Delhi HC: Meta Directed to Remove Obscene Photos of Minor Girl  ||  Cal. HC: To Convict Person u/s 304B of IPC, Conclusive Proof of Cruelty before Death Required  ||  Kerala HC: Can Admit Unregistered Sale Agreements as Evidence in Specific Performance Suits  ||  Cal. HC: Can’t Allow Rectification in DOB of Employee When Age Determined through Statutory Purpose  ||  Cal. HC: Can’t Generally Use Public Exchequer Funds with Official Liquidator for Welfare of Employee  ||  Delhi HC: Can’t Reject Plaint Due to Arbitration Clause Unless Application u/s 8 is Filed  ||  Telangana HC Strikes Down State Government’s Decision to Allot Land to Arbitration Centre  ||  Karnataka HC: Salvation of the Country Lies in Identifying Human Beings as a Human Being  ||  SC Allows Stone Crusher Operation Issue to be Raised in Kerala High Court  ||  SC Set to Hear Plea Challenging Policy of Uniform Pricing for Consular Passport and Visa Services    

Harpal Singh vs. State of Punjab - (Supreme Court) (05 Jul 2022)

Minor inconsistencies in the statement of witnesses are not of any consequence in case of concurrent findings recorded by Courts below

MANU/SC/0817/2022

Criminal

The instant appeal is preferred by the accused against final judgment passed by High Court whereby the Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere with the judgment of the Sessions Court by which the Appellant was convicted for the charge under Section 302/120¬B of Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’) and directed to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.1000¬, in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant was also convicted under Section 342/120¬B of IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months with an order to run both the sentences concurrently.

On perusal of the record, it is seen that ample evidence to have conspiracy between all five accused have been duly proved. The involvement of the appellant is fully established by the testimony of PW¬4 Vinod Singh Chauhan, who was an employee on the shop ‘Sunder Shoes House’. By the evidence of this witness, nexus between Appellant and co¬-accused persons is fully established. Thus, the defence of the Appellant was not found plausible. Simultaneously no plausible defence to disprove other looted articles have been brought on record.

Present Court have perused the testimony of other witnesses that includes PW¬1 Leela Wati, PW¬4 Vinod Singh Chauhan, PW¬12 Vinod Kumar Gambhir and PW¬14 Davinder Kumar on the basis of the same the involvement of the Appellant alongwith other co¬ accused has been fully proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial Court and the High Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and proved the charges while convicting the appellant. The minor inconsistencies in the statement of witnesses are not of any consequence looking to the finding concurrently recorded by two courts. Thus, the findings of fact recorded against the appellant and the other co-¬accused, who have not come forward to file the appeal before the Court, are neither perverse nor illegal so as to warrant interference by this Court. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : CONVICTION   EVIDENCE   CREDIBILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved