The Supreme Court of India has dismissed an appeal in a 1998 murder case, upholding the life imprisonment sentence of the appellant, Rajan. The Court held that a delay of two years and five months by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in uploading its reasoned judgment, while a matter of “grave concern,” does not by itself warrant setting aside the conviction when the ocular evidence is credible. The bench also affirmed that the non-recovery of the murder weapon is not fatal to the prosecution’s case when it is supported by trustworthy eyewitness testimony.
Case Background
The case originates from a First Information Report (FIR) registered at the City Sirsa Police Station on July 22, 1998, for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and relevant sections of the Arms Act. The FIR was lodged by Balbir Singh, an injured eyewitness.
According to the FIR, on the day of the incident, Balbir Singh, along with his cousins Bishan Singh and Shiv Dutt Singh, and another individual Raj Kumar, were proceeding towards the canteen of National College, Sirsa. At approximately 2:05 P.M., they were confronted by four individuals: Naresh Godara, armed with a 12-bore gun; Vikas Kukna, also armed with a 12-bore gun; Rajan (the appellant), armed with a pistol; and Rajdeep Singh, armed with a sword.
The FIR states that Naresh Godara exhorted his companions to “teach him a lesson for inflicting injuries to his brother Hanuman and for opposing them in the college elections.” Following this, the appellant Rajan allegedly “fired a shot from his pistol at Shiv Dutt Singh but Shiv Dutt Singh escaped unhurt.” Immediately after, Naresh Kumar and Vikas fired one shot each from their guns, which hit Shiv Dutt Singh in the chest and abdomen. Shiv Dutt Singh fell to the ground and later succumbed to his injuries at Civil Hospital, Sirsa.
Following an investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, and the appellant, along with five other individuals, was put to trial. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, convicted Rajan and co-accused Vikas for murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Three other co-accused were acquitted.
The appellant challenged his conviction before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which dismissed his appeal via an order pronounced on February 18, 2016.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant’s counsel, Ms. Tarannum Cheema, raised two primary arguments:
- Delay in Judgment: It was argued that while the operative part of the High Court’s judgment was pronounced on February 18, 2016, the reasoned judgment was uploaded only after a delay of two years and five months. This, the counsel contended, caused grave prejudice to the appellant.
- Non-Recovery of Weapon: The counsel submitted that the prosecution’s failure to discover or recover the pistol allegedly used by the appellant cast doubt on his presence at the scene of the crime.
Opposing the appeal, Mr. Deepak Thukral, counsel for the State of Haryana, argued that the ocular versions of the two eyewitnesses, Balbir Singh (PW 8) and Bishan Singh (PW 10), were trustworthy and had been correctly appreciated by both the Trial Court and the High Court. He submitted that the delay in uploading the judgment would not render it erroneous in law.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta, conducted a thorough analysis of the evidence and arguments.
On Eyewitness Testimony: The Court found “no good reason” to disbelieve the testimony of the two eyewitnesses. It noted, “The Trial Court and the High Court have well appreciated the oral version of the two eyewitnesses in its true perspective and correctly.” The judgment elaborated on the judicially evolved principles for the appreciation of ocular evidence, stating that the court’s approach must be to determine if the “evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth.”
On Non-Recovery of Weapon: The Court held that the failure to recover the firearm would not render the ocular evidence doubtful. It observed, “Just because the firearm alleged to have been used and fired by the appellant-herein was not recovered or discovered under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act at any point of time during the course of the investigation would not render the ocular version of the two eyewitnesses doubtful.” The Court relied on its previous decisions in State of Rajasthan v. Arjun Singh and Others and Krishna Mochi and Others v. State of Bihar to hold that non-recovery of incriminating material does not detract from the prosecution’s case when it is supported by “clinching and direct evidence.”
On Motive: The Court also dismissed the appellant’s argument regarding the lack of motive, stating, “…once the case of the prosecution is based on direct evidence, motive pales into insignificance.”
On Delay in High Court Judgment: The Court took serious note of the delay in the judgment’s delivery. It stated, “The delay at the instance of the High Court in uploading the Judgment after a period of about 2 years 5 months is a matter of grave concern. We should not overlook this fact. We have taken serious cognizance of this delay…”
However, the Court concluded that the delay itself was not a sufficient ground to overturn the conviction. It reasoned, “It would be too much for this Court to say that the delay by itself is sufficient to set aside the impugged judgment. It would all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.” After re-examining the evidence, the Court found that “…despite there being a delay of 2 years 5 months in uploading the Judgment, the oral testimony of the two eyewitnesses inspires confidence…”
The bench deprecated the practice of pronouncing operative orders without reasoned judgments, citing a long line of cases, including Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, and reiterated the guidelines for timely pronouncement of judgments by High Courts. The Court directed its Registry to forward a copy of the judgment to all High Courts.
Finding no merit in the appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed it and affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court.
