ZILE SINGH Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Sessions Judge had convicted the appellant under section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to death and accordingly made a reference to the Delhi High court for confirmation of his death. The appellant filed an appeal before the High court against his conviction. The High court rejected the reference but reduced the sentence to life imprisonment under S. 302 and dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal by special leave.

(2.) A detailed narration of the prosecution is to be found in the judgment of the High court and that of the Sessions Judge and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same. This appears to be a case of patricide in which the appellant is said to have murdered his father on the suspicion that his father had an illicit intimacy with his wife during his absence from Delhi. The occurrence took place in the morning of 28/09/1971 when the appellant entered the house of the deceased and gave an axe blow on his neck cutting the same. The first information report was lodged by Raj pal Public Witness 28 at about 4.45 a. m. i. e. within two hours of the occurrence as the Police Station Najafgarh was at a distance of six miles from the place of occurrence. The central evidence against the appellant consists of the testimony of Public Witness 20-Gharan Singh and more particularly his evidence before the committing magistrate which has been marked as Ex. P 20-A, corroborated by the evidence of Public Witness 22-Prithi Singh and further corroborated by the recovery of blood-stained clothes from the accused when he was arrested by the police on 28/09/1971 at 2.30 p. m. The Serologist's report shows that the blood-stains on the clothes of the accused were of the same group as that of the deceased. This is a very important circumstance to corroborate the prosecution case against the appellant. The High court and the Sessions Tudge have fully considered the evidence of these witnesses and the evidence furnished by the recovery of the blood-stainedclothes and have held that the prosecution case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

(3.) Mr. Warshney appearing for the appellant has submitted that no reliance should have been placed on the evidence of the Public Witness 20-Charan singh because he had resiled from the statement made before the committing court when he deposed before the Sessions court. It is true that this witness tried to give a go by to his previous statement in the committing court but at the same time he admitted most of the statements made by him before the committing court to be correct. The witness has not alleged that his statement before the committing court was given under pressure of the police. Normally, a witness who- makes two inconsistent statements is not reliable but where the court is satisfied that the earlier statement was true that would not debar the court from acting on such evidence. Moreover both the courts had been impressed by the evidence of Public Witness 20 before the committing court and have held that the said statement was true. In the case of State of U. P. v. Boota Singh, this court while dealing with credibility of such witnesses observed as follows :