The High Court dismissed the appellant's criminal appeal seeking acquittal from murder charges. Upholding the trial court's conviction, the court found the prosecution evidence, including eyewitness testimony and forensic reports, reliable and sufficient to prove the appellant killed his wife.
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.
CRA No. D-560-DB of 2008
- 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA No. D-560-DB of 2008 Decided on : 12 March, 2013
Hamir Singh son of Nand Singh resident of Village Mehra Khana, Bathinda, Punjab.
.....Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SARON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. BANGARH
Present: Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. S.S. Dhaliwal, Addl. AG, Punjab for the respondent.
S.P. BANGARH, J
The case of the prosecution is that Jagsir Singh-complainant aged about 21 years, is a step son of Hamir Singh (appellant), has been working as sharecropper with some agriculturist. They are three brothers, all unmarried, and are living with their parents. On 08.11.2006 at about 8.30 a.m., Jagsir Singh-complainant was present in a room of his house located in village Lehra Khanna. His two brothers had gone out for work. His mother Kulwant Kaur (deceased) and father Hamir Singh (appellant) were sitting in the courtyard of the house and quarreling. Jagsir Singhcomplainant heard shrieks of his mother Kulwant Kaur.
Thereupon, he came out of the room and found his father Hamir Singh (appellant) giving toka (instrument for cutting sticks and fooder) blows to his mother Kulwant Kaur, as also hurling invectives upon her. In the presence of Jagsir Singh-complainant, Hamir Singh-appellant gave
CRA No. D-560-DB of 2008
- 2-
toka blows on the forehead, neck and face of Kulwant Kaur (deceased). Jagsir Singh-complainant raised alarm and his mother succumbed to her injuries received in the incident. Appellant ran away from the place of incident alongwith toka. Due to domestic dispute, appellant committed the murder of Kulwant Kaur (deceased). Kartar Singh younger brother of the appellant also reached at the spot. After leaving Kartar Singh with the corpse of Kulwant Kaur (deceased), Jagsir Singh-complainant went to lodge the report. Police party headed by Harvinder Singh Virk Inspector met him near railway level crossing, Chak Ram Singh Wala, Bhucho Mandi, where his aforementioned statement Ex.PD was recorded by Harvinder Singh Virk Inspector, that was read over and explained to him, who thumb marked the same after admitting the correctness, thereof.
Later, Harvinder Singh Virk Inspector made his endorsement Ex.PL on the statement Ex.PD and sent the same to the Police Station through Jagrant Singh HC, where formal FIR Ex.PL/1 was recorded by Kaur Singh AMHC. Later, Harvinder Singh Virk Inspector and other police officials visited the place of occurrence alongwith Jagsir Singh-complainant and prepared the rough site plan Ex.PM of the place of occurrence. Photographs of the place of occurrence were taken. Simple mud and blood stained mud were lifted from the spot by Harvinder Singh Virk Inspector, that were made into separate parcels, which were sealed by Harvinder Singh Virk Inspector with his seal bearing impression 'HS' and seal after used was handed over to Kabal Singh ASI. Both the parcels were seized vide memo Ex.PE.
Harvinder Singh Virk Inspector also prepared the inquest report Ex.PN on the corpse of Kulwant Kaur (deceased), that was sent to the mortuary for autopsy through Jagrant Singh HC and latter had produced a blood stained parcel duly sealed with the seal bearing impression 'HS' to Kabal Singh ASI, that was seized vide memo Ex.PF. Kabal Singh ASI
- 3-
CRA No. D-560-DB of 2008
arrested the appellant on 08.11.2006 after disclosing him grounds of arrest vide memo Ex.PG, that was attested by Partap Singh HC. Appellant also produced toka Ex.P1, that was sealed by Kabal Singh ASI with his seal bearing impression 'KS' and that parcel was seized vide memo Ex.PI. From the personal search of the appellant nothing was recovered and memo Ex.PJ in this regard was prepared. Photographer Begh Raj Sharma produced photos before Kabal Singh ASI, that were seized vide memo Ex.PK. Blood stained toka Ex.P1 and the clothes of the deceased (Kulwant Kaur) were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the latter, gave its report Ex.PO.
After completion of investigation, Station House Officer of Police Station Nathana, instituted police report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C-for short) against the appellant, before the learned Illaqa Magistrate to the effect that it appeared that he has committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC-for short).
On presentation of police report, copies of documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished to the appellant by the learned Illaqa Magistrate, who later committed the case to the Court of Session, where charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant, whereto, the latter, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Consequently, prosecution evidence was summoned.
At the trial, the prosecution examined Dr. Murar Singh as PW-1, Gurinder Singh HC as PW-2, Sukhcharanit Singh as PW-3, Jagsir Singhcomplainant as PW-4, Kabal Singh ASI as PW-5, Begh Raj Sharma as PW-6 and Harvinder Singh Virk Inspector as PW-7 and closed the evidence, later after tendering the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PO.
After the closure of prosecution evidence, appellant was
CRA No. D-560-DB of 2008
- 4-
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein, he denied the allegations of the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication in this case.
Appellant gave his own version that his wife Kulwant Kaur (deceased) was earlier married to Kaka Singh of village Jagmalwali and Jagsir Singh-complainant (PW-4) is son of Kulwant Kaur (deceased) and Kaka Singh and the latter, had earlier died and Kulwant Kaur (deceased) re-married with him and started living with him as wife and two sons namely Amrik Singh and Binder Singh were born out of his wedlock with Kulwant Kaur (deceased). He also stated that Kaka Singh had share in some land at village Jagmal Wali and his widow Kulwant Kaur (deceased) wanted to sell that land, but brother of Kaka Singh namely Harnek Singh did not allow this and told his wife and Jagsir Singh-complainant (PW-4) to come and reside in the said village, and told that he would not allow them to sell the said land. About four days prior to the occurrence, Kulwant Kaur (deceased) told Harnek Singh at village Jagmal Wali that she would file a suit against him, as she wanted to sell the land in village Jagmal Wali, Harnek Singh had threatened his wife Kulwant Kaur (deceased) with dire consequences.
He further stated that on the day of occurrence, he was called from the fields, where he was working by his brother Kartar Singh and informed him about murder of his wife by unknown persons in his house. He further stated that murder of his wife was committed at the instance of Harnek Singh and he reached at the spot and his brother Kartar Singh also brought Jagsir Singh-complainant from the fields, where he was working and told him about the death of his (appellant's) wife. Police came to the spot on the basis of information on phone and he was falsely involved in this case after due deliberation and consultations by the police at the instance of Harnek Singh. At the spot also, his brother Kartar Singh and other persons and he himself were saying to the police that this murder has
CRA No. D-560-DB of 2008
- 5-
been committed at the instance of Harnek Singh due to land dispute. He further stated that he was taken to the police station from the place of occurrence and recovery was planted upon him. They used to go to the fields at 6.00 AM daily and return in the evening at 8.00/9.00 PM to their houses from the fields.
Appellant was called upon to enter in defence, but he closed the same without examining any witness in defence.
After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment of conviction, convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and vide order of sentence, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of `5000/and in default, thereof, to further undergo imprisonment for two years. Aggrieved, thereagainst, the appellant, has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.06.2008 and sought his acquittal of offence, wherefor, he has been convicted and sentenced.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent and perused the record of the learned trial Court with their assistance.
PW-1 Dr. Murar Singh testified that on 08.11.2006, he conducted the autopsy on the corpse of Kulwant Kaur (deceased) wrongly written as Balwant Kaur and found the following injuries, thereon:
- 6-
CRA No. D-560-DB of 2008
He further testified that in his opinion, all the injuries were ante mortem in nature and cause of death in his opinion was, coma, as a result of injuries Nos. 1 and 2 to the brain (vital organ), which is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He brought the original postmortem report and proved the carbon copy, thereof, Ex.PA. He also proved pictorial diagram EX.PA/1 showing the seats of injuries.
PW-2 Gurinder Singh HC tendered in evidence his affidavit
Ex.PB.
PW-3 Sukhcharanjit Singh Constable also tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PC.
PW-4 Jagsir Singh-complainant testified that on 08.11.2006 at about 8.30 a.m., he was present in his room and his brothers had gone for their work. He further testified that his mother Kulwant Kaur (deceased) and father Hamir Singh (appellant) were present in the courtyard of the house and quarreling with each other. He further testified that on hearing noise, he came out of the room and found his father Hamir Singh (appellant) causing injuries on the forehead, neck and face of his mother Kulwant Kaur (deceased). After the occurrence, appellant ran away from the spot alongwith toka. He further testified that he found his mother Kulwant Kaur (deceased) dead at the spot due to injuries. He also testified that due to domestic dispute, his father Hamir Singh (appellant) committed the murder of his mother Kulwant Kaur (deceased). He further testified that in the meantime, his father's younger brother Kartar Singh reached at the spot and after leaving the latter, with the corpse of Kulwant Kaur
- 7-
CRA No. D-560-DB of 2008
(deceased), he went to the police, which met him near the railway level crossing of Bhucho Mandi and he made his statement Ex.PD before the police, that was read over and explained to him by the police and after admitting the correctness, thereof, he thumb marked the same.
He further testified that thereafter, he alongwith the police reached at the place of incident and the police lifted the blood stained earth and simple earth from the spot, that were sealed into separate parcels, which were seized vide memo Ex.PE, that was attested by him and other witnesses. He further testified that his supplementary statement was also recorded by the police. During his deposition, sealed parcel containing toka Ex.P1 was opened and he testified that it was the same weapon that was used by the appellant. He also testified that he identified the corpse of his mother Kulwant Kaur (deceased) during inquest proceedings.
PW-5 Kabal Singh ASI also testified that on 08.11.2006 in his presence, Harvinder Singh Virk Inspector recorded the statement of Jagsir Singh-complainant (PW-4) and they reached at the place of occurrence from where Harvinder Singh Virk Inspector lifted simple earth and blood stained earth and sealed that into separate parcels with his seal bearing impression 'HS' and those parcels were seized vide memo Ex.PE, that was attested by him and the complainant-Jagsir Singh (PW-4) and on the same day in the evening, he alongwith other police officials was present in connection with investigation of this case, at bus stop of Bhuchoo Mandi, where Jagrant Singh HC after autopsy on the corpse of Kulwant Kaur (deceased) produced before him, a sealed parcel Ex.P2 containing the clothes of the deceased (Kulwant Kaur), that was seized vide memo Ex.PF, which was attested by Jagrant Singh HC and Partap Singh HC.
He also testified that Hardev Singh Patwari also produced before him the appellant, who was formally arrested by him in this case, after disclosing him grounds of arrest vide memo Ex.PG, that was attested by
- 8-
CRA No. D-560-DB of 2008
Partap Singh HC. The appellant also produced toka Ex.P1, that was stained with blood. Rough sketch Ex.PH of toka was prepared by him and toka Ex.P1 was made into parcel, that was sealed by him with his seal bearing impression 'KS' and that parcel was seized vide memo Ex.PI. He also testified that from the personal search of the appellant, nothing was recovered and memo Ex.PJ to the same effect was prepared by him. He also testified that photographer Begh Raj Sharma produced before him photos, which were seized by him vide memo Ex.PK.
PW-6 Begh Raj testified that on 08.11.2006, he had taken photographs of the corpse of Kulwant Kaur (deceased) at village Khana Lehra and handed over those to Kabal Singh ASI (PW-5), that were seized vide memo Ex.PK. Photographs Ex.P4 to Ex.P8 were shown to him during his deposition. He further testified that his statement was recorded by the police
PW-7 Harvinder Singh Virk Inspector also testified that on 08.11.2006, he was posted as SHO, Police Station Nathana and on that day, he alongwith Kabal Singh ASI (PW-5) and other police officials was present at railway crossing, Chak Ram Singh Wala Bhuchoo Mandi, where, Jagsir Singh-complainant (PW-4) came and got recorded his statement Ex.PD, whereon, he made his endorsement Ex.PL and sent the same to the Police Station through Jagrant Singh HC and FIR on the basis, thereof, Ex.PL/1 was recorded by Kaur Singh AMHC. He further testified that he visited the place of occurrence alongwith the complainant-Jagsir Singh (PW-5) and prepared the rough site plan Ex.PM. He also testified that photographs of the place of occurrence were taken, as also simple earth and blood stained earth were lifted from the spot and two separate parcels, thereof, were made, which were sealed by him with the seal bearing impression 'HS' and seal after use was handed over to Kabal Singh ASI by him and these parcels were seized by him vide memo Ex.PE.
CRA No. D-560-DB of 2008
- 9-
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the latter has been wrongly convicted and sentenced for the alleged commission of murder of his wife Kulwant Kaur (deceased). He also contended that the FIR was lodged on the basis of statement of step son of the appellant and in fact, the deceased (Kulwant Kaur) had been murdered by some unknown persons at the instance of Harnek Singh. Kulwant Kaur (deceased) was married to one Kaka Singh prior to her re-marriage with the appellant and Jagsir Singh-complainant (PW-4) is the son of the deceased (Kulwant Kaur) from her earlier marriage with Kaka Singh.
He also contended that after the death of Kaka Singh, Kulwant Kaur (deceased) got married with the appellant and some land in village Jagmal Wali fell in the share of Kulwant Kaur (deceased) and Harnek Singh did not allow her to sell the land and he threatened her with dire consequences in case she tried to sell the land and she had been murdered by some unknown persons at the instance of said Harnek Singh and the appellant has been wrongly convicted and sentenced in the present case at the instance of his step son Jagsir Singh-complainant (PW-4).
Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the learned trial Court erroneously convicted and sentenced the appellant sans going into the roots of the case and without taking into consideration of the fact that story of prosecution is full of doubt. So, he contended that the learned trial Court failed to take into consideration, that the presence of Jagsir Singh-complainant (PW-4) at the place of occurrence was doubtful. He also contended that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that there was a variation between the ocular version and the medical evidence placed on the record. So he contended that the benefit of doubt is required to be given to the appellant, who may be acquitted of the charge framed against him for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
CRA No. D-560-DB of 2008
- 10-
On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent, contended that the case of the prosecution before the learned trial Court was proved beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, and, therefore, appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence that may be upheld and affirmed, as these do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
As per medical evidence of PW-5 (Dr. Murar Singh), there were five injuries on the corpse of the deceased (Kulwant Kaur). Injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 5 are incised wound. So, Injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 5 being incised wound could be caused with toka Ex.P1, which is a sharp edged weapon. According to PW-1 (Dr. Murar Singh) lacerated wounds, which are injuries nos. 3 and 4 could be caused with a blunt weapon like dang.
Indubitably, toka Ex.P1 is a blade fitted on a dang. The learned trial Court rightly observed that when the injuries are given blindly, it was not be possible to see whether the blade hit the victim or dang portion of the toka Ex.P1 hit the victim or side of the blade hit the victim. These injuries (injuries Nos. 3 and 4) are on the face of the deceased (Kulwant Kaur).
PW-4 Jagsir Singh-complainant candidly testified that the injuries to the deceased were given on her face, neck and forehead. As per the testimony of PW-1 Dr. Murar Singh, injury No.1 is an incised wound on the middle of vault of skull bone deep. While injury No.2 was on the front of forehead 3 cms above the eyebrow and wound was bone deep and bone was cut. PW-1 Dr. Murar Singh candidly testified that injuries Nos. 1 and 2 damaged the brain and those became the cause of death. Toka Ex.P1 was recovered from the appellant, during investigation that was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the latter, vide report Ex.PO opined that toka was stained with human blood. Even the clothes of the deceased
CRA No. D-560-DB of 2008
- 11-
(Kulwant Kaur) were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis and the latter, in that report Ex.PO also opined that the clothes of the deceased (Kulwant Kaur) were also stained with blood.
Link evidence in this case is complete. The case property of this case came in possession of Kabal Singh ASI (PW-5), Gurinder Singh HC (PW-2), Sukhcharanjit Singh (PW-3) and Harvinder Singh Virk Inspector (PW-7). There is nothing to indicate that the case property during investigation was tampered with by these witnesses till deposit, thereof with the Forensic Science Laboratory. So, it follows that the articles, which were recovered during investigation were deposited with the Forensic Science Laboratory in an intact condition. From the report Ex.PO, it is made out that toka Ex.P1 was used in this occurrence and that is why the human blood appeared , thereon.
Even the human blood appeared on the clothes of the deceased (Kulwant Kaur), as per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PO. No motive can be ascribed to the police to implicate the appellant falsely in this case. Testimonies of Kabal Singh ASI (PW-5) and Harvinder Singh Virk Inspector (PW-7), who conducted the investigation of this case could not be shattered during investigation. It is the version of the appellant that his brother Kartar Singh informed him about the commission of murder of his wife, while he was working in the fields. It is also his case that his brother Kartar Singh also brought Jagsir Singh-complainant (PW-4) from the fields, where he was working. So, the appellant tried to prove that he was not present in the house, when the murder of his wife took place.
He also tried to prove that his son Jagsir Singh-complainant (PW-4) was also not present in the house, where murder of his wife (Kulwant Kaur) took place. This version has not been supported by any evidence. Kartar Singh brother of the appellant did not step into the box to state in favour of the appellant that the latter, was not present in the house,
CRA No. D-560-DB of 2008
- 12-
when the murder of his wife took place and Jagsir Singh-complainant (PW4) was also not present in the house at the time of commission of murder of Kulwant Singh (deceased).
Mere, statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in his defence having not been corroborated by any other evidence was not suffice to repel the version of the appellant and the learned trial Court rightly did not repel the prosecution version, which could be repelled only, if Kartar Singh brother of the witness or some other witnesses from the village had deposed in favour of the appellant that at the time of commission of murder of Kulwant Kaur (deceased), neither the appellant nor Jagsir Singh-complainant (PW-4) was present in the house and on the contrary, they were working in the fields at that time. Even, the appellant in his version, no where testified as to in whose fields, he was working on the day of occurrence.
It is the version of the appellant that some unknown persons committed the murder of his wife Kulwant Kaur (deceased) at the instance of Harnek Singh brother of Kaka Singh with whom Kulwant Kaur (deceased) was earlier married. The motive alleged against Harnek Singh was that Kulwant Kaur (deceased) had land in village Jagmal Wali, where she was married with Kaka Singh and Harnek Singh did not allow her to sell that land. This version is also not proved on the record. There is no evidence on the record to show the description of the land being owned by Kulwant Kaur (deceased) or her previous husband Kaka Singh in village Jagmal Wali.
It is no doubt true that Jagsir Singh (PW-4) was cross-examined on these lines, but the title deed or jamabandi of the land being owned by Kulwant Kaur (deceased) or her previous husband Kaka Singh, was neither brought on the record nor shown to Jagsir Singh (PW-4). In the absence of any documentary proof, it is arduous to hold that the deceased (Kulwant
CRA No. D-560-DB of 2008
- 13-
Kaur) had some saleable interest in some land at village Jagmal Wali and Harnek Singh brother of her previous husband Kaka Singh was obviating her from selling that land.
Even, the murder of the deceased in her own house by the appellant is not denied. Kulwant Kaur (deceased) died an unnatural death in her own house, where she was living with the appellant. It was for the appellant to explain the circumstances, whereunder, her wife turned into corpse. He has not been able to prove the intrusion of some other person in the house for commission of murder of his wife. He also did not inform the police about the commission of murder of his wife by someone else. So, from that angle also, it is the appellant who committed the murder of his wife Kulwant Kaur (deceased) with toka Ex.P1, that was recovered from him and later, that was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the latter, vide report Ex.PO opined that the same was stained with humand blood.
PW-4 Jagsir Singh-complainant is the most natural witness who alone was present in the house. He has no motive to testify falsely in this case. Whatever he saw, was narrated by him to the police. Even according to him, Kartar Singh came at the spot and the latter, did not lodge any complaint with the police that the appellant is not a killer of his wife. Even the appellant did not lodge any report against the local police for his false implication in this case.
PW-4 Jagsir Singh-complainant in candid words testified that the appellant committed the murder of his mother Kulwant Kaur (deceased) with toka Ex.P1 and caused injuries on her forehead, neck and face. These injuries were later found on the corpse of her mother, during autopsy, that was conducted by PW-1 Dr. Murar Singh. Three injuries, which were incised wound could be caused with toka Ex.P1, which is sharp edged weapon and injuries Nos. 3 and 4, which were lacerated wound
CRA No. D-560-DB of 2008
- 14-
were caused with the stick with which blade of toka Ex.P1 was affixed.
Pw-4 Jagsir Singh-complainant was subjected to searching cross-examination by the learned counsel for the appellant before the learned trial Court, but the long cross-examination failed to elicit anything worth the name which could possibly cause any dent in his testimony. Some minor contradictions or variations are likely to occur after a lapse of time in the testimony of truthful witnesses as human memory is fallible, that erodes with the passage of time. So, no motive can be ascribed to PW-4 (Jagsir Singh-complainant) to testify falsely in this case. His ocular testimony has been corroborated by the medical evidence of PW-1 (Dr. Murar Singh) that has been discussed supra.
Apart from that, there is no previous enimity between PW-4 (Jagsir Singh-complainant) and his step father (appellant) and, therefore, no motive can be ascribed to him to testify falsely in this case.
It is no doubt true that toka Ex.P1 was not shown to PW-1 (Dr. Murar Singh) during his cross-examination, but that cannot be a ground for repelling his testimony.
Photographs Ex.P4 to Ex.P8 were also taken that have been proved through the testimony of Begh Raj (PW-6) which, too, could not be shattered during cross-examination. As per photographs, the corpse was lying near the kitchen, that is in consonance with the statement of PW-4 (Jagsir Singh-complainant).
According to autopsy report Ex.PA, there was semi digested food that was found in the stomach of the deceased (Kulwant Kaur). Murder was committed at 8.30 AM and, therefore, it was contended that semi digested food could not be there in the stomach of the deceased (Kulwant Kaur).
The learned trial Court rightly observed that the deceased (Kulwant Kaur) belongs to labour class. They used to go for work at 6.00
CRA No. D-560-DB of 2008 - 15-
AM, as can be seen from the testimony of PW-4 (Jagsir Singhcomplainant) and return at 8.00/9.00 PM. It is, therefore, obvious that all the family members consumed food at 6.00 AM and existence of semi digested food in the stomach of the deceased (Kulwant Kaur) was, thus, possible.
There is no delay in lodging the FIR. Murder was committed at 8.00 AM and the endorsement was made on the statement Ex.PD of complainant at 10.45 AM by Harvinder Singh Virk Inspector (PW-7). There is, thus no inordinate delay in lodging the FIR.
There is, therefore, no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which ought to be and, are hereby, upheld and affirmed, as these do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
Resultantly, appeal fails and is, hereby, dismissed.
(S.P. BANGARH) (S.S. SARON) JUDGE JUDGE
12 March, 2013
sham
1. To be referred to the Reporters No/Yes 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No/Yes.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC and sentence should be allowed.
Whether the benefit of doubt should be afforded to the appellant despite conflicting versions of events.
Whether the version of the step-son witness regarding the incident should be fully relied upon.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
nullReferred
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Hamir Singh
State of Punjab
S.P. BANGARH
S.S. SARON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
