DARYA SINGH AND OTHERS versus STATE OF PUNJAB

DARYA SINGH AND OTHERS versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Corroboration of testimony by relatives and allegedly hostile witnesses in a murder case is not legally mandatory; their evidence is admissible if carefully scrutinised and found credible, particularly when given in circumstances where their presence is probable. Failure to exercise powers under s. 540 CrPC does not in itself vitiate the trial unless shown that relevant witnesses were kept back. The convictions were properly sustained by appreciation of oral evidence, and cannot be interfered with under Article 136.

Parties
Appellant: Darya Singh; Appellant: Rasala; Appellant: Pehlada; Respondent: State of Punjab
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 April 1963
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.
Legal Topics
Murder, Assessment of Evidence, Corroboration of Witness Testimony, Exercise of Court Powers Under Procedural Law
Criminal Law Murder Assessment of Evidence Corroboration of Witness Testimony Exercise of Court Powers Under Procedural Law

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Darya Singh

Appellant

Rasala

Appellant

Pehlada

Appellant

State of Punjab

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conviction could be sustained based on the uncorroborated testimony of related and allegedly hostile witnesses
  2. 2 Whether failure to exercise powers under s. 540 of Code of Criminal Procedure introduces infirmity

Ratio Decidendi

Corroboration of testimony by relatives and allegedly hostile witnesses in a murder case is not legally mandatory; their evidence is admissible if carefully scrutinised and found credible, particularly when given in circumstances where their presence is probable. Failure to exercise powers under s. 540 CrPC does not in itself vitiate the trial unless shown that relevant witnesses were kept back. The convictions were properly sustained by appreciation of oral evidence, and cannot be interfered with under Article 136.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.

Orders

  • No orders as to costs.