Facts Of The Case:

• A civil litigation was going on between Walaiti Ram and Narinder Singh over a plot of land. Walaiti Ram had obtained possession of the land before the incident in question.
• On November 28, 1996, at around 10 A.M., Walaiti Ram, along with his brother Kharaiti Ram, Kharaiti Lal (P.W.4), and Ajit Singh (P.W.5), was filing the foundation of the land. Five accused persons, including the appellant, arrived armed with deadly weapons.
• Narinder Singh, one of the accused (later acquitted), threatened to teach a lesson for filing the foundation. The appellant then fired shots, which hit Kharaiti Ram and Gurmit Singh. Kharaiti Ram was later taken to the Civil Hospital but succumbed to his injuries.
• The prosecution relied on the testimonies of Gurmit Singh, Kharaiti Lal, and Ajit Singh. Gurmit Singh, however, turned hostile. Kharaiti Lal and Ajit Singh supported the prosecution but made contradictory statements regarding the weapon used by the appellant.
• In their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., both Kharaiti Lal and Ajit Singh initially stated that the appellant was armed with a stick (dang) and not a pistol, and that it was another accused (Raghbir Singh, since acquitted) who fired the shots.

Case Details: Case: Harkirat Singh v/s State Of Punjab
Court: The Supreme Court Of India
Bench: J. M.K. Mukherjee, J. S. Saghir Ahmad
Bench: J. M.K. Mukherjee
Decided On: 24 July,1997
Appellant: Harkirat Singh
Respondent: State Of Punjab
Citation: Air 1997 Sc 323, (1997) 11 Scc 215

Issue Of The Case:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) is sustainable, especially in light of the acquittal of the other four accused who were tried for the same offences, and considering that the appellant's appeal before the High Court was dismissed.

Law:

• Indian Penal Code - Section 148, 449/149, 302/149 and 307/149
• Criminal Procedural Code - Section 161 and 162

Analysis
The civil litigation between Walaiti Ram and Narinder Singh was a long-standing dispute over ownership of a plot of land in Bholath. The dispute had been adjudicated by the Civil Court, and Walaiti Ram had obtained possession of the land as per the court's judgment.

On November 28, 1996, while Walaiti Ram and others were working on the land, the appellant and four other accused arrived at the site armed with deadly weapons. Narinder Singh, one of the accused (later acquitted), threatened retribution for the work being done on the land.

Following this, the appellant fired shots, resulting in the death of Kharaiti Ram, Walaiti Ram's brother, and injuries to Gurmit Singh.

The prosecution relied primarily on the testimonies of Gurmit Singh, Kharaiti Lal, and Ajit Singh. Gurmit Singh's testimony turned hostile, which weakened the prosecution's case. Kharaiti Lal and Ajit Singh initially supported the prosecution's version but later gave contradictory statements regarding the weapon used by the appellant.

The court criticized the High Court for relying on certain pieces of evidence that were legally problematic. It noted that the statement allegedly made by Kharaiti Ram during inquest proceedings should not have been treated as substantive evidence due to the embargo of Section 162 of the Cr.P.C., which prohibits the use of such statements as evidence.

Similarly, the court found the High Court's reliance on the contents of the F.I.R. lodged by Walaiti Ram unjustified, as Walaiti Ram could not be examined during the trial due to his death. The F.I.R. could only have been used for corroborating or contradicting Walaiti Ram if he had been examined, not as a substantive piece of evidence

The Supreme Court emphasized that the contents of an FIR can only be used to support or challenge the statements of the person who lodged it if that person was examined during the trial. The FIR cannot be used as substantive evidence on its own.

The court highlighted the lack of legal evidence other than the testimonies of the two eyewitnesses connecting the appellant to the offenses. It emphasized that in criminal cases, the prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and in this case, the evidence of the two eyewitnesses was not reliable enough to meet this standard. Due to the lack of legal evidence and the material contradictions in the testimonies, the court concluded that the appellant should be given the benefit of doubt.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant's conviction and sentence were set aside. The appellant, who was on bail, was discharged from his bail bonds.

Conclusion
The case highlights the importance of adhering to legal procedures and standards of evidence in criminal trials. The court criticized the High Court for relying on legally problematic evidence, such as statements made during inquest proceedings and the contents of an F.I.R., which could not be used as substantive evidence.

The court emphasized the need for reliable and admissible evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Due to the lack of such evidence and material contradictions in witness testimonies, the court gave the appellant the benefit of doubt, leading to the appeal being allowed, and the appellant's conviction and sentence being set aside. The case serves as a reminder of the critical role of legal evidence in ensuring fair trials and just outcomes in criminal cases.

Reference:

• Harkirat Singh v. State Of Punjab AIR1997 SC 323