Title: Kishore & Ors. State of Punjab
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1465 OF 2011
Date of Judgment- February 7, 2024
CORAM: Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Facts of the case:
The case at hand involves the appellants, namely Kishore, Bala, and Banaras, along with two other accused, who faced trial for multiple offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Specifically, they were charged under Section 148 of the IPC for unlawful assembly, Section 460 read with Section 149 for house-breaking by night with common intention, and Section 302 read with Section 149 for murder with common intention. All five accused were convicted by the trial court.
Following their conviction, the accused chose to appeal their case before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. In the judgment delivered on 27th April 2010, the High Court acquitted two of the accused, Raka and Lakhan, but upheld the conviction of the present appellants, Kishore, Bala, and Banaras.
The prosecution’s case revolves around the events that transpired on the night of 3rd and 4th July 2003. According to the complainant, Khushbir Singh (PW-8), he was asleep in his parents’ bedroom along with them. His brother Satbir Singh and sister-in-law Narinder Kaur (PW-9) were in another room, while their daughters were in a separate room. PW-8 was awakened by the cries of his nieces and subsequently witnessed four to five individuals entering their house. These intruders assaulted PW-8, PW-9, and Satbir Singh, and proceeded to break open the locks of the almirah, stealing ornaments and cash. During this ordeal, Pratap Singh and Gurpal Kaur, PW-8’s parents, were also assaulted and sustained fatal injuries, leading to their demise in the hospital.
Now, the appellants are challenging their convictions before the Supreme Court.
Laws Involved:
Section 148, 149, 460 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Issue raised by the court:
Whether or not the accused can be convicted under Section 148 of the IPC?
Courts Judgment and Analysis:
The court meticulously analyzed the submissions made by both the appellants and the respondent-state in Criminal Appeal no. 1465 of 2011. The appellants’ counsel raised several key points regarding the reliability of the prosecution’s evidence. First, they highlighted the absence of a test identification parade, arguing that the eyewitnesses’ identification of the accused in court, one year after the incident, lacked credibility. Additionally, the failure to examine crucial witnesses, such as Lovepreet Kaur, Amritpal Kaur, and Satbir Singh, cast doubt on the prosecution’s case. The counsel contended that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, PW-8 and PW-9, were unreliable and should not be believed.
In response, the counsel for the respondent-state argued that the eyewitnesses had sufficient opportunity to observe the accused during the incident, thereby negating the necessity for a test identification parade. Citing precedent, they asserted that the eyewitness testimonies were reliable and sufficient for conviction.
The court proceeded to examine the legal aspects of the case, particularly the applicability of relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It noted that for a conviction under Section 148 of the IPC (rioting armed with a deadly weapon), there must be an unlawful assembly comprising five or more persons, which was not established in this case. Similarly, the court found that the conviction under Sections 460 and 302 with the aid of Section 149 could not be upheld due to the absence of an unlawful assembly.
Regarding the necessity of a test identification parade, the court acknowledged that while not mandatory, its absence could impact the reliability of eyewitness identification. However, it emphasized that if eyewitness testimony was consistent and credible, a conviction could still be based on such testimony.
The court then meticulously analyzed the testimonies of witnesses, scrutinizing their accounts of the incident and their identification of the accused. It found their testimonies to be vague and lacking crucial details, such as specific acts of assault by the accused. Moreover, the failure to examine key witnesses and inconsistencies in the evidence further undermined the prosecution’s case.
In light of these findings, the court concluded that the convictions could not be sustained. It noted doubts regarding the identification of recovered ornaments and the absence of specific roles attributed to the accused in the commission of the offenses. Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgments and acquitting the appellants of all charges. Consequently, the appellants’ bail bonds were canceled, bringing the legal proceedings to a close.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aditi
Click here to view the judgment
