IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1979 OF 2008

AMRIK SINGH APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB RESPONDENT

O R D E R  

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order  

dated 23rd May, 2008, passed by the High Court of Punjab and  

Haryana at Chandigarh setting aside the order of acquittal  

of  the  appellant  herein  passed  by  the  trial  Court  and  

directing his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian  

Penal  Code  for  the  murder  of  one,  Sampuran  Singh  and  

sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment, and pay a fine  

of Rs. 5,000/-.

2. The appellant was charged for an offence punishable  

under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.    The learned  

trial Court, however, on completion of the trial, acquitted  

the appellant herein on grounds set out in its judgment  

dated  21.4.1999.   Being  aggrieved  by  the  said  order  of  

acquittal, the State preferred an appeal before the High  

Court of Punjab and Haryana.  After hearing the parties,  

the High Court set aside the said order of acquittal giving  

1

reasons  for  setting  aside  the  same.    The  reasons  for  

disturbing the order of acquittal are set out by the High  

Court in paragraph 31 of the judgment impugned herein.

3. We have carefully scrutinised the reasons given by the  

trial Court in the order of acquittal as also the reasons  

given  by  the  High  Court  for  disturbing  the  order  of  

acquittal.  Having  examined  the  same,  we  are  of  the  

considered  opinion  that  the  High  court  was  justified  in  

reversing  the  order  of  acquittal.   In  our  considered  

opinion,  the  order  of  acquittal  was  palpably  wrong  and  

erroneous in view of the evidence brought on record.

4. P.W. 7 is an independent witness.   He had seen the  

occurrence and has in his evidence given details as to how  

the incident had occurred which could not be shaken at all  

in the cross examination.  On appreciation of the evidence,  

we would find that his evidence is cogent and trustworthy.  

We find no reasonable ground to disbelieve his evidence.  

P.W. 8 is the wife of the appellant.  According to the  

First Information Report, she was also an eye-witness to  

the  occurrence.   She  had  also  given  a  statement  under  

Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as if she was  

an  eye  witness  to  the  occurrence  and  stating  about  the  

specific  role  of  the  appellant.   However,  while  being  

examined as a witness, she had become hostile.   Even if we  

2

do not consider her evidence, the evidence of P.W. 7 being  

trustworthy  and  reliable  and  being  of  unimpeachable  in  

nature, we see no reason why conviction cannot be sustained  

on  the  basis  of  the  evidence  of  P.W.  7  alone.   It  is  

settled  law  that  conviction  could  be  based  only  on  the  

basis of the evidence of solitary witness, if such evidence  

is found to be cogent.  The Court committed an error in  

discarding such strong and cogent evidence on frivolous and  

irrelevant grounds.

5. In that view of the matter, we find no infirmity in  

the judgment passed by the High Court.  There is no merit  

in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.

            ……………… ………………………….…………J [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA]

…………………………………………………….J [A.K. PATNAIK]

NEW DELHI MARCH 17, 2010

3