M A I N   N E W S

SC castigates High Court
Restores trial court verdict
S.S. Negi
Our Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, September 27
The Supreme Court has castigated the Punjab and Haryana High Court for acquitting two murder accused from Punjab given life sentence by the trial judge for brutally killing a man in broad daylight 11 years ago, saying they were let off on a “hypothetical” conclusion based on surmises and conjecture.

The high court came to the conclusion on “surmises and conjectures” that the FIR in the case was lodged after deliberation and it had reached a “hypothetical conclusion” as to why a person would commit the murder in the broad daylight, a Bench comprising Mr Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Mr Justice Arijit Pasayat said setting aside the acquittal.

“If the crime is to be punished in a glosseme way, niceties must yield to a realistic appraisal. Law will fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice,” it said.

The Sessions Court at Bathinda had sentenced Phola Singh and Balkar Singh to life in September 1994 for the murder of Mandip Singh on June 11, 1991, around 5:30 am while he was sleeping at his tubewell at his village under the Dialpura police station.

Two other accused were given the benefit of doubt by the trial judge.

“The high court has failed to comprehend evidence in its full conspectus and has whittled down the same by specious reasoning. Vague hunches cannot take place of judicial evaluation,” the apex court ruled and directed the authorities to take the two accused, who are on bail, into custody and send them to jail to serve the remaining term.

Severely criticising the high court for not even giving a “plausible” reason why the evidence in the case was not acceptable, the apex court said “the vulnerability of the high court’s judgement is amplified by the fact that it has put a great emphasis on the acquittal of the other two co-accused ignoring the eyewitnesses’ account.”

Appreciating the Sessions Judge for scrutinising the evidence “carefully”, the court said “the eyewitnesses had described the incident with graphic detail and except minor discrepancies which do not in any way corrode the prosecution version. Their testimony had remained unshaken in spite of incisive cross-examination.”

“The high court had raised a question of conjecture as to why somebody would choose a daybreak to commit a murder. Since the question is hypothetical, the answer to it would also be hypothetical.

What is in the mind of a person and the reason for doing a thing is an aspect within the special knowledge of the accused and the prosecution is not supposed to meet every hypothesis,” the apex court said.

“The inevitable conclusion is that the high court’s judgement is indefensible and deserves to be set aside and the trial court judgement is restored,” it ruled.