http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: STATE OF HARYANA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: JINDER SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/01/1997

BENCH: M.M. PUNCHHI, FAIZAN UDDIN

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T Faizan Uddin, J. 1.   Both these  appeals are  preferred against  the  common judgment, one  having been preferred by the State of Haryana and another  by complainant  Hazara Singh,  the son  of  the deceased. These  two appeals  have been directed against the reversing judgment  of the  High Court  of Punjab  & Haryana rendered in  Crl.A.No. 265-DB  of 1984 decided on 12.10.1984 whereby the  judgment  of  the  Sessions  Judge,  Karnal  in Sessions Case  No. 6/84  convicting  the  respondents  under Section 302  read with  Section 34 IPC, sentenced to undergo life imprisonment  and respondent  Ranjit Singh  also  under Section 27  of the Arms Act of undergo rigorous imprisonment for six  months, both the sentences to run concurrently, has been set aside. 2.   The prosecution  case was  that the  deceased Ran Singh had taken  two trolleys  of paddy  for  sale  to  the  grain market, Karnal  on 25.10.1983  along  with  his  son  Hazara Singh, PW  2 and  one Sukha  Singh, PW  3. Since  one of the trolleys could  not be  unloaded for  want of  space in  the market area  and, therefore,  all the  three had to stay for the night  at Shop No. 18 of Ajit Singh, a commission agent. It is  said that  during the  intervening night  of 25th and 26th  October,   1983  at  about  12.30  AM  the  accused  / respondent No.  2 Baldev  Singh came  to the  Shop No. 18 to find out  whether the  trolley of  Dalbir Singh  had reached there or  not. The deceased Ran Singh, his son Hazara Singh, PW 2 and Sukha Singh, PW 3 who were staying in the said Shop No. 18  came out  of the  shop later,  to have an eye on the unloaded  trolley   standing  out  side.  According  to  the prosecution,  at  that  point  of  time  the  three  accused respondents, namely,  Jinder Singh,  respondent No.  1 armed with a  lathi, Baldev  Singh, respondent  No. 2 with a Parna and Ranjit  Singh, respondent  No. 3 armed with a gun of his father emerged  from behind  the heap  of bags  stacked ere. Respondent Baldev  Singh caught  hold of Ran Singh while the other two  respondents opened  an assault with lathi and the butt of  the gun.  Respondent Jinder  Singh also  smashed  a bottle on  the head of the deceased and when the victim fell down, the  accused respondent Baldev Singh wrapped the Parna

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

around the  neck of  the victim  and  dragged  him  to  some distance. Ran  Singh succumbed  to his injuries on the spot. Hazara Singh,  PW 2  the son  of the  deceased went  to  the police station,  city Karnal  leaving Sukha  Singh, PW 3 and commission agent Ajit Singh to watch the dead body. 3.   Hazara Singh, PW 2 reached police station at about 1.00 AM where  he lodged  the FIR  Ext.  PB  with  the  Inspector Balwant Singh,  PW 6. Inspector Baldev Singh sent the police constable to  Ilaqa Magistrate  with the  special report  at about 1.30  PM and  then reached the place of occurrence and prepared the  inquest report  Ext.PA/1. He also prepared the site plan  of the  place of  occurrence Ext.  PD. The police inspector seized  blood stained  earth from  the Phad, blood stained Parali,  broken bottle  pieces, broken  neck of  the bottle with  a tin  cork and  turban etc.  from the place of occurrence and on a disclosure statement made by the accused respondents gun  and cartridges, etc. were also seized. On a search  being   made  the   accused  respondents   were  not traceable.  They   were,  however,   apprehended  later   on 29.10.1983. 4.   According to  the prosecution  the motive for the crime committed was  that about 3-4 months prior to the occurrence Kulwant Singh,  the elder  brother of the accused respondent Jinder Singh  had committed  rape on the young blind wife of Dhyan Singh, an aged elder brother of deceased Ran Singh for which said Kulwant Singh was given a beating by the deceased Ran Singh  and  his  son  Avtar  Singh  resulting  into  the fracture of  his arm  but having regard to the honour of the family the matter was not reported to the police. 5.   Dr. Batla,  PW 1  had performed  an autopsy on the dead boy of  Ran Singh  on 26.10.1983  and  found  the  following injurities on his person:-      1.   Reddish    contusion   running      circular and  horizontal around the      neck on  left side. It was 1 1/2 cm      wide and going 12 cm back. On right      side it was of variable width going      up to  7 cm back. Maximum width was      on right  side 1 1/2 cm. Underlying      tissues  were   congested.  Thyroid      bone  and   hyoid  caetilages  were      healthy.      2. Abrasion  2 x  1 cm on the right      knee joint.      3. Abrasion  1 x  1 cms on the left      knee joint.      4. Multiple  abrasions of  variable      length and 1/2 cms wide on the back      and outer side of left forearm.      5. Nose  was  depressed  and  nasel      bone was fractured.      6. Reddish  contusion  3  x  2  cms      below the  left eye over the cheek.      There was  congestion on the mustle      when explored  and  maxillary  bone      was fractured.      7. Reddish contusion 5 x 3 cms over      the left  side of  forehead,  4  cm      above the  left eye  and 8 cms from      the left ear. On exploration, there      was fracture  of the  posterior rim      of the left orbit.      8. Lacerated  wound, partial muscle      deep on  the inner  side  of  lower      lip, near the gums 3 x 1/2 cms.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

    9. Abrasion (reddish) 3 x 1 cm over      the right side of scalp, 7 cm above      the right  ear. There  was  a  clot      underneath.      10. Lacerated wound 6 x 2 cm muscle      deep. Bone  visible  on  the  upper      part of  occipital area just to the      right side  of the  midline.  There      was haematona underneath.      11. Lacerated  wound 3  x 1/2 cm in      the back  of the  lower part of the      neck. This  was muscle deep and 2.5      cm below injury No. 10.      12. There  was fracture of the base      of the  skull in  the middle in the      left side, just along the midline.      In  the   opinion  of  the  doctor  the  injuries  were sufficient in  the ordinary  course of nature to cause death and that  the death  was due  to shock  and hemorrhage  as a result of the said injuries. 6.   The accused  respondents were  sent for  trial for  the charge under  Section 302/34 accused respondent Ranjit Singh also under  Section 27  of the  Arms  Act.  The  respondents denied their  guilt and  pleaded false  implication  in  the case. They  also examined  Patwari Kishan Chand as a defence witness to  show the Sukha Singh, P.W.3, did not possess any land. The  trial court  relying on  the  ocular  version  of Hazara Singh,  PW  2  and  Sukha,  PW  3  coupled  with  the corroborative medical  evidence convicted  and sentenced the three respondents  as said  earlier. However,  on appeal  by them the  High  Court  took  the  view  that  there  was  no impelling motive for the respondents to commit the crime and that in  the absence of proper light it was not possible for the witnesses  to have identified the assailants in the dark night, that  the evidence of Hazara Singh, PW 2 suffers from material improvements  from the  facts stated  by him in the FIR Ext.  PD and  that the  presence of Sukha Singh, PW 3 at the place  of occurrence  was doubtful  and, therefore,  set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to the respondents and acquitted  them of  the offence  they were  charged with against which these two appeals have been directed. 7.   Learned counsel  for the  appellants strenuously  urged that the  High Court  did not  appreciate the  well reasoned order of  conviction recorded  by the  trial court  and fell into serious  and patent error in holding that there was any difficulty in  identifying the culprits for want of light or there was  any delay  in lodging  the report and sending the special report  to the  Ilaqa Magistrate.  He submitted that the evidence  of Hazara  Singh P.W.2 is fully consistent and does not  suffer from  any blemish or improvements. The High Court has  made these  observations ignoring the material on record which  has been  highlighted  by  the  learned  trial Judge. He  further submitted  that similarly the evidence of Sukha PW  3 has  been wrongly  rejected by the High Court on the ground  that his presence at the place of occurrence was doubtful which is very much established from the evidence on record as  pointed out  by the learned trial Judge which has not been  considered by the High Court at all resulting into serious miscarriage  of justice.  He submitted that the High Court has  faulted in  all the  material aspects  and  taken patently as  erroneous view  that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt against the respondents. 8.   We have  critically examined  the material on record as well as  the judgments  of the  trial court  and that of the High Court  and find that there is merit and great substance

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

in the submissions made above by the learned counsel for the appellants. It  may be stated that Hazara Singh, PW 2 made a categorical statement  that about  3-4 months  prior to  the occurrence Kulwant  Singh the  elder brother of Jinder Singh was beaten by the deceased Ran Singh and his son Avtar Singh for committing the rape on the young and blind wife of Dhyan Singh, elder  brother of deceased Ran Singh but no challenge to this piece of evidence was made. On the contrary from the suggestion made  to  the  witness  Hazara  Singh  in  cross- examination that the young wife of Dhyan Singh was a lady of easy virtues  and was  once found  in compromising  position with one  Amar Singh,  indicated that  the accused  did  not dispute the  earlier occurrence  with Kulwant  Singh.  These facts undoubtedly  do provide  a motive  for the  crime. But surprisingly enough the High Court rejected the same by mere vague observation that there was no impelling motive for the appellants to  commit the  crime which  is erroneous  on the face of it, being against the weight of evidence on record. 9.   Coming to  the  presence  of  light  at  the  place  of occurrence we  find the  High Court has against faultered in taking the view that there was any want of light in order to enable the  witnesses to identify the culprits. First of all it  may   be  pointed   out  that   admittedly  the  accused respondents are  closely known  persons  to  the  witnesses. Secondly the  learned trial  Judge  on  examination  of  the calendar noticed that the date of occurrence was the 4th day after "Pooranmashi"  from which it is evidence that the moon had arisen  on the  night of occurrence at about 8.30 PM and had set down at about 9.57 AM. That being so it was almost a full moon lit night which would have been sufficient for the witnesses to  see the  assailants who  were known  to  them. Thirdly, Ext.  PD is  a site plan of the place of occurrence and according  to the  site plan  at point  ‘F’ there was an electric pole  with double  electric tube-light.  Further at point ‘G’  there was  an electric bulb installed in the neem tree. All this evidence has not been appreciated by the High Court before coming to the conclusion that there was want of light simply  on the  basis that Sukha PW 3 stated in cross- examination that  after  arrival  of  the  police  inspector writing work  was done  in the  head light of motor-cycle if Avtar Singh.  It may be noted that for writing purposes more light is required and, therefore, the assistance of the head light of  motor-cycle may  have been  taken but  it does not mean that  from the  light already  available  as  discussed above was  not sufficient  to identify  an individual. It is thus clear  that the  High Court  took patently an erroneous view in  recording the  finding that it was not possible for the eye-witnesses  to  identify  the  culprits  which  is  a perverse view and contrary to the evidence on record. 10.  Further, the  High Court  rejected the testimony of the eye-witness Hazara Singh, PW 2 on the ground of improvements made in  the Court  statement in-as-much as he did not state in the  FIR Ext.PB  that the accused respondent Baldev Singh had wrapped  the Parna  around the  neck of the deceased and dragged him  and that  he stated  before the police that the injuries were  caused to his father by the appellants on his face and  head but  no mention  of it  is to be found in the FIR. It  is unfortunate  that  the  High  Court  made  these observations without  properly  examining  the  material  on record. It  may be  noticed that the inquest report Ext PA/1 is a  contemporaneous document  prepared soon  after the FIR was recorded.  A perusal  of this  inquest report will go to show  that   it  is   mentioned  therein  that  the  accused respondent Baldev  Singh had  wrapped the  Parna around  the neck of  deceased Ran  Singh and  had dragged  him.  A  mere

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

omission therefore  in the FIR is hardly of any consequence. The  medial   evidence  which  has  been  discussed  earlier indicated that  the deceased  had a  circular and horizontal reddish contusion  around the  neck and  contusion over  the left eye  and the  cheek as  well as  on the  forehead which indicated the  assault on  the face  and  head.  There  are, therefore,  neither   any  improvements   nor  any  material omissions in the statement of Hazara Singh, PW 2 as observed by the  High Court.  To reject  the  evidence  of  the  eye- witnesses on  the ground  that there was no dragging mark is again fallacious. It is clear from the evidence that all the area around  the place  of occurrence,  paddy was  stored of different persons  and some blood was found in paddy itself. That being so there will hardly be any marks of dragging. 11.  This bring  us to  the evidence  of Sukha  Singh, PW  3 whose presence  at the  place of occurrence has been doubted by the  High Court simply on the ground that he does not any land and, therefore, there was no reason for him to be there in the  grain market.  This finding is again contrary to the evidence on  record. Patwari  Kishan  Chand,  DW  1  himself deposed that on the death of Surinder Singh husband of Ishar Kaur his  estate  was  inherited  by  his  widow,  sons  and daughter including Jasmer Kaur. He further stated that Sukha Singh, PW  3 and  Lakhvinder Singh  are sons of Jasmer Kaur, daughter of  Ishar Kaur. From this evidence it is abundantly clear that Jasbir Kaur mother of Sukha Singh, PW3 owned land in the same village Churni where Sukha Singh resided. It is, therefore, no  correct to  say that  Sukha Singh had no land and for  that reason  he had  no business to go to the grain market. His  presence at the place of occurrence, therefore, cannot be doubted. 12.  It was contended on behalf of the respondents that Ajit Singh, the commission agent and owner of shop No. 18 thought present at  the place  of occurrence  and was an independent person but  he was  not examined by the prosecution and only interested witnesses  were examined  but we  do not find any force in  this submission  as Ajit  Singh though  cited as a prosecution witness  was given  up as he was won over. Under these facts  and circumstances  it was not necessary for the prosecution to examine him. 13.  The High  Court also  raised a doubt in the prosecution story on the ground that the FIR was lodged late and special report was  also sent  late to  the Ilaqa Magistrate. In our opinion this  observation of  the High  Court also cannot be accepted. The  incident had  occurred at 12.30 AM and within half an hour the FIR was lodged at 1.00 AM. According to the evidence of Balvant Singh PW 6, he had sent the constable at 1.30  AM   to  deliver  the  special  report  to  the  Ilaqa Magistrate which  no doubt  was delivered  at about 3.15 AM. The fact  could not  be lost sight of that the constable had left with  the special report after 1.30 AM and at that hour of dead  of night, he must have taken some time to reach the residence of  Ilaqa Magistrate.  He  must  have  found  some difficulty in  awakening him in the mid night to deliver the special  report.   In  these  facts  and  circumstances  the employment of about 2 hours in delivering the special report cannot be  considered of  any  serious  consequence  in  the absence of  any prejudice  to the  accused persons.  We have examined  the  impugned  judgment  and  material  on  record critically. We find that the view taken by the High Court is patently erroneous and, therefore, could not be sustained. 14.  In the  result  the  appeals  succeed  and  are  hereby allowed. The  impugned judgment  of the  High Court  setting aside the  conviction and sentence of the respondents is set aside and  the judgment  of the  trial  court  is  restored.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

Respondents are  on bail.  They are directed to surrender to serve out their sentences.