Evidence Law: Shahadev Singh Sikh Vs. Others, NKP 2032, No.7, P.175
Case: Homicide
Plaintiff: Sundar Singh Sikh
Defendant: Shahadev Singh Sikh, Ghirau Singh Sikh, Kunja Bihari Sikh, Badalu Rao
Decision Number: 911
This case is related with the principle of evidence law “Who Asserts Must Prove.”
Fact of the case:
On the date of 2028/02 /22, the plaintiff Sundar Singh Sikh was sleeping alone in his house and his wife (Dukhi Singh) and father (Chheda Singh) had gone to attain marriage ceremony. The defendants Shahadev, Ghirau and two other people came drunk and attacked Sundar Sikh by Khukuri with an intention to kill him but Somehow he managed to save himself. But while Chheda Singh was coming back to home from wedding, the defendants killed him on the way.
Sundar Singh Sikh reported in police office, then the defendants admitted that they all were involved in murder that is catching legs by one, striking on face by other, striking khukuri by another, etc.
Then the police office filled the case on Banke District Court. Saying that all the defendants must be punished as in 13(1) of Homicide of Muluki Ain.
Ratio Decidendi/ Decisions of Court:
District Court:
There were defendants Shahadev singh, Ghirau Singh, Kunja Bihari and Badalu Rau. There was no real evidence proving that whether all defendants were the principal offender or not. District Court decided that the Shahadev Singh was a principal offender and punished as per 13(1) of homicide.
Other offenders rejected their admission made on police office so hence were punished as per 17(2) of homicide.
Bheri Zonel Court:
The plaintiff Sunder Singh appealed claiming that all offenders should be punished Under 13(1). The defendant Shahadev Singh also appealed claiming that the punishment given to him should be minimized.
But, There were no such evidences to prove their claim. Plaintiff and Defendants both cannot produce the evidences to prove their claim. So, the Bheri zonal court also approved the decision of district court.
Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court had to find out whether the decision of the Zonal Court is right or not?
Supreme Court also approved the decision of the Zonal Court on the grounds:
It was not mentioned in claim paper about catching legs by one, striking on face by another, striking Khukuri by another, etc. Only the admission made on police custody cannot be a proof, it must be proved by other proof, then only it can be taken as the basis.
Supreme Court asked the defendant that where was he at the time of incident. He claimed that he was in India to buy a machine. The asserting party himself must prove that he was not at the place of incident when it was occurred. But he could not prove.
Shahadev has enmity with deceased Chheda and plaintiff Sunder Singh regarding the issue of daughter.
In the recognizance , Indicating culprit Shahadev, Dukhi Rana Sikh (plaintiff’s wife) mentioned that she saw Shahadev with Khukuri in his hand, cutting Cheeda neck lying him down on the ground.
Almost, all the people of Sarjamin/ground report stated that they’ve doubt on Shahadev on murdering Chheda and disappearing his head. On this basis Division Bench of Supreme Court approved the decision of Bheri Zonal Court.
