JOGINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT No.1, Joginder Singh is the father of Appellant No.2, Jit Singh and Appellant No.3, Mela Singh. These appellants alongwith five others were tried for offences punishable under sections 148 and 302/149 I.P.C The trial Court convicted six of them under sections 302/149 I.P.C and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. They were also convicted under section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo six months' R.I. The rest two persons were acquitted by the trial Court. The six convicted accused preferred an appeal to the High Court. The High Court acquitted three of them and confirmed the convictions and sentenced passed against the present appellants. Hence the present appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution case is as follows:

(3.) THE prosecution case rested on the evidence of P.W.3, the father of the deceased and P.W.4 who claimed to be an eye -witness. Tire trial Court convicted six of the accused persons, as already stated. The trial Court considered their evidence and observed that the possibility of false implication of three of the convicted accused cannot be ruled out. Having stated so, the High Court acquitted three of the accused. At more than one place, the High Court pointed out that the false implication of the acquitted accused cannot be ruled out. Without further discussion, the High Court convicted the three appellants solely on the ground that they had motive to attack. It may be mentioned that the evidence of P. Ws.3 and 4 is to the effect that quite a few of the acquitted accused inflicted injuries with sharp -edged weapons. But their evidence is rejected in respect of other five accused solely on the ground that they could have been falsely implicated. In our view, the same reasoning applies to the case of the present appellants also. If that be the position, the appellants cannot be treated' as a different category merely on the ground that they had motive and on that basis they could not have been convicted when the evidence of the eye -witnesses was found to be highly unsatisfactory. The High Court has committed an error in convicting the present appellants having rejected the evidence of the eye -witnesses in respect of the other accused.