Seth Pal Vs. State of H.P.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 961/1999
Petitioner: Seth Pal
Respondent: State of H.P.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 961/1999
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & R.P. SETHI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 21, 2001
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 302 with Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 3 – Murder – Broth-er accused of murdering brother – Only two circumstances estab-lished – PW saw both of them with brother-in-law on evening before dead body found – Accused thereafter not seen in locality – Evidence of I.O. that he was interned in jail in some other case. Held that first circumstance could not be said to be in-criminating. Hence acquitted. (Paras 4 to 6)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. In this case the brother of the appellant was murdered during sometime either in the night of 8.8.1996 or during the day there-after. The appellant’s version was that the murder was committed by appellant Satpal (brother of the deceased) in conjunction with one Gulab Singh who is said to be the brother-in-law of the appellant. As Gulab Singh remained absconding ever since the death of the deceased the case proceeded against the appellant alone. The session court convicted him under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. A Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.
2. The name of the deceased was Balish alias Bali. From the post mortem report issued by PW-12 doctor it can be seen that his death was on account of head injury sustained by him. The dead body of Balish was seen for the first time by PW-4, Bahadur Singh at 5.00 p.m. on 9.8.1996 near the Jakhana-Mashu Road.
3. The case against this appellant was sought to be established with the help of circumstantial evidence. The circumstances established by prosecution are the following :
1) PW1 saw the deceased and his brother Satpal in the company of Gulab Singh at a tea stall when the time was around 8.30 p.m. on 8.8.1996;
2) After the dead body was recovered appellant was not seen in the locality.
4. We are told there is not a third circumstance against the appellant. Even regarding the second circumstance there can be no possibility of characterising the same as amounting to abscond-ing. This is because the Investigating Officer said that the appellant was found interned in a jail in connection with some other case. From when on he was in jail is not spoken to by anyone. Even if he was absconding, it was to be shown that such absconding was not in connection with the case for which he was arrested and interned in the jail.
5. The first circumstance is not an incriminating circumstance at all, for brothers would go together and would dine together which is a common feature.
6. We are surprised to notice that on the said circumstances the criminal court found this appellant guilty of murder of his brother and convicted him and that a Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. Without losing time, we set aside the conviction and sentence and acquit him. We order the appellant to be released from jail forthwith unless he is required in any other case.
7. This appeal is allowed accordingly.
1. In this case the brother of the appellant was murdered during sometime either in the night of 8.8.1996 or during the day there-after. The appellant’s version was that the murder was committed by appellant Satpal (brother of the deceased) in conjunction with one Gulab Singh who is said to be the brother-in-law of the appellant. As Gulab Singh remained absconding ever since the death of the deceased the case proceeded against the appellant alone. The session court convicted him under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. A Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.
2. The name of the deceased was Balish alias Bali. From the post mortem report issued by PW-12 doctor it can be seen that his death was on account of head injury sustained by him. The dead body of Balish was seen for the first time by PW-4, Bahadur Singh at 5.00 p.m. on 9.8.1996 near the Jakhana-Mashu Road.
3. The case against this appellant was sought to be established with the help of circumstantial evidence. The circumstances established by prosecution are the following :
1) PW1 saw the deceased and his brother Satpal in the company of Gulab Singh at a tea stall when the time was around 8.30 p.m. on 8.8.1996;
2) After the dead body was recovered appellant was not seen in the locality.
4. We are told there is not a third circumstance against the appellant. Even regarding the second circumstance there can be no possibility of characterising the same as amounting to abscond-ing. This is because the Investigating Officer said that the appellant was found interned in a jail in connection with some other case. From when on he was in jail is not spoken to by anyone. Even if he was absconding, it was to be shown that such absconding was not in connection with the case for which he was arrested and interned in the jail.
5. The first circumstance is not an incriminating circumstance at all, for brothers would go together and would dine together which is a common feature.
6. We are surprised to notice that on the said circumstances the criminal court found this appellant guilty of murder of his brother and convicted him and that a Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. Without losing time, we set aside the conviction and sentence and acquit him. We order the appellant to be released from jail forthwith unless he is required in any other case.
7. This appeal is allowed accordingly.
