The State Of Punjab vs Paramjit Singh Alias Pamma

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1306 OF 2014

STATE OF PUNJAB ... APPELLANT(S)

VS.

PARAMJIT SINGH ... RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay S.Oka, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties.

2. This appeal against the acquittal takes exception

to the judgment dated 3rd April, 2013 of the High Court

of Punjab and Harayna by which the High Court by setting

aside the order of conviction of the respondent,

proceeded to acquit the respondent. The conviction of

the respondent was for the offence punishable under Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Date: 2023.08.09 13:56:59 IST Reason:

1

3. The incident happened late in the night on 22nd

December, 1998. The prosecution has relied upon the

testimony of PW-7 Balwinder Singh who claims to be an eye

witness and whose statement was recorded in the afternoon

of 23rd December, 1998. Another piece of evidence which

is relied upon by the prosecution is alleged extra

judicial confession made by the respondent-accused before

PW-8 Sikandar Singh. The High Court after examination of

evidence of both the witnesses has disbelieved their

version by recording detailed reasons.

4. As we are called upon to decide whether the view

taken by the High Court is a possible view based on

evidence, we have perused the evidence of both the

prosecution witnesses and in addition, testimonies of PW-

9 and PW-12 who are the Investigating Officers.

5. After having perused the evidence of PW-7, we find

that the reasons recorded by the High Court for

discarding his testimony are cogent reasons. It has come

in the evidence of PW-7 that after the incident, the

witness did not complain to the police. Moreover, he knew

a close relative of the deceased Surjan Singh who was

available on phone. However, PW-7 did not inform him. In

the cross-examination, he admitted that after seeing the

2 offence being committed, he went back home to Bhatinda

via Jaitu bypass. He stated that he reached Jaitu bypass

around 10.30 p.m. and though there is a Police Station at

Jaitu, he did not inform the police. Thereafter, he

travelled for 2 to 3 hours and reached Bhatinda. He kept

quiet thereafter. He claims that he received a call from

Surjan Singh around 8.00-9.00 a.m. on 23rd December, 1998

informing him about the death of the deceased. It is

only thereafter, the witness proceeded towards the place

of incident. But he did not go the Police Station.

According to the version of PW-7, there was another eye

witness Surjit Singh who has not been examined by the

prosecution. The finding recorded by the High Court

regarding unnatural conduct of PW-7 Balwinder Singh is

certainly a possible finding which could have been

recorded on the appreciation of the evidence of PW-7.

6. There is one more aspect of the matter. Though the

prosecution case is that the statement of PW-7 was

recorded on 23rd December, 1998 when he reached the spot

around 12 noon in the afternoon, PW-9 ASI Baldev Singh

who was at the site has not stated that he recorded the

statement of PW-7. Moreover, the respondent was not

immediately arrested.

3

7. The claim of the prosecution is that on 6th

January, 1989 (more than 14 days from the date of

incident), the respondent-accused went to PW-8 Sikandar

Singh who was ex-sarpanch of the village. PW-8 Sikandar

Singh has not stated that he had previous acquaintance

with the respondent. Even otherwise, there is no

evidence adduced by the prosecution to show that the

respondent-accused closely knew PW-8 so that he could

have reposed implicit faith in him and confessed about

the alleged incident. In fact, the prosecution story of

the respondent-accused confessing after so many days to a

stranger is very doubtful and does not inspire

confidence. Going by the normal human conduct, the

accused would confess only to a person in whom he can

repose faith. Normally, he would not confess to a

stranger that too after a gap of 13 to 14 days from the

incident. That is how the High Court has disbelieved the

version of PW-8.

8. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the

findings recorded by the High Court are possible findings

which could have been recorded on the basis of the

4 evidence on record. Hence no case for interference is

made out. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

..........................J. (ABHAY S.OKA)

..........................J. (SANJAY KAROL)

NEW DELHI;

August 02, 2023.

5