http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: JARNAIL SINGH AND ANR.  ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/01/1993

BENCH: SINGH N.P. (J) BENCH: SINGH N.P. (J) REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)

CITATION:  1993 SCR  (1) 260        1993 SCC  Supl.  (3)  91  JT 1993 (1)   207        1993 SCALE  (1)153

ACT: Criminal Law: Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections  3O2,  149  and   Motive-Relevancy  of-Held   where positive evidence is cogent, clear and reliable motive is of no      importance-Family      members-Eye-witnesses-Whether independent evidence required. Evidence Act, 1872: Chapter   IX-Murder-Evidence  of  family  members  as   eye- witnesses-Reliability of.

HEADNOTE: The first appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 192/1980 and  his four sons were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1908 and sentenced to  undergo rigorous  imprisonments for life.  They were also  convicted and  sentenced  to one year’s  rigorous  imprisonment  under Section 148 of the Code. According  to the prosecution, a son of the first  appellant and  a daughter of P.W. 4 fell in love with each  other  but due  to  opposition from P.W. 4’s  husband,  their  marriage could not take place and both of them committed suicide, and therefore,  the  first  appellant and his four  sons  had  a grudge  that P.W. 4’s husband was responsible for the  death of  the  first appellant’s son; that two  months  thereafter when  P.W. 4’s husband and his elder brother were  returning to  the village from town in a bullock-cart along with  P.W. 4, P.W. 5,her daughter and P.W. 6, her son-in-law, the  five accused,  who  were  coming in a  truck  from  the  opposite direction  got down from the truck, chased P.W. 4’s  husband and his elder brother, who were running away, and  assaulted them with Gandasa and Lathies and after boarding the  truck, drove the truck over the two brothers, that when P.W. 4 to 6 went near the two brothers they found them dead and a  First Information Report was lodged, and a postmortem was held. 261 On  the  basis  of the evidence adduced  on  behalf  of  the prosecution, including that of PWs 4 to 6, the Session Judge came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the five  accused  were  fully established.   This  finding  was upheld by the High Court. In  the appeal before this Court, on behalf of  the  accused

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

persons  it was contended that a false case had been set  up against  them by PW 4, who had not seen the  occurrence  but having  learnt  the  death  of her  husband  and  his  elder brother,  became an eye-witness along with PWs 5 and 6,  her daughter and son-in-law respectively, only to implicate  the accused  persons,  that there was no  immediate  motive  for commission  of  such  a serious offence  in  the  facts  and circumstances  of the case, that it would not be  proper  to accept  the motive alleged on behalf of the prosecution  and that the eye-witnesses being only the members of the family, some independent evidence was required.             Dismissing the appeals, this Court, HELD:     1.1.  Where  the  positive  evidence  against  the accused  is  clear,  cogent and reliable,  the  question  of motive  is of no importance.  But, at the same time,  motive behind  a crime is a relevant fact and normally  prosecution is   expected  to  adduce  evidence  in   respect   thereto. Experience shows that one or other motive moves the  culprit to a certain course of action. Gurcharan  Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1956  S.C.  460; Narayan Nathu Naik v. The State of Maharashtra, A.I.R.  1971 S.C. 1656; Podda Narayana v. State of A.P., A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1252;  Faquira  v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1976 S.C.  915  and Molu v. State of Haryana, A.I.P. 1976 S.C. 24", relied on. 1.2. Normally  there is a motive behind every  criminal  act and  that  is why the investigating agency as  well  as  the Court  while examining the complicity of an  accused,  first try  to  ascertain as to what was the  driving  force  which compelled the accused to commit the crime in question.   But with complex growth of society and which has ’also  produced complex  characters,  the actions and  reactions  of  person either on the accuse side or on the prosecution side are not very easy to ascertain and judge.  It is a matter of  common experience  that  even  a  small  or  trifle  incident   has different reaction on different persons.  That is why it  is not  always  easy  for the Court to weigh and  judge  as  to whether under the circumstances 262 brought  on record by the prosecution, In normal course  the accused  concerned  could  have  acted  as  alleged  by  the prosecution. 13.  In  cases where prosecution is not able to establish  a motive  behind  the  alleged  crime  it  assumes  importance specially   in   cases  where  the  prosecution   rests   on circumstantial evidence or on witnesses who have an inimical background.   Proof  of  motive on the pad  of  the  accused persons  to  commit an offence satisfies the  judicial  mind about the likelihood of the authorship but in its absence it is  only  proper on the part of the Court to have  a  deeper search.   But  if  the  Court  is  satisfied  that  evidence adduced,  oral  or circumstantial,  establishes  the  charge against the accused, the prosecution case cannot be rejected saying  that there was no immediate impelling motive on  the part of the accused persons to commit the crime. 1.4. In  the  present case, the son of the  first  appellant committed  suicide two months before the date of  occurrence because  of the attitude taken by PW 4’s  deceased  husband. It  can  be said that there was no  immediate  motive  which impelled the accused persons to commit the murder of the two brothers  in broad day light in such cruel manner.  But  the death  of the son in a tragic circumstance must have  shaken the  family and there is nothing unnatural or  unusual  that because  or  that,  the first appellant and  his  four  sons having  seen the deceased coming to village on bullock  cart decided to eliminate him.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

1.5. That  apart, if the evidence adduced on behalf  of  the prosecution  is accepted, then whether there  was  immediate motive  for committing the offence looses all  significance. The  present  case  has many special  features  which  weigh heavily  against the accused persons and it is not  easy  on their  part to dislodge them.  In cases relating  to  murder the  time  taken  in  lodging  the  F.I.R.  assumes  special significance.  The fact that P.W. 4 lodged the F.I.R. within an  hour of the occurrence giving the details of the  manner of occurrence lends corroboration to her testimony in  Court regarding  the participation of the accused persons  in  the present  occurrence.  The manner of occurrence disclosed  by P.W.  4  in  the  F.I.R.  was  fully  corroborated  by   the postmortem  examination  reports.  The  two  doctors  during postmortem examinations found that injury No. 7 on the chest of  P.W. 4’s husband and injury No. 11 on his brother  could have been caused by the wheel of the truck passing over  the chest of P.W. 4’s 263 husband and any blunt part of the truck striking against the body of his brother.  This not only corroborates the version disclosed  by  P.W. 4 in the F.I.R. but goes a long  way  to establish the correctness thereof. 1.6. The  members of the family, if present at the  time  of occurrence  are  the most natural  witnesses.   The  version disclosed in the F.I.R. has been supported by 3 eyewitnesses P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6. There is no reason to doubt their testimony only on the ground that they were closely  related to  the  victims.   There is no evidence to  show  that  any person  after  the  occurrence  appeared  at  the  scene  to engineer  the  present  case against them.   P.W.  4,  whose husband  and elder brother of her husband had  succumbed  to the  injuries, was left alone to pursue the post  occurrence steps without help or assistance from anyone else. 1.7. There  is  no  reason to  interfere  with  the  finding recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos.  192- 193 of 1980. From the Judgment and Order dated 4.9.1979 of the Punjab and Haryana  High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 760 and  759  of 1977. R.L. Kohli, U.R. Lalit and K.K. Mohan for the Appellants. A.M.  Singhvi, Ms. Renu George, Ms. Indu Malhotra  and  I.S. Goyal for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.P.  SINGH, J. These appeals have been filed on  behalf  of five accused persons, who have been convicted under  section 302  read with section 149 of the Penal Code for  committing murder  of  Gurbux  Singh and Wasava  Singh  and  have  been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonments for fife.   They have also been convicted under section 148 of the Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. It  is  the case of the prosecution that Rulwant  Kaur,  the daughter  of Gurbux Singh (deceased) and Raghbir Singh,  son of Jarnail Singh, one of the accused fell in love with  each other.   As  the  marriage  could  not  materialise  due  to opposition, two months prior to the date of occurrence, 264 both  of  them committed suicide.  It is said  that  accused Jarnail  Singh  and  his four sons who are  the  other  four

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

accused  had a grudge against Gurbux Singh that  the  latter was responsible for the death of Raghbir Singh aforesaid. On  25.9.1974  before noon Gurbux Singh, his  elder  brother Wasava  Singh  along  with Surjit Kaur (PW 4)  the  wife  of Gurbux  Singh, Sukhwant Kaur (PW 5) the daughter  of  Gurbux Singh, and Surinder Singh (PW 6) son-in-law of Gurbux  Singh were returning to their village from Sirsa in a bullock-cart after selling green fodder and making some purchases in  the market.  On the way they saw from the opposite side the five accused  coming  in a trust which stopped in  front  of  the bullock  cart.  All the five accused persons got  down  from the  truck and raised a Lalkara "DUSHMANO KO JAN SE  MAR  DO JANE  NA  PAYEN".  Accused Karma was armed  with  a  Gandasa whereas the three brothers and Jarnail Singh were armed with lathis.   Seeing  the accused persons Gurbux Singh  and  his brother  Wasava  Singh got down from  the  bullock-cart  and started  running  away.  They were chased  and  the  accused persons  assaulted  both  of  them  with  their   respective weapons.   Ultimately they fell down.  The  accused  persons then raised an alarm "BAHANCHOD BACH NA JAWEN TRUCK BHE UPAR PHER  DO".  Thereafter all the five accused persons  boarded the  truck.   Accused Mohani sat at the steering  wheel  and drove the truck over the bodies of two victims Gurbux  Singh and  Wasava  Singh.  After the accused persons  left  Surjit Kaur (PW 4), her daughter (PW 5) and son-in-law (PW 6)  went near the victims and found them dead. The First Information Report was lodged at 12.30 P.M. A copy of the said F.I.R. reached the Magistrate concerned by  2.15 P.M.   The  Investigating  Officer  reached  the  place   of occurrence,  held  inquest  and recorded  the  statement  of witnesses including the aforesaid Sukhwant Kaur and Surinder Singh.   PW 2 and PW 3 are doctors who held the post  mortem examination  of Gurbux Singh and Wasava  Singh  respectively the same day at 5.30 P.M. During the post mortem examination on  the  persons  of Gurbux Singh 13  injuries  were  found. Injury  No.  7  was contusion 14’ x 7 1/4 on  the  front  of chest.   On  dissection, collection of blood was  found  and upper  seven on right side and upper eight on left  side  of the ribs were found to have been fractured.  Both lungs were badly lacerated.  Heart was also badly lacerated along  with pleura.  According to the opinion of the Doctor (PW 2),  who held the post mortem examination of the body of 265 Gurbux Singh, the aforesaid injury No. 7 could be caused  by wheel of the truck passing over the portion of chest of  the deceased.   The  Doctor  (PW 3), who held  the  post  mortem examination  of  the  dead-body of Wasava  Singh,  found  21 injuries  on his person.  Injury No. 11 found on the  person of  Wasava  Singh was raddish contusion 11" x 1 1/2  on  the middle  of  the upper part of the chest.  According  to  the Doctor,  the  said injury No. 11 could be  possible  by  any blunt part of a truck striking against the body.  During the investigation at the instance of accused Karma, the  Gandasa with  blood  stain  was  recovered  and  lathis  were   also recovered from the possession of the accused persons, In view of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution including  that of Surjit Kaur (PW 4), Sukhwant Kaur (PW  5) and her husband Surinder Singh (PW 6), the learned  Sessions Judge  came  to  the conclusion that  the  charges  levelled against the five accused persons have been fully established which finding has been upheld by the High Court. According  to the appellants, a false case has been  set  up against  them  by Surjit Kaur (PW 4), the  widow  of  Gurbux Singh,  who had not seen the occurrence, but  having  learnt the  death  of Gurbux Singh and Wasava Singh became  an  eye

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

witness  along  with  her daughter and  son-in-law  only  to implicate  the accused persons.  The counsel  appearing  for the  accused  aforesaid  pointed  out  that  there  was   no immediate  motive for commission of such serious offence  in the facts and circumstances of the case and it shall not  be proper  to  accept  the  motive alleged  on  behalf  of  the prosecution  that  as the son of accused Jarnail  Singh  and daughter  of  Gurbux Singh had committed suicide,  as  their marriage  could  not materialise because  of  the  objection raised  by Gurbux Singh, accused Jarnail Singh and his  four sons  chased  the  two victims on the  road,  and  not  only assaulted them but also crushed them by the truck. It  is  true that normally there is a  motive  behind  every criminal  act  and that is why the investigating  agency  as well  as  the  Court while examining the  complicity  of  an accused,  first try to ascertain as to what was the  driving force  which  compelled the accused to commit the  crime  in question.  But with complex growth of society and which  has also produced complex characters, the actions and  reactions of persons either on the accused side or on the  prosecution side  are  not very easy to ascertain and judge.   It  is  a matter of common experience that even a small or trifle 266 incident has different reaction on different persons.   That is  why  it is not always easy for the Court  to  weigh  and judge  as  to  whether under the  circumstances  brought  on record  by  the prosecution, in normal  course  the  accused concerned could have acted as alleged by the prosecution. That  is  why this Court has repeatedly expressed  the  view that  where  the positive evidence against  the  accused  is clear, cogent and reliable, the question of motive is of  no importance.  Reference may be made to the cases of Gurcharan Singh  v.  State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 460,  Narayan  Nathu Naik v. The State of Maharashtar AIR 1971 SC 1656 = [1971] 1 SCR 133, Podda Narayana v. State of A.P., AIR 1975 SC 1252 = [1975] 4 SCC 153, Faquira v. State of U.P., AIR 1976 SC  915 =  [1976] 1 SCC 662, and Molu v. State of Haryana, AIR  1976 SC 2499 = [1976] 4 SCC 362.  But at the same time it must be impressed that motive behind a crime is a relevant fact and normally  prosecution  is  expected to  adduce  evidence  in respect thereof.  Experience shows that one or other  motive moves  the culprit to a certain course of action.  In  cases where  prosecution is not able to establish a motive  behind the alleged crime it assumes importance especially in  cases where the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence or on witnesses who have an inimical background.  Proof of  motive on  the  part of the accused persons to  commit  an  offence satisfies  the  judicial mind about the  likelihood  of  the authorship but in its absence it is only proper on the  part of  the Court to have a deeper search.  But if the Court  is satisfied  that  evidence  adduced  oral  or  circumstantial establishes the charge against the accused, the  prosecution case  cannot be rejected saying that there was no  immediate impelling  motive  on  the part of the  accused  persons  to commit the crime.   In  the  present case Raghbir Singh, the  son  of  accused Jarnail Singh, committed suicide two months before the  date of occurrence because of the attitude taken by the  deceased Gurbux  Singh is not in dispute.  It can be said that  there was  no immediate motive which impelled the accused  persons to  commit  the murder of Gurbux Singh and Wasava  Singh  in broad  day light in such a cruel manner.  But the  death  of Raghbir Singh in a tragic circumstance must have shaken  the family  and  there  is nothing  unnatural  or  unusual  that because of that Jarnail Singh and his four sons having  seen

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

Gurbux  Singh coming to village on bullock-cart  decided  to eliminate him. Apart  from  that if the evidence adduced on behalf  of  the prosecution 267 is  accepted  then whether there was  immediate  motive  for committing the offence loses all significance.  The  present case  has many special features which weigh heavily  against the  accused  persons and it is not easy on  their  part  to dislodge them.  The occurrence took place before noon.   The F.I.R.  was lodged at 12.30 P.M. within an hour.  A copy  of the F.I.R. was received by the concerned Magistrate by  2.25 P.M.,  the same day.  The Investigating Officer reached  the place  of  occurrence  before 4 P.M. Even  the  port  mortem examinations  of  the two victims were held by  two  doctors mentioned  above  by  5.30  P.M. the  same  day.   In  cases relating  to  murder the time taken in  lodging  the  F.I.R. assumes  special significance.  The F.I.R. being  the  first version  of the occurrence disclosed to the police  acts  as check on the part of the prosecution.  The fact that  Surjit Kaur  (PW  4) lodged  the F.I.R. within  an  hour  of  the occurrence,  giving the details of the manner of  occurrence lends corroboration to her testimony in Court regarding  the participation  of the accused persons in the present  occur- rence.   The manner of occurrence disclosed by  Surjit  Kaur (PW  4)  in the F.I.R. was fully corroborated  by  the  post mortem  examination  reports.  She stated in the  F.I.R.  at 12.30  P.M. that accused persons after having assaulted  the two  victims with Gandasa and Lathis, crushed them with  the wheel  of  the truck.  The two doctors  during  post  mortem examinations found that injury No. 7 on the chest of  Gurbux Singh  and  injury No. 11 on Wasava Singh  could  have  been caused  by the wheel of the truck passing over the chest  of Gurbux  Singh  and  any blunt part  of  the  truck  striking against   the   body  of  Wasava  Singh.   This   not   only corroborates the version disclosed by Surjit Kaur (PW 4)  in the F.I.R. but goes a long way to establish the  correctness thereof.   It  Surjit  Kaur (PW 4)  had  not  witnessed  the occurrence  as  suggested by accused persons  then  how  she could have mentioned in the F.I.R. that after assaulting the two  victims the accused persons entered into the truck  and crushed  the victims with the wheel of the truck,  which  is supported by the post mortem examination. The learned counsel could not point out from the evidence of Surjit  Kaur  (PW 4) which has been fully  accepted  by  the Trial  Court as well as the High Court as to on what  ground that  should be rejected.  The same is the position  so  far the evidence of Sukhwant Kaur (PW 5) and Surinder Singh  (PW 6).  About Sukhwant Kaur (PW 5) it was pointed out that  she was  not  present  at  the  place  of  occurrence  when  the Investigating  Officer  reached  and she  came  only  later. However,  so far Surinder Singh (PW 6) is concerned, he  was present when the Investigation.  Officer reached the 268 place of occurrence.  It was urged on behalf of the  accused persons that although Surjit Kaur (PW 4) had claimed in  her evidence  that she had made purchases in the  market  before returning  to the village but no such article was  found  in the bullock-cart.  On behalf of the accused the  traditional and conventional argument that the eye witnesses being  only the  members  of the family, some independent  evidence  was required,  was  also  advanced.   This  argument  has   been repeatedly rejected by this Court saying that the members of the family if present at the time of occurrence are the most natural  witnesses.  According to us, all these  submissions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

are  of no significance, in view of the fact that the  first information  report  was  lodged  within  an  hour  of   the occurrence;  a copy whereof was received by  the  Magistrate within  two  hours of the recording  thereof.   The  version disclosed  in  the F.I.R. has been supported  by  three  eye witnesses  PW 4, PW 5 and PW 6. We find no reason  to  doubt their  testimony only on the ground that they  were  closely related  to the victims.  There is no suggestion  much  less evidence  on behalf of the accused persons to show that  any person  after  the  occurrence  appeared  at  the  scene  to engineer  the present case against them.  It appears  Surjit Kaur  (PW 4) whose husband and elder brother of her  husband had succumbed to the injuries, was left alone to pursue  the post occurrence steps without help or assistance from anyone else. We find no reason to interfere with the finding recorded  by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court.   Therefore, the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. N.P.V.      Appeals dismissed. 269