IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.977 OF 2000

Gurdev Singh & Ors.        ...Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Punjab       ...Respondent(s)

With Criminal Appeal No.101 of 2001

O  R  D  E  R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

All  the  three  appellants  of  Criminal  Appeal  No.977  of  2000,  namely,

Gurdev  Singh,  Harpal  Singh  and  Jugraj  Singh,  along  with  two  respondents  of

Criminal Appeal No.101 of 2001, namely, Balbir singh and Ajmer Singh, were tried

and, by judgement rendered by the Trial Court, were acquitted of all the charges.  On

appeal  being  prefered  by  the  State  of  Punjab,  High  Court  upheld  the  order  of

acquittal  in  relation  to accused Balbir  Singh and Ajmer Singh whereas convicted

appellants of Criminal Appeal No.977 of 2000 under Section 302 read with Section 34

of  the  Indian  Penal  Code,  1860,  and  sentenced  them  to  undergo  rigorous

imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rupees five thousand each; in default,  to

undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.  Against the order

of acquittal, Criminal Appeal No.101 of 2001 has been filed on behalf of the State of

Punjab whereas three convicted accused persons have filed Criminal Appeal No.977

of 2000 challenging their conviction.

Conviction of the appellants of Criminal Appeal No.977 of 2000 is based

upon  the  evidence  of  two  eye-witnesses,  namely  P.W.2  [Balaur  Singh]  and  P.W.3

[Chand Singh].   We have been taken through the evidence of these witnesses and,

according to us, they have consistently supported  the  prosecution  case  disclosed  in

the   First

....2/-

- 2 -  

Information  Report  as  well  as  police  statements  made  by  them  on  material

particulars.   In  our  view,  the  Trial  Court  was  not  justified  in  refusing  to  place

reliance upon their evidence on minor contradictions.   

Having perused the judgements rendered by the two courts below, we are

of  the  view that  the  judgement of  acquittal  in  relation to  accused  Gurdev  Singh,

Harpal singh and Jugraj Singh suffered from the vice of perversity; as such, the High

Court was quite justified in interfering with the same.  So far as accused Balbir Singh

and Ajmer Singh are concerned, it appears that the view taken by the Trial Court

was a possible one and benefit of doubt could have been given to them; as such, the

High  Court  confirmed  the  same.   We  are  of  the  view  that  the  prosecution  has

succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Gurdev Singh,

Harpal Singh and Jugraj Singh.  The order of acquittal and its confirmation by the

High Court in relation to accused Balbir Singh and Ajmer Singh cannot be said to be

perverse in any manner.  In view of these facts, we do not find any ground to interfere

with the impugned order.  In the result, the appeals fail and the same are dismissed.

Bail  bonds  of  the  three  appellants  of  Criminal  Appeal  No.977  of  2000,

namely, Gurdev Singh, Harpal Singh and Jugraj Singh, who are on bail, are cancelled

and they are directed to be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining

period of sentence for which the matter must be reported to this Court within one

month from the date of receipt/ production of copy of this order.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, December 10, 2008.