DATAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Datar Singh, appellant, was convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge of Patiala for murdering his father Thakar Singh at about 9.30 p.m. on 22-2-1970 at Naru House in Patiala, and sentenced to death. The Punjab High Court had accepted the death reference and dismissed his appeal. He was also convicted in a connected trial, for an alleged illegal possession of a gun, and his convictions and sentences of two years' rigorous imprisonment and three years' rigorous imprisonment under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act were upheld by the High Court. The appellant's applications under Article 134 (1)(c) under the Constitution having been rejected by the High Court, he came to this Court and was granted special leave to appeal in both the connected cases which are now before us.

(2.) It is not the practice of this Court in appeal by special leave to disturb concurrent findings of fact unless the case discloses some exceptional features indicating that a serious miscarriage of justice has taken place. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that such a miscarriage of justice has resulted in this case because Courts ignored certain basis defects in the prosecution version and misread evidence. Several questions of law were also sought to be raised before us. These are:

(3.) It is often difficult for Courts of law to arrive at the real truth in criminal cases. The judicial process can only operate on the firm foundations of actual and credible evidence on record. Mere suspicion or suspicious circumstances cannot relieve the prosecution of its primary duty of proving its case against an accused person beyond reasonable doubt. Courts of justice cannot be swayed by sentiment or prejudice against a person accused of the very reprehensible crime of patricide. They cannot even act on some conviction that an accused person has committed a crime unless his offence is proved by satisfactory evidence of it on record. If the pieces of evidence on which the prosecution chooses to rest its case are so brittle that they crumble when subjected to close and critical examination so that the whole superstructure built on such insecure foundations collapses, proof of some incriminating circumstances, which might have given support to merely defective evidence cannot avert a failure of the prosecution case.