Supreme Court of India
PREM SINGHversusSTATE (N.C.T) DELHI
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 598
- Decided
- 24 April 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
A conviction under Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained solely on the basis of weapon ownership and ballistic evidence when the accused is not positively identified as the shooter.
Summary
The appellant Prem Singh was charged with shooting Preetam Pyare and his son, leading to the latter's death, under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The trial court convicted him, and the Delhi High Court affirmed the conviction on the basis that the pistol recovered from the appellant matched the bullet recovered from the victims through ballistic analysis. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the injured witnesses did not identify the appellant as the shooter and that mere ownership of the weapon, even with scientific matching, is insufficient to establish guilt under Section 307 IPC. Moreover, the appellant was not examined under Section 313 CrPC regarding his alleged role. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.
Issues considered
- Whether ownership of a weapon and ballistic matching can alone establish guilt under Section 307 IPC without positive identification of the assailant.
- Whether the failure to examine the accused under Section 313 CrPC renders the conviction unsustainable.
- Whether Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 is applicable in the present circumstances.
Legislation cited
Subjects
IPC 307attempt to murderballistic evidenceweapon ownershipidentification of assailantSection 313 CrPCArms Act 27acquittal
Judgment
[2009) 6 S.C.R. 960
~~
A PREM SINGH
v.
STATE (N.C.T) DELHI
(Criminal Appeal No. 589 of 2002)
APRIL 24, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, V.S. SIRPURKAR AND ASOK
KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] ...
Penal Code, 1860: s.307 - Conviqtion under- Affirmed
c by High Court on ground that scientific evidence connected
the weapon of appellant with the crime - Held: The injured
did not identify the appellant to be the assailant - Merely
because he was·owner of the weapon would not be ground to
convict him under s.307 - Further no question was put to the
~-
D appellant in his examination under s.313 Cr.P.C regarding
his purported role - Conviction set aside - Arms Act,' 1950 -
s.27.
Prosecution case was that the appellant fired a shot
at deceased which resulted in his death. Another fire was
E shot at son
of deceased. Trial court convicted appellant
under section 307 IPC and section 27 of Arms Act, 1959.
High Court affirmed the conviction holding that since
pistol was recovered from the appellant and since the
scientific evidence connected his weapon with the crime,
F his conviction was in order. Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The injured did not identify the appellant to
G
be the person who had fired the shot. Merely because y•
the appellant was the owner of the weapon cannot be a
ground to convict him in terms of Section 307 IPC.
Further, no question was put to the appellant in his
examination under section 313 Cr.PC regarding his
H 960
PREM SINGH v. STATE (N.C.T) DELHI 961.
;:--
purported role. The judgment of the High Court is clearly A
... unsustainable and is set aside. The appellant is acquitted
of the charges. [Para 6] [963-E-G]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 589 of 2002. B
From the Judgment & Order dated 13.12.2001 of the High
'-, Court. of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 233 of
. 1997.
Harinder Mohan Singh, Jasneet Kaur, Kaushal Yadav, c
Manav Bajaj, Praveen Kumar Singh and Durgesh Yadav for the
Appellant.
SWA Qadri, Varuna Bhandari, Anil Katiyar, Vanita and
D.S. Mahra for the Respondent.
·-~ D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is
to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi
High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 1997 which E
dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant. The
appellant, who had faced trial for alleged commission of
offences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal
+
Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Section 27 of the Arms Act,
1959 ( in short the 'Arms Act').
F
2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant
guilty and convicted him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default
stipulation. Similarly for the offence punishable under Section
- --+• 27 of the Arms Act, custodial sentence of three years and a
fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation was filed.
3. Background facts in a nutshell .are as follows:
G
Preetam Pyare had agreed to purchase a plot from Prem
H
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
A Singh and Sunder Lal and had paid Rs.2000/- as earnest
.,,
money to them. They, after accepting this earnest money, did
not sell the plot to Preetam Pyare and had sold it to someone ·--
else and when Preetam Pyare demanded back his earnest
monev, they refused to return it. On 25.12.1992 at about 10.30
B p.m. Prem Singh, Sunder Lal and Kakoo, came to the house
of Preetam Pyare and took him away saying that they will return
his earnest money. Preetam Pyare and his two sons Bhusan ,~
Lal and Kamal Kishore came along with them for having talks
on the return of money and they reached in front of H.No.407-
c D, while talking. The wife of Preetam Pyare, Smt. Shanti Devi
also followed them and while they were talking, the talks
became uncordial and abuses were hurled. Sunder Lal and
Kakoo were having lath is in their hands and Sunder. Lal •
exhorted them to beat them. On this Prem Singh took out a
revolver and shot him in his chest. He also shot at Bhushan Lal
D ~-
S/o Preetam Pyare, in his chest saying that, this is the way to
return the money. Kakoo and Sunder Lal had beaten Kamal
Kishore, the younger son of Preetam Pyare as a result of which
he received injuries on his head. When Smt. Shanti Devi
complainant, W/o Sh. Preetam Pyare raised an alarm, the
E accused persons ran away from the spot. The Mohalla people
took the injured to the hospital. She then lodged a complaint
with the police on the basis of which, rukka was sent and on
the basis of which case under Section 307/34 IPC r/w of Arms t-
Act 1959 was registered against the accused persons. The
F MLC for the injured was obtained and the accused persons
were arrested. The revolver and the recovered bullet was
seized and was sent for analysis to the CFSL and after
completion of the formalities, the challan was filed in the court.
.
G As accused abjured guilt, trial was held, accused was
convicted and sentence was imposed.
Questioning correctness of the conviction and sentence as
imposed the appellant filed an appeal. The primary stand of the
"t"
-
appellant was that there was no evidence worth a name and
H
PREM SINGH v. STATE (N.C.T) DELHI 963
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
even the so called injured witnesses refused to identify the A
assailant. The only evidence against the appellant was the
alleged recovery of the pistol which was tested by the CFSL. It
was found by CFSL that the bullet recovered from the body of
the injured matched those test fired through the same pistol.
The caliber also was the same. The High Court held that since 8
pistol has been recovered from the appellant, he can be
convicted under Section 307 IPC. The High Court found that
the appellant who was a non-political leader belonging to a
National Political Party was a man of great means and he
appeared to have terrorized witnesses. The High Court held but c
he could not tamper with scientific evidence. The scientific
evidence connects his weapon with the crime. That being so
the High Court held that the-conviction was in order.
4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the conclusions of the High Court had clearly D
unsustainable. Merely because the appellant was the owner of
the weapon that did not bring out a case under Section 307
IPC so far as he is concerned, and in any event Section 27 has
oo application.
E
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other
hand supported the judgment.
-l 6. We find that this is a case where even the injured did
not identify the appellant to be the person who had fired the F
short. Merely because he is the owner of the weapon that
cannot be a ground to convict him in terms of Section 307 IPC.
Further, no question was put to the appellant in his examination
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(in short the 'Code') regarding his purported role. The judgment
4- of the High Court is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. The G
appellant is acquitted of the charges. The bail bonds executed
to give effect to the order of bail passed by this Court on
15.2.2002 shall stand discharged. The appeal is allowed.
- D.G. Appeal allowed. H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "IPC 307"Sign in to search