we think that it is not safe to place reliance on this part of the prosecution case.
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
28
under:-
“26. …………..Undisputedly, the place from which half blade is said to have been recovered is an open place and everybody had access to the site from where the blade is said to have been recovered. It is, therefore, difficult to believe the prosecution theory regarding recovery of the half blade. The credibility of the evidence relating to recovery is substantially dented by the fact that even though as per the Chemical Examiners Report the blood stains found on the shirt, pant and half blade were those of human blood, the same could not be linked with the blood of the deceased. Unfortunately, the learned Additional Sessions Judge and High Court overlooked this serious lacuna in the prosecution story and concluded that the presence of human blood stains on the cloths of the accused and half blade were sufficient to link him with the murder.”
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
29
as per prosecution case, he had thrown the dead body of deceased in the Indica car of accused Kamal Jeet bearing registration No.HR-51AA8425. However, the prosecution has failed to explain as to why on 17.11.2014, the police did not bother to take accused Baljinder to the place where the dead body was thrown. The police had taken accused persons Harjinder Singh on 19.11.2014 and Kamal Jeet Singh on 25.12.2014 for identifying the place where the dead body was thrown, instead of accused Baljinder who was never taken to the place where he had allegedly thrown the body. It is also highly improbable that the dead body of the deceased was lying on National Highway for six days and nobody had seen it and the same was recovered at Shahpur only when the FIR was lodged i.e. on 17.11.2014. This fact also raises suspicion about the case of the prosecution
“21.Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that may be proved and will be proved. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason, that the mental distance between may be and must be is quite large and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between may be
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
30
true and must be true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between may be true and `must be true, the court must maintain the vital distance between conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense.”
( 2024:HHC:5212 )
31
required in any other case. Fine amount, if deposited by the appellants, be refunded to them. Release warrants be prepared forthwith.
( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Judge
( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge
July 16, 2024
(VH) VIRENDER BAHADUR Digitally signed by VIRENDER BAHADURDN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=3c5f9e29e91dda973d928ffd06d59832d2dd97b9e2898117bfa738990a0ea7ba, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=fed3018c26866cd3d598cb3749b3fb29d4abef4b84983689d027cb645c9bb134, CN=VIRENDER BAHADURReason: I am approving this documentLocation: Date: 2024.07.16 18:03:13+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and material contradictions in prosecution eyewitness statements warrant acquittal.
Whether the contradictions in witness versions regarding the number of inmates, weapons used, and post-incident actions create reasonable doubt.
Whether the lack of corroboration for recovery of weapons and medical forensic links supports the conviction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satpal Singh Vs. State of HaryanaReferred¶79
Satpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 8 SCC 714 · Who else cites this
Kishan Singh (dead) through LRs. Vs. Gurpal Singh & othersReferred¶84
Kishan Singh (dead) through LRs. Vs. Gurpal Singh & others, (2010) 8 SCC 775 · Who else cites this
Jai Prakash Singh Vs. State of Bihar and anotherReferred¶86
Jai Prakash Singh Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2012) 4 SCC 379 · Who else cites this
Manoj Kumar Sharma & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & anotherReferred¶93
Manoj Kumar Sharma & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & another, (2016) 9 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra SinghReferred¶29
State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Singh, (2009) 11 SCC 106 · Who else cites this
Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar PradeshReferred¶30
Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 11 SCC 334 · Who else cites this
Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and others Vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶114
Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657 · Who else cites this
Krishnegowda and others vs. State of KarnatakaReferred¶119
Krishnegowda and others vs. State of Karnataka, (2017) 13 SCC 98 · Who else cites this
Sattatiya alias Satish Rajanna Kartalla Vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶138
Sattatiya alias Satish Rajanna Kartalla Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 3 SCC 210 · Who else cites this
Raj Kumar Singh Vs. State of RajasthanReferred¶147
Raj Kumar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 5 SCC 722 · Who else cites this
Satnam Singh
Baljinder Singh @ Bindu
Kamal Jeet Singh
Harjinder Singh @ Nikka
State of Himachal Pradesh
Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Sushil Kukreja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
