http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1231 of 2005

PETITIONER: MAJOR SINGH & ANR

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/10/2006

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

MARKANDEY KATJU, J.

       This appeal has been filed against the impugned  judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated  1.7.2005 by which the death sentence awarded to the  accused Major Singh and Baldeo Singh under Section  302/201 IPC has been upheld.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the  record.

       The facts as narrated in the record of the case are  that the sister of the appellants Major Singh and Baldev  Singh, Sukhwinder Kaur had been married to the deceased  Kashmir Singh about 12 years prior to the date of the  incident.  Sukhwinder Kaur died after two years of marriage  with Kashmir Singh, and the accused had the suspension  that Kashmir Singh had murdered Sukhwinder Kaur.  It is  alleged that this was the motive for which the accused  murdered Kashmir Singh in the incident in question.

On 24.1.1999, Kashmir Singh was returning on a bi- cycle to his house after delivering the milk in the milk dairy  and Lakhbir Singh PW4 was sitting on the carrier holding a  small container meant for milk in his hand.  At about 7.30  p.m. they reached near the transformer of the village and  there in the light of the electric bulb which was on they  found Major Singh armed with a ‘Kirpan’ and Baldev Singh  armed with ‘Kapa’ sitting along with their third brother  Shingara Singh.  Shingara Singh had raised a lalkara that  Kashmir Singh had come in their grip and he should not be  allowed to go away alive.  Thereupon Lakhbir Singh had  jumped from the carrier of the cycle.  The deceased in turn  had thrown his cycle and fled into the fields of the wheat  crop being followed by the appellants.  It is alleged that in  the presence of the witness, Baldev Singh had given a blow  from the sharp side of his ‘Kapa’ on the left wrist of the  deceased while Major Singh gave blows with Kirpan one  after the other, as a result of which Kashmir Singh fell down.   Shingara Singh then caught hold of the deceased by his hair,  who had tried to catch hold of the Kirpan of Major Singh and  in that process he had received injuries on the fingers of his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

left hand.  Thereafter, Baldev Singh caught hold of the arm  of the deceased and Major Singh severed his head with a  blow of the Kirpan.  An alarm was raised by Lakhbir Singh,  which attracted Chanan Singh to the spot and in his  presence the accused ran away from the spot taking away  the severed head of the deceased.  On account of  nervousness, the accused had left the Kirpan, turban and  blanket at the spot.  After leaving Chanan Singh at the place  of occurrence near the dead body, Lakhbir Singh went to call  his cousin Jagir Singh and thereafter both of them  proceeded to police post Behak Pachharian to lodge an FIR.   On the way, they met ASI Satnam Singh PW7 along with  other police officials at the Bus Stand of village Behak  Pachharian where they were holding a Naka.  Lakhbir Singh  made a statement Ex.P6 before the ASI, who after making  his endorsement Ex.P6/A had sent the same to the Police  Station, Zira, on the basis whereof formal FIR Ex.P6/B was  recorded under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

ASI Satnam Singh and the other police officials in the  meantime had accompanied Lakhbir Singh to the spot,  where a headless body of the deceased was lying.  He  prepared an inquest report and sent the body through  Mehtab Singh and Daljit Singh, Constables for post mortem  to Civil Hospital, Zira along with application Ex.P3.  On  25.1.1999, ASI Satnam Singh inspected the spot and  prepared a rough site plan Ex.P14.  He collected blood  stained earth and ordinary earth from the scene of  occurrence and put the same in two separate plastic boxes  which were converted into parcels and were eventually  sealed with the seal ‘SS’.  The sealed parcels were taken  into possession through recovery memo Ex.P7.  The  Investigating Officer, recovered the Kirpan, turban and  blanket from the spot.  He prepared rough sketch of the  Kirpan and took the same into possession.  The blanket and  turban were also taken into possession separately and both  parcels were sealed by him and were taken into possession  through memo Ex.P9.  The bi-cycle of the deceased was also  taken into possession.  After autopsy, the post mortem  report was handed over to the police.  According to the  same, the injuries on the body of the deceased were found  to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of  nature.  The clothes of the deceased were also taken into  possession and parcels containing blood stained earth,  ordinary earth, kirpan, blanket and turban were went to the  Chemical Examiner on 24.2.1999.

The trial court after detailed consideration of the  evidence found the accused guilty and sentenced them on  12.6.2004 to death, and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each  and in default further rigorous imprisonment for two years  under Section 302 IPC.  They were also awarded punishment  of three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-  and in default of which further six months rigorous  imprisonment under Section 121 IPC.

In appeal the High Court upheld the judgment of the  trial court and dismissed the appeal.  Hence the present  appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in fact  no one had seen the incident as it was in the night, and it  was a case of false implication.  Learned counsel also  repeatedly stressed that the appellants could have no  motive for murdering Kashmir Singh.  It is well settled in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

Criminal Law that motive is not very material in a case of  direct evidence but it is very important in a case of  circumstantial evidence.  Since, there is direct evidence in  this case, we are not inclined to go into the motive in the  present case.  Although, it is true that in the month of  January usually it becomes dark at 7.30 p.m. but in the  present case there was electric light by which the witnesses  recognized the assailants.   From the statement of PW5  Kuldeep Singh, SDC, Punjab State Electricity Board it is clear  that there was uninterrupted electric supply in the village in  question on 24.1.1999 from 2.30 p.m. to midnight.  It has  come in evidence that the witnesses identified the assailants  in the electric light fixed on a bamboo pole.  The medical  evidence also corroborates the prosecution version.

It has come in the prosecution version that Kashmir  Singh had caught the Kirpan of Major Singh and when Major  Singh pulled back the Kirpan, four fingers of the Major Singh  were injured.  In the post mortem of Kashmir Singh there  are such injuries on the fingers of the deceased.  This also  corroborates the prosecution version.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there  was no trail of blood at the scene of the incident.  In this  connection we have perused the evidence of ASI Satnam  Singh who has mentioned in his statement that he had  found a Kirpan stained with blood on the spot which he had  taken into possession, and he had also found blood stained  earth which was put in two separate boxes and sealed.   He  also took into possession one bi-cycle make Hero on the  carrier of which a hook was fixed and a drum was tied.  One  small drum was lying at a distance from the bi-cycle and he  took that also in possession and then prepared a rough site  plan.  Thus the evidence of the In-charge of the Police  Station, Satnam Singh also corroborates the prosecution  version.

Even assuming that we accept the defence version that  Chanan Singh was not a witness of the incident, we see no  reason to disregard or disbelieve the evidence of Lakhbir  Singh who was an eye witness to the incident.  Lakhbir  Singh is a natural witness and he has clearly deposed about  the incident in question in detail.  We see no reason to  disbelieve his evidence.

Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to  certain minor defects and minor discrepancies in the  prosecution case.  It is well settled that minor discrepancies  and minor defects in the prosecution case is not a good  ground for rejecting the entire prosecution case.

There is clear evidence of Lakhbir Singh that Baldev  Singh caught hold of the deceased by his arm and Major  Singh severed his head from body by Kirpan.  The medical  evidence, the police inspector’s evidence, etc. corroborate  this version.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that co  accused Jagga Singh and Shingara Singh have been  acquitted.  He contended that this shows that the  prosecution case is false.

We cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel  for the appellant that merely because Jagga Singh and  Shingara Singh have been acquitted the entire prosecution

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

case has to be rejected.  It is well settled that the principle  of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not an acceptable  principle.  It is well known fact that in our country very often  the prosecution implicates not only real assailants but also  implicates innocent persons so as to spread the net wide.   The court can always discriminate and find out that who  were the real assailants and who were not.

Thus, we see no reason to set aside the conviction of  the accused Major Singh and Baldev Singh.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case  and considering the fact that there was probably some  enmity due to suspicion about Sukhwinder Kaur’s death two  years after her marriage to Kashmir Singh which could have  a motive for the crime, we reduce the sentence awarded to  both the accused from death sentence to life sentence under  Section 302 IPC.  This appeal is disposed of accordingly.