http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: BALBIR SINGH AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT01/10/1991

BENCH: FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J) BENCH: FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J) PANDIAN, S.R. (J)

CITATION:  1991 AIR 2231            1991 SCR  Supl. (1) 239  1991 SCC  Supl.  (2) 445 JT 1991 (4)    72  1991 SCALE  (2)747

ACT:     Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate  Juris- diction)  Act, 1970--Section 2-- Appeal---Charge  under  ss. 302/34, IPC--- Acquittal order of trial Court--Conviction by High  Court--Appreciation  of evidence ---Findings  of  High Court  approved--  Acquittal of companion  accused   Whether affects the case of appellants.

HEADNOTE:     The  appellants  along with another were  tried  of  the charge  of murder under Section 302, I.P.C., read with  Sec- tion 34, I.P.C.     The prosecution case was that the appellants as well  as the  deceased’s brother and his son were residing in a  vil- lage.  The  deceased  came to the village  on  6.7.1974.  On 8.7.1974  at about 10.30 a.m., the deceased’s brother  along with his wife and his son had gone to the mango grove across the  choe to collect mangoes to give to the deceased.  While they were returning home along the pathway, the deceased was seen  coming in the opposite direction. The  two  appellants along  with  another accused, emerged on the scene  and  at- tacked  the deceased. Appellant No.1 had a datar and  Appel- lant No. 2 had a sua and their companion had a lathi.  After inflicting injuries with the weapons the appellants escaped. The  deceased was removed to the house of one Darbara  Singh for  being rushed to the hospital, but within a short  time, he breathed his last.     The first information was lodged at the police  station, around 7.00 P.M., and the crime was registered and  investi- gated and finally chargesheeted. The post-mortem examination of  the dead body revealed that the deceased  had  sustained lacerated injuries and three stab wounds and that he died on account  of  the  shock and hemorrhage as a  result  of  the injuries.     The  motive alleged was that there had been some  grouse on  account  of the transfer of agricultural land  that  be- longed to the family, among the 240 children of the three brothers.     The Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of the  charge. The  High Court, in appeal preferred by the State  convicted

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

the  appellants and sentenced them to  undergo  imprisonment for life, against which, this appeal under Section 2 of  the Supreme  Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate  Jurisdic- tion) Act, 1970 was filed.     The  appellants  contended that the view  taken  by  the trial  court was reasonable and there was  no  justification for  upsetting the judgment even if a different  view  could have been taken by the appellate court on reappraisal of the evidence;  that the High Court did not dislodge the  various reasons given by the trial court for discarding the evidence and  that  the  conclusion drawn by the High  Court  on  the evidence on record was wrong. Dismissing the appeal, this Court,     HELD: 1. The prosecution evidence in the case is  wholly reliable  and it leads to irresistible conclusion  that  the appellants  had  intentionally caused the death of  the  de- ceased.  The occurrence took place in broad day light  at  a place  close to the residence of the witnesses.  The  appel- lants  are the near relations of the deceased and  the  wit- nesses  and it has happened in the background of the  family rued.  The first information has been recorded within a  few hours  which  in  the circumstances of the  case  cannot  be considered as unreasonably delayed. The version given in the F.I.R. is substantially the same as the one spoken to by the witnesses before the Court. [243 C-D]     2.  The eye witnesses have given consistent  account  of the  role played by each of the appellants. There would  not have  been any difficulty for the witnesses to identify  the appellants from a distance and across the reeds even if they could  get  only a glimpse of them in the  course  of  their action,  and the medical evidence is not Inconsistent.  [243 E-F]     3.  The fact that the acquittal of the companion of  the appellants  had not been interfered with by the  High  Court cannot  advance the case of the appellants. The  High  Court has  given  him the benefit of doubt on the  materials  that emerged  in the evidence. That is no reason to  discard  the evidence  of  the  witnesses so far as  the  appellants  are concerned when such 241 evidence does not suffer from any serious infirmity; [243 H; 244 A]

JUDGMENT:     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 1979.     From  the  Judgment and Order dated  22.11.1978  of  the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 701  of 1975. A.N. Mulla, O.P. Sharma and R.C. Gubrele for the Appellants. Ms. Amita Gupta and R.S. Suri for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     FATHIMA  BEEVI, J. Balbir Singh and Inderjit Singh,  the appellants, are brothers. Onkar Singh, brother of  Brijinder Singh,  the father of the appellants, died of  multiple  in- juries  on 8.7.1974. The appellants along with Mehar  Singh, were tried on the charge of murder under Section 302, I.P.C. read  with Section 34, I.P.C. The Sessions  Judge  acquitted the  accused of the charge. The High Court, in  appeal  pre- ferred  by  the State, convicted these appellants  and  sen- tenced  them to undergo imprisonment for life under  Section 302, I.P.C.     The  appeal  being one under Section 2  of  the  Supreme

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)  Act, 1970,  the  appellants’ learned counsel persuaded us  to  go through the entire evidence maintaining that the High  Court has  erred in interfering with the order of  acquittal.  Ac- cording to the learned counsel, the view taken by the  trial court  is  reasonable  and there was  no  justification  for upsetting  the judgment even if a different view could  have been  taken  by the appellate court on  reappraisal  of  the evidence.  It  was  contended that the High  Court  has  not effectively dislodged the various reasons given by the trial Court  for discarding the evidence and that  the  conclusion drawn by the High Court on the evidence on record is clearly wrong.     In order to appreciate these arguments, it is  necessary to  set out briefly the facts of the case and summarize  the relevant evidence. The deceased, Onkar Singh, at the time of his death was employed in government service and was  resid- ing  in Chandigarh. His brother, Darbara Singh, and his  son Iswardial  Singh, as well as these appellants were  residing in the village. Onkar Singh came to the village on 6th July, 1974. On 8th July, 242  1974,  at about 10.30 A.M., Darbara Singh, along  with  his wife, Surjit Kant, and son Ishwardial Singh had gone to  the mango  grove  across the choe to collect mangoes  for  being given  to Onkar Singh. While they were returning home  along the  pathway,  Onkar Singh was seen coming in  the  opposite direction.  These two appellants along with their  companion emerged  on the scene and attacked Onkar Singh Balbir  Singh had a datar and Inderjit Singh had a sua and Mehar Singh had a  lathi.  After inflicting injuries with  the  weapons  the appellants  escaped. The deceased, Onkar Singh, was  removed to the house of Darbara Singh for being rushed to the hospi- tal but within a short time, he breathed his last.     The  first information was lodged at the police  station around 7.00 P.M., and the crime was registered and  investi- gated and finally chargesheeted. The post-mortem examination on  the  dead body revealed that Onkar Singh  had  sustained besides  lacerated  injuries three stab wounds and  that  he died  on account of the shock and hemorrhage as a result  of the  injuries.  The motive alleged was that there  had  been some grouse on account of the transfer of agricultural  land that belonged to the family, among the children of the three brothers.  The land stood in the name of the deceased’s  son under cultivation of Darbara Singh at the material time. The land was originally gifted to the appellants in 1964 but was reconveyed to the deceased.     The  learned  Sessions Judge found that the  motive  had been  proved. The two eye-witnesses to the  occurrence  were Darbara  Singh and his son Ishwardial Singh.  They  narrated the  incident.  Their evidence was discarded  by  the  trial court for the reasons that there was a thick growth of reeds on  either side of the pathway which was running zigzag  and it  was not, therefore, possible for the witnesses  even  if they were present in the vicinity to observe the assault and identify the assailants. Another reason was that the medical evidence  was in distinct conflict with the  oral  testimony and the nature of injuries were such that the same could not be  attributed  to the use of the weapons mentioned  by  the witnesses.  Yet  another reason was that there had  been  no trace of blood either on the pathway or on the clothes  worn by  the deceased. The time of death of the deceased as  dis- closed  by the medical evidence did not agree with the  ver- sion  of the witnesses. There had been inordinate  delay  in lodging  the  F.I.R. The first information  report  did  not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

inspire  confidence.  The witnesses had no  consistent  case regarding  the role played by Mehar Singh and  the  evidence was  interested and unconvincing. The learned Judge,  there- fore, rejected the 243 same and recorded the order of acquittal.     The High Court had cautioned itself on the limited scope of  interference while analysing and appreciating  the  evi- dence and arriving at its own conclusion. The High Court has given  very cogent reasons to establish that the  whole  ap- proach by the trial court was wrong and reasons for  reject- ing the evidence did not stand scrutiny.     Having  heard the counsel on both sides, we  agree  with the High Court that the prosecution evidence in the case  is wholly reliable and it leads to irresistible conclusion that these appellants had intentionally caused the death of Onkar Singh.  The  occurrence took place in broad day light  at  a place  close to the residence of the witnesses.  The  appel- lants  are the near relations of the deceased and  the  wit- nesses  and it has happened in the background of the  family rued.  The first information has been recorded within a  few hours  which  in  the circumstances of the  case  cannot  be considered as unreasonably delayed. The version given in the F.I.R, is substantially the same as the one spoken to by the witnesses  before the court. There had not been any  accept- able  suggestion  why  Darbara Singh  should  foist  a  case against  the  appellants.  It is most  unlikely  that  these witnesses would allow the real culprits to escape and  their near  relations to be implicated on the happening of such  a tragedy  in  the family. Both the father and  the  son  have given  consistent account of the role played by each of  the appellants. There would not have been any difficulty for the witnesses  to  identify the appellants from a  distance  and across  the reeds even if they could get only a  glimpse  of them  in  the course of their action. The evidence  is  also clear that there had not been thick growth of reeds to cause complete obliteration of the scene. It could not, therefore, be  assumed that the place of occurrence was out  of  bounds and that the witnesses have weaved a story of their own.  As rightly pointed out by the High Court, the medical  evidence is not inconsistent. The witnesses are clear that the appel- lants used the datar on the wrong side and that accounts for the  lacerated injuries. Incised wounds may be  produced  by using  the sua on that part of the body. We do not find  any material to infer that the death could not have happened  at the  time spoken to by the witnesses. Since there  had  been internal  hemorrhage and the injured person was  immediately lifted from the place of occurrence the absence of blood  at the  scene  is not strange. The fact that the  acquittal  of Mehar  Singh had not been interfered with by the High  Court cannot advance the case of the appellants. The High Court 244 has  given  him the benefit of doubt on the  materials  that emerged  in the evidence. That is no reason to  discard  the evidence  of  the witnesses so far as these  appellants  are concerned when such evidence does not suffer from any  seri- ous infirmity.     We find that the High Court had given weighty reasons in accepting  the evidence and finding that the view  taken  by the trial court was clearly wrong. We reject the contentions of the appellants. There is no reason to interfere with  the judgment of the High Court. The appeal is accordingly V.P.R.                                         Appeal   dis- missed. 245

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5