Vijay Kumar vs State Of Punjab
- AIRAIR 1999 SC 841
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where evidence of eyewitnesses who were present at the scene and sustained injuries in the incident is found reliable by both the trial court and High Court upon appreciation of the record, and both courts have consistently found that the appellant opened the attack and fired the shot causing injury, the Supreme Court will not re-appreciate the evidence or disturb the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below unless there is reason to do so.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
The appellant was tried with 7 other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, erozepur, in Sessions Case No. 7/86.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined P.W. 4 Shugan Lal and P.W. 5 Raja Ram. Both these witnesses had received injuries during the incident. Relying upon their evidence the trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 452 and 307 IPC. The evidence of these two witnesses was found to be not free from the doubt as regards involvement of the other accused and therefore they were acquitted.
Aggrieved by his conviction the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The High Court on reappreciation of the evidence agreed with the finding that the occurrence took place in the house of Shugan Lal and that presence of both the eye witnesses could not be disputed in the house when the incident had taken place. It held that their evidence was quite reliable as regards the part played by the appellant and the trial court was right in accepting the same. It, therefore, upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 307 & 452 IPC. The appellant has, therefore, filed this appeal in this Court after obtaining special leave.
After going through the judgments of both the courts below, we find that the evidence of both the witnesses have been correctly appreciated and it has been rightly held that the appellant had opened the attack and fired a shot which had hit Raja Ram and caused injuries to him. We see no reason to differ from the findings recorded by the High Court and therefore, this appeal is dismissed. The appellant was released on bail during the pendency of this appeal. He is directed to surrender immediately to carve out the remaining sentence.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free