(Ranjan Gogoi, C.J. and Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, JJ.)
Hardip Singh and Another ________________________ Appellant(s);
v.
State of Punjab ___________________________________ Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1340/2010, decided on November 20, 2018
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The accused appellants who have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and have been sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for life are in appeal before us.
2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. We have also considered the materials on record.
3. The conviction of the accused appellants appears to have been based on the sole testimony of Sukhwant Kaur (P.W.1) who is the wife of the deceased and was examined as an eye-witness by the prosecution. We have perused the evidence of P.W.1 including the statements made in her cross-examination.
4. P.W.1 in her cross-examination has categorically admitted that she did not know the accused persons from before neither did she know the particulars of the residential houses and their names and the names of their fathers. P.W.1 also admitted in her cross-examination that she was not aware of the names of the family members of the accused persons.
5. No Test Identification Parade (T.I.P.) was held. The identification was made in Court after a period of one and half years of the incident. According to P.W.1, she could recollect the names of the accused persons from people who were present on the spot. No such person/persons present at the spot was/were examined by the prosecution.
6. In the totality of the facts set out above, we have serious doubt as to whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving that it is the accused and none else who had committed the crime. The infirmity in the prosecution case with regard to the identity of the accused is sufficient to enable the court to hold that the benefit of the doubt that the Court entertains should go in favour of the accused persons. We, therefore, set aside the conviction of the accused appellants and the sentence imposed and direct for their release from prison forthwith.
7. The order of the learned trial Court as affirmed by the High court is consequently set aside and the appeal is allowed in the above terms.
Criminal Appeal No(S). 1340/2010
Hardip Singh and Another __________________________ Appellant(s)
v.
State of Punjab ____________________________________ Respondent
Date: 20-11-2018 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
(Before Ranjan Gogoi, C.J. and Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, JJ.)
For Appellant(s) Dr. V. P. Appan, AOR [SCLSC]
For Respondent(s) Mr. Shivek Trehan, Adv.
For Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
8. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
———
