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

PETITIONER: JAGTAR SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/01/1988

BENCH: RAY, B.C. (J) BENCH: RAY, B.C. (J) SHETTY, K.J. (J)

CITATION:  1988 AIR  628            1988 SCR  (2) 794  1988 SCC  (1) 712        JT 1988 (1)   200  1988 SCALE  (1)191

ACT:      lndian Penal  Code, 1860:  Section  302-Accused  giving blow with  handle of  tractor-Resulting in death of deceased on spot-Report  of  serologist  and  chemical  examiner-Iron handle stained with human blood-Weapon recovered pursuant to disclosure statement  of accused-Acguittal  ordered by  High Court set  aside-Conviction and  sentence by  Sessions Court confirmed.      Criminal  Procedure  Code,  1973:  Section  154-FIR-Not expected to contain all details-Effect on value of testimony of witnesses

HEADNOTE: %      The accused-respondent  No. 2  in the  appeal  and  the deceased were  neighbours. The  prosecution alleged  that on October 8,  1983 at about 4 P.M. the deceased along with one of his  sons, P.W.  8 were taking their buffaloes from their house towards  the fields. When they were moving in the lane the accused  came from  the opposite side driving a tractor. While the  tractor was  passing, it hit one of the buffaloes whereupon the  deceased asked  the accused  whether he could not see the buffaloes and there was altercation. The accused suddenly got down from his tractor, and taking the handle of the tractor  in his  hand gave a blow on the forehead of the deceased. The  deceased fell  on the  ground with  his  face downward. At  that time  P.W.  l-appellant  in  the  Appeal, another son  of the deceased, and P.W. 2 were coming towards the spot  and they  saw the occurrence. The accused gave 3-4 blows on  the deceased  who was  Iying on  the  ground,  and thereafter took to his heels leaving the tractor behind. The deceased died on the spot.      P.W. t  keeping P.W.  8 to guard the dead body, went to the police  station which  was about 12 kms from the spot of the occurrence,  by bicycle,  and there lodged the FIR (Ext. PA). The statement was recorded by the Sub-Inspector, P.W. 9 who came  to the  spot at  about 7  P.M. and made an inquest report. The  tractor was  taken into  possession by the Sub- Inspector,  and  after  preparing  the  inquest  report,  he despatched the  dead  body  for  autopsy.  The  accused  was arrested on  October  9,  1983  and  on  the  basis  on  his

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

disclosure statement  Ext. PG  the  handle  of  the  tractor stained with blood was recovered. 795      The accused  in a  statement under  section 313  of the Criminal Procedure  Code pleaded  innocence and  stated that due to  enmity he  had been falsely involved. The Additional Sessions Judge  on a  consideration  and  appraisal  of  the evidence,  convicted  the  accused-respondent  No.  2  under section 302  I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer R.I. Of life and also  pay a  fine of  Rs.200 and  in default  to undergo further imprisonment of two months      The accused-respondent  No.  2  appealed  to  the  High Court. A  Division Bench  held that  the occurrence  was not witnessed by  P.W. 1  and P.W. 8, that the accused was named in the  FIR because  of the  previous prolonged  enmity, and that it  would be  unsafe to  rely upon  the ocular evidence without any  independent corroboration,  and  acquitted  the accused.      Allowing the complainant’s appeal by Special Leave, ^      HELD: 1.  An FIR  is not  expected to  contain all  the details.[799C-D]      2. The  statement of  the eye  witnesses are very clear and  straight   forward.  There   cannot  be  any  doubt  or possibility regarding the presence of the two eye witnesses, PW l and PW 8 at the time of the incident. [799A-B]      3. There is no room for doubt that the tractor was left at the place of occurrence by the accused while running away with the  handle of the tractor. It is also very significant that the  handle of  the tractor  used to  give blows to the deceased was recovered as per the recovery memo (Exhibit PG) in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the accused in presence  of independent  witnesses. It  appears from the report Exhibit  PH of  the Serologist  and Chemical Examiner that the Iron handle was stained with human blood. [799E-F]      4.  The   prosecution  case   has  been  proved  beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the  High Court is, therefore, set aside and the order of conviction and  sentence passed  by the  Additional Sessions Judge is affirmed. Non-bailable warrants be issued forthwith for the  arrest of  the accused-respondent No. 2, and to put him in  jail to  undergo the  remaining period  of sentence. [799E-G ]

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION. Criminal  Appeal  No. 532 of 1988. 796      From the  Judgment and  order  dated  8.1.1985  of  the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl. A. No. 302-DB of 1984.      M.S. Gujral and Vishnu Mathur for the Appellant.      A.K. Mulla,  R.K. Garg, R.S. Suri and N.D. Garg for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      RAY, .1.  This appeal  by special  leave is against the judgment and  order passed  by the  High Court of Punjab and Haryana at  Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 302-DB of 1984 reversing  the   conviction  and   sentence  passed  by  the Additional  Sessions   Judge,  Patiala  and  acquitting  the appellant Paul  Singh (respondent  No. 2  in this appeal) of the charge under section 302.      On October  8, 1983  at  about  4  P.M.  the  deceased, Karnail Singh who was the next door neighbour of Paul Singh,

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

along with  his son  Kuldip Singh  (PW 8)  were taking their buffaloes from  their house  towards the  fields. When  they reached near the house of one Baldev Singh in the lane where the houses  of Weaver community are situated, respondent No. 2, Paul Singh came from the opposite side driving a tractor. While the  tractor was  passing, it hit one of the buffaloes whereon Karnail  Singh asked Paul Singh whether he could not see the  buffaloes. There  was some  altercation between the parties. Paul  Singh suddenly  got  down  from  his  tractor taking the handle of the tractor in his hand and gave a blow on the forehead of Karnail Singh, the deceased. The deceased fell on  the ground  with his  face downward.  At that  time Jagtar Singh  (PW 1),  another son  of the deceased, Karnail Singh along  with Gurmit  Singh was  coming towards the spot and they  saw the  occurrence. Paul  Singh gave 3-4 blows on Karnail Singh  Iying on  the ground and took to his heels as Jagtar Singh  (PW 1)  and Gurmit Singh were hastening to the spot to intervene. The tractor was left behind. The deceased died at  the spot  on receipt  of the injuries. Jagtar Singh (PW 1) keeping Kuldip Singh (PW 8) and Gurmit Singh to guard the dead  body, went  to the police station by bicycle which is about  12 KMs  from the  place of  occurrence in  Village Sangatpur Sodhian  and reached there at about 5.15. P.M. The statement of  Jagtar Singh  (Exhibit PA) was recorded as FIR by  the  Sub-Inspector,  Harbans  Singh  (PW  9).  The  Sub- Inspector and  Jagtar Singh came to the spot at about 7 P.M. and made  an inquest  report. The  said report  (F.I.R.) was despatched by the Sub-Inspector to Illaqa Magistrate who 797 received the  same at  about 8.15.  P.M. On October 8, 1983. The tractor  of the  respondent No.  2, Paul Singh was taken into possession  by the  Sub-Inspector vide Memo Exhibit PL. After preparing  the inquest  report (Exhibit  PE), the Sub- Inspector despatched  the dead  body of  Karnail  Singh  for autopsy. The  respondent No.  2 was  arrested on  October 9, 1983 and  on the  basis of his disclosure statement (Exhibit PG) the  handle of  the tractor  (Exhibit PF)  stained  with blood was  recovered by  the Sub-Inspector. Respondent No. 2 in his  statement under  Section 313  of  Code  of  Criminal Procedure pleaded  his innocence  and  stated  that  due  to enmity he has been falsely involved in this case.      The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the counsel for the parties and on a consideration and appraisal of the evidences on record, convicted the accused Paul Singh under section  302 I.P.C.  and sentenced  him to suffer R.I. for life and also pay a fine of Rs.200 in default of payment of fine  to undergo  further R.I.  for 2 months. It was also ordered that  the period  of detention  already undergone by him during  the investigation,  inquiry or  trial  would  be allowed to  be set off under section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure.      Against this judgment and order the accused, Paul Singh filed an  appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 302-DB of 1984 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The said appeal was  heard by  a division bench of the High Court and without properly  considering and  marshalling the evidences of the  eye-witnesses, Jagtar  Singh (PW 1) and Kuldip Singh (PW 8)  as well as the FIR (Exhibit PA) and also the Inquest Report (Exhibit  PE) and  other evidences on record, wrongly held that  the occurrence  was not witnessed by Jagtar Singh and Kuldip  Singh and  Paul Singh,  respondent No. 2 in this appeal  was  named  in  the  FIR  because  of  the  previous prolonged enmity with him. It was also held that it would be unsafe  to   rely  upon  the  ocular  evidence  without  any independent corroboration and acquitted the respondent No. 2

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

setting aside  the conviction  and sentence  awarded by  the Additional Sessions Judge.      The incident  occurred on  October 8,  1983 at  about 4 P.M. and  the FIR  was lodged  by Jagtar Singh (PW 1) who is the son  of the  deceased, Karnail  Singh at  Police Station Moolepur which is at a distance of 12 KMs. from the place of occurrence in  Village Sangatpur  Sodhian at about 5.15 P.M. In the FIR (Exhibit PA) it has been stated by the informant, Jagtar Singh  (PW 1)  that he  and his brother, Kuldip Singh (PW 8) and one Gurmit Singh were present at the place of H 798 occurrence and  witnessed the  assault by  the accused, Paul Singh with  the handle  of  the  tractor  on  the  deceased, Karnail Singh  over an  altercation as  to the  striking the tractor against  one of  the buffaloes  of the  deceased. It also appears  that in  the FIR  it has  been stated that the accused gave  a blow  with the  handle of the tractor to the father of  the informant  hitting his  forehead towards  the left and  he also  gave 3-4  blows with the handle while the deceased fell  down on  the ground  with his  face  downward hitting his  head. He  and Gurmit  Singh were  hastening  to intervene when  the accused fled away with the handle. It is also evident  from the  Inquest Report (Exhibit PE) prepared by the Sub-Inspector (PW 9) on the date of the incident that he found  amongst other articles one tractor-Escorts bearing registration No.  PUC 5206 which he sealed vide Memo Exhibit PL. Admittedly,  there was  longstanding enmity  between the accused and  the deceased.  The accused  filed papers  which were exhibited  in the  case showing  that several  criminal cases were  filed between the parties and this long-standing enmity between the parties was the motive on the part of the accused to  inflict injuries  on the deceased, Karnail Singh and the  immediate motive  was  the  altercation  which  the deceased had  with the  accused  when  the  tractor  of  the accused struck one of the buffaloes of the deceased.      It has  been urged on behalf of the respondents that in the FIR  (Exhibit PA)  it was merely stated that the accused gave one  handle blow  on the forehead of the deceased. Then the deceased fell down and the accused gave 3-4 handle blows to the  deceased whereas  in his deposition before the Court the informant  made the  improvement by  stating that out of the 3-4  handle blows  one hit  him on the right side of the forehead, one  on the back of the left side of the head, one on the  back of  the right  side of  the head and one on the back of the head. It  has also been urged that in the FIR it was not  stated that  Jagtar Singh,  PW 1  and Gurmit  Singh tried to  intervene when the accused was giving blows to the deceased with  the  handle.  It  was  therefore  urged  that because of these improvements, the prosecution story as made out in  the FIR  was doubtful. It was further submitted that in the FIR it was not stated that the accused left the place leaving the  tractor at  the place  of occurrence though the FIR stated  in detail  about the occurrence. This submission cannot be  sustained as it is evident from the FIR which was lodged with  utmost promptitude that PW 1 had stated therein that ’he  and Gurmit  Singh went  ahead in order to separate him’. As regards the statement in his evidence regarding the 3-4 blows  made with  the handle of the tractor it cannot be said to be an improve-      ment but  it  merely  explains  the  places  where  the assault was made on 799 the body  of the  deceased. On this basis, it cannot be said that there  wasan improvement made on what was stated in the FIR. The statements of the eye witnesses cannot be discarded

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

on this  score. The  statements of  the witnesses  are  very clear and  straight forward.  There cannot  be any  doubt or possibility regarding  the presence of the two eye witnesses PW 1 and PW 8 at the time of the incident.      On a  careful appraisal  of the  evidences of these two eye witnesses  we cannot  but hold that they were present at the place  of occurrence  and witnessed the entire incident. It appears  from the post mortem report also that that there were six  injuries on  the person  of the deceased and these injuries according  to the  opinion of the Doctor, PW 2 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.      The appellate  court held  that  the  recovery  of  the tractor was of no help to the prosecution case as in the FIR it was  not mentioned  that the accused had left the tractor at the spot. FIR is not expected to contain all the details. This finding  of the  appellate court is wholly erroneous in as much  as it  is evident  from the inquest report (Exhibit PE) made  on the  date of  occurrence i.e.  October 8, 1983, that the  tractor was  seized on that date from the place of occurrence vide  recovery memo  No. PL by the Sub-Inspector, Harbans Singh,  PW 9.  There is therefore, no room for doubt that the  tractor was left at the place of occurrence by the accused while  running away  with the handle of the tractor. It is  also very  significant to note that the handle of the tractor used  to give blows to the deceased was recovered as per the  recovery memo  (Exhibit PG)  in  pursuance  of  the disclosure statement  made by  the accused  in  presence  of independent witnesses,  Nirmal Singh  and Jarnail  Singh. It appears  from  the  report  Exhibit  PH  of  Serologist  and Chemical Examiner  that Iron  handle was  stained with human blood.      In  view   of  the   reasons  stated  hereinbefore  the prosecution case  his been  proved beyond  reasonable doubt. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court is therefore,  set aside  and the  order of  conviction  and sentence passed  by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is hereby affirmed.  Let non-bailable  warrants issue forthwith for the  arrest of the accused, Paul Singh, respondent No. 2 and to  put him  in jail  to undergo the remaining period of sentence. N.V.K.                                       Appeal allowed. 800