IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.              OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 695 of 2001)

State of Punjab     ..Appellant    

Versus

Atma Singh and Ors.  ..Respondents

With Criminal Appeal Nos. 696-697 of 2001

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J

1. These appeals are inter-linked and are directed against the judgment  

of  a  Division  Bench  of  the  Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court.  By  the  

impugned  judgment  the  High  Court  allowed  the  appeal  filed  by  the  

respondents. The appeal before the High Court was numbered as Criminal  

Appeal  No.406-DB  of  1996.  The  learned  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  

Amritsar had found the accused persons guilty of various offences.  Accused  

Lal Singh was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of the  

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) while Dial Singh, Atma Singh,

Sajjan  Singh and  Karam Singh were  found guilty  of  offence  punishable  

under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Accused Dial Singh was also  

found guilty of offence punishable under section 302 IPC while four others  

were found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section  

149 IPC.  All  the five accused persons were guilty of  offence punishable  

under Section 148 IPC. Accused Lal Singh was  found guilty of offence  

punishable  under Section 307 IPC while accused Lal Singh, Atma Singh,  

Sajjan  Singh and  Karam Singh were  found guilty  of  offence  punishable  

under Section 307 read with section 149 IPC. Accused Atma Singh, Sajjan  

Singh  and  Karam Singh  were  found  guilty  of  offence  punishable  under  

Section 324 IPC. Accused Lal Singh and Dial Singh were found guilty of  

offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC. Accused  

Lal Singh and Dial Singh were also found guilty under Section 27 of arms  

act, 1959 (in short the ‘Arms Act’).  

2. It is to be noted that Criminal Revision No.279 of 1997 was filed by  

Atma Singh and Others and it was taken up alongwith Criminal Appeal as  

noted  above.  The  High  Court  by  the  impugned  judgment  held  that  the  

prosecution case suffers from various infirmities and, therefore, allowed the  

appeal.  

2

3. Prosecution  version  in  a  nutshell  as  unfolded  during  trial  was  as  

follows:

At about 6.45 p.m. on 11.2.1993 Mal Singh (PW-1) accompanied by  

his sons Major Singh and Bhupinder Singh was returning to his dhani in the  

fields after closing the shop. When they were on the kacha path leading to  

the house of accused Lal Singh, they were confronted by Lal Singh armed  

with a DBBL gun, Atma Singh with a Gandassi, Sajjan Singh with a kirpan,  

Karam Singh with a datar, while Dial Singh son of Lal Singh was empty  

handed. On seeing Mal Singh and his sons, the accused raised a lalkara that  

the opposite party should be done to death for getting their relatives arrested  

by the Batala Police. At this, Lal Singh fired a shot from his gun, which hit  

Major Singh on his chest, receiving which he fell down on the ground. Lal  

Singh fired another shot which hit Bhupinder Singh on his right arm after  

which he took shelter in the fields and raised a halla. On hearing the noise,  

Dalip  Kaur  W/o  Mal  Singh and  his  sons  Mohinder  Singh  and  Manohar  

Singh came to the spot and tried to rescue them. Sajjan Singh and Atma  

Singh then gave one blow each to Mohinder Singh on his head, on receiving  

which he fell down on the ground. Karam Singh then gave a datar  blow on  

the head of Mohinder Singh and when Dalip Kaur  came forward to rescue  

3

them, Dial Singh snatched the gun from  his father Lal Singh and fired a shot  

on her head and she too fell down. Mal Singh and  his son Manohar Singh  

raised a raula on which all the accused ran away carrying  with them their  

weapons.  Mal  Singh  and  Manohar  Singh   came forward  and found  that  

Dalip  Kaur   and  Major  Singh  had  succumbed  to  their  injuries.  Leaving  

Manohar Singh near the dead bodies, Mal Singh  rushed to Amritsar and got  

a vehicle  to take the injured sons Mohinder Singh and Bhupinder Singh to  

the hospital.  He however came across a police party headed by S.I. Satwant  

Singh (PW-13) at the bus stand of Khalchain, who recorded Mal Singh’s  

statement at  0.05 a.m. on 12.2.1993 and on its basis the formal FIR was  

registered at Police Station 30 minutes later with the special report being  

delivered to the Illaqa Magistrate at 6.11 p.m. on 12.2.1993. Sub Inspector  

Satwant Singh thereafter  accompanied by the complainant and other police  

officials  reached village Kaleke. He examined the place of incident in the  

presence of respectable persons of the village and completed the necessary  

formalities. He also picked up 4 empty cartridge cases of .12 bore DBBL  

from the spot. Accused Lal Singh and Dial Singh were arrested on 26.2.1993  

and on the basis of  the disclosure statement made by Lal Singh a licensed  

DBBL gun was duly  recovered.  Accused Atma Singh,  Sajjan  Singh and  

Karam Singh  were  arrested  on  March  4,  1993  and  on  the  basis  of  the  

4

disclosure statements made by them the weapons of offence that they had  

been carrying were also recovered. On completion of investigation charge  

sheet was filed. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, trial was held.  

In  the  present  appeals  the  informant  and  the  State  of  Punjab  had  

question the acquittal directed by the  High Court. The High Court primarily  

directed acquittal on the ground that there was delay in lodging the FIR and  

there is doubt  about the weapon used. It was also observed that there was  

delay in delivery of the special report  of Illaqa Magistrate. The direction of  

injuries  was  referred to  by  the  High Court.  In  that  view the prosecution  

version was held to be not acceptable.  

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court has  

come to contradictory conclusions. It has even over-looked the concession  

made by learned counsel appearing before the High Court that either there  

was delay in lodging the FIR or in sending the special report to the Illaqa  

Magistrate.   The High Court also completely ignored the evidence of Dr.  

B.R. Sharma. The High Court acquitted the respondents  on “the possibility  

therefore  that  the  defence  story  may  just  be  correct  cannot  be  ignored.”  

There was no notice taken  of the concession made by learned counsel for  

5

the accused persons  that there could be no doubt  that Dalip Kaur had died  

of  gun  shot  as  wads  and  pellets  have  been  recovered   from  her  body.  

Unfortunately,  the  High Court  acquitted  the  accused from the murder  of  

Dalip Kaur also.

5. Learned  counsel for the respondents on the  other hand submitted that  

the  High  Court  has  analysed  the  evidence  in  great  detail  and  found the  

evidence  of  the  so  called  eye  witnesses  to  be  not  cogent  and  even  the  

evidence of Dr. S.N. Sharma (C.W.1) did not fit in the prosecution version  

and in any event  considering the limited scope of interference  with the  

judgment of acquittal no interference should be made.  

6. The first aspect which has been highlighted by the High Court was  

purported delay in lodging the FIR. The trial Court  noted that there was in  

fact no delay and even if there was some delay the same was satisfactorily  

explained.  The occurrence took place at 6.30 p.m. on 11.2.1993. FIR was  

lodged  at  about  12.00  mid  night.  The  dead  body  was  dispatched  to  the  

mortuary and reached there at 1.40 p.m. Police papers reached there at 4.40  

p.m. and the special report was received at 6.11 p.m.  on 12.2.1993.  The  

explanation given to explain the so called delay was that two sons of Mal  

6

Singh   were  seriously  injured  and  the  first  reaction  was  to  provide  the  

medical  facilities to them and accordingly he took them to Amritsar,  got  

them admitted  to  the  hospital  and  immediately  thereafter   the  FIR  was  

registered. Therefore, there is absolutely no delay in lodging the FIR.   

7. The trial Court noticed that if the special report reached late it was  

fault  of  the  investigating  officer.  The  High  Court  came  to  an  abrupt  

conclusion that the police papers reached the doctor at 4.40 p.m. and it was  

therefore apparent that the FIR could have been registered at any time prior  

to that fixed moment.  There was no reason for the High Court to conclude  

that  the  FIR  was  registered  belatedly.  The  investigating  officer  reached  

immediately after the occurrence, prepared two inquest reports, FIR number  

was also received and the same was put on the inquest reports and all the  

papers were required to be handed over to the Head Constable Daljit Singh  

(PW-9) who was deputed to take dead body to Mortuary.   

8. Coming to the so called variance between the ocular evidence and the  

medical evidence it was essentially because of the weapon that was used.  

The High Court put unnecessary stress on the use of the expression ‘shot’  

and ‘shots’. Illiterate witnesses hardly know the difference.  The exact words  

7

used by the  witness  are  “on receiving the  fire  shots  the  deceased Major  

Singh  fell down on the ground”. Therefore, he has meant definitely more  

than one shot and not one shot. Additionally, four empty cartridges of 12  

bore were recovered from the place of incident. Therefore, obviously there  

should not have been one shot fired.  Shots fired on Dalip Kaur were clearly  

from the weapon described by the  prosecution  as  wads and pellets  were  

found in the wounds. As noted above, there was clear concession by learned  

counsel for the accused that in the light of the report given by Dr. Gurmanjit  

Rai  there could be no doubt that Dalip Kaur had died of gun shot wounds as  

wads  and  pellets  have  been  recovered  from  her  body.  The  High  Court  

unfortunately did not consider the relevance of this concession.  The High  

Court observed that the concession had been made rightly, but it further said  

that there was doubt about the weapon used on Major Singh. Even if that be  

so,  there  was  no  scope  for  directing  acquittal  of  the  accused  persons  in  

respect of murder of Dalip Kaur.  

9. Coming to the question of testimony of three injured eye witnesses the  

trial Court noticed that their statements were flawless and nothing has come  

out  in their  cross examination on the basis of which any doubt could be  

created about their veracity.   The place was a secluded one.  The incident  

8

took place  on the turning of the passage. The incident continued sufficiently  

for a long time which was clear from the fact that many shots were fired,  

firstly by Lal Singh then by his son Dial Singh resulting in the death of  

Major  Singh  and  his  mother  Dalip  Kaur  and  injuries  to  some  of  the  

witnesses.   

10. The High Court discarded the credible evidence of the eye witnesses  

on mere surmises and conjectures.  

11. It is to be noted that during the hearing of Criminal Appeal No.406 of  

1996 a Bench of the High Court hearing the matter on 9.9.1997, came to a  

tentative  conclusion  that  opinion  of  the  ballistic  expert  should  be  made  

available to the Court and on 8.9.2000 the expert was examined as a court  

witness in the High Court.  The High Court referred to the statements of Dr.  

Rai and Dr. S.N. Sharma and without any basis the High Court said that the  

evidence of Dr. Rai must be given more weightage as he conducted the post  

mortem examination on the dead bodies.  While quoting Dr. B.R. Sharma it  

did not notice Table first entry LG No. of pellets 6 diameter 9.14 mm.  It  

was in complete accord with the evidence of CW-1 where it is stated that LG  

size is 9.14 m.m. In the opinion dated 16.12.1997 it was noted that injuries  

9

Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 7 on the person of Major Singh could be caused by one shot  

provided  the  same  cartridge  is  loaded  with  four  or  more  of  the  same  

dimension.  Though there should not be interference with the judgment of  

acquittal where the view taken is a possible view, but where conclusions are  

without any foundation, there is need to interfere with the judgment of the  

appellate Court.  

12. In the instant case the analysis done by the trial Court was appropriate  

and  the  High  Court  should  not  have  on  mere  surmises  and  conjectures  

interfered with the judgment of the trial Court  and directed the acquittal. In  

the result, the appeals are allowed. It is to be noted that respondent No.1-

Atma  Singh  died  on  26.9.2001.  Other  accused  persons  are  directed  to  

surrender to custody forthwith to serve the remainder of sentence.  

13. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.    

………………………………….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

………………………………….J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi, May 08, 2009

10