REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1288 OF 2007

Jarnail Singh and Ors. …Appellants

Versus

State of Punjab ….Respondent  

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment  

and order dated 31st August, 2005 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court  

dismissing their appeals and affirming the conviction and sentence awarded  

by the Trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 8.1.2004 in Sessions

Trial under Sections 302, 148, 149, 307, 364, 342, 506, 201, 120-B of the  

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) and under Section 30 of the  

Arms Act, 1959 (in short the ‘Arms Act’) awarding life imprisonment and  

other sentences.  

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are,   that an  

First Information Report (in short the ‘FIR’) was lodged on 24th June, 2000  

on the basis of a statement  of Darshan Singh (PW-4) that he was living with  

his sister Gurcharan Kaur for the last 3½  years at village Nandpur as his  

nephew Gurjeet Singh, son of his sister Gurcharan Kaur, had been murdered  

by  Rattan  Singh and Balbir  Singh,  close  relatives  of  Gurcharan  Kaur  in  

1997.  On 23rd June, 2000 at about 10.00/11.00  p.m., when Darshan Singh  

(PW-4) was having his meal  at his tube well after preparing his fields for  

plantation of paddy crop, about 30 persons armed with fire arms came in  

five vehicles (cars and jeeps) from the side of village Dadiana.  They started  

shouting and firing shots in the air. They came to the tube well and caught  

hold of Darshan Singh (PW-4) and injuries were inflicted on him with the  

butts of rifle on his head, chest and back. Migrant labourers (migrated from  

Bihar)  sitting on the  tube well  also  suffered injuries.   There  had been a  

dispute on the land as the same was purchased by Inderjit Singh (Accused)  

2

from Rattan Singh, Balbir Singh and Rajwinder Kaur.  Inderjit Singh wanted  

to take possession  of the land from the complainant party forcibly.

3. The  migrant  labourers  tried  to  run  away,  however,  one  Jaldhar  

received  the  gun  injury  who  was  taken  by  the  assailants  in  the  jeep  

alongwith two other labourers  Sikandar Rai (PW-6) and Babu Lal (PW-7)  

under  the  pretext  that  the  injured  will  get  proper  treatment  at  Patiala.  

Darshan Singh (PW-4) alongwith two labourers Nand Kishore and Budhu  

was detained in a room of the tube well.  In the morning at 6.00 a.m., the  

assailants took Darshan Singh (PW-4) alongwith Nand Kishore and Budhu  

in a car to village Dadiana. There had been  3.12 bore guns in the car and  

after taking them to several places they were brought back to the tube well at  

10.30 a.m.   

4. On the basis of the said report, a case was registered under Sections  

342/336/323/506/148/149/120-B IPC and under Sections 25/27/54/59 of the  

Arms Act. On 27th June, 2000 statement of Babu Lal (PW-7) was recorded.  

He deposed that he was taken alongwith Jaldhar injured, with Sikandar Rai  

(PW-6) and they were taken to Ambala  Railway Station in a vehicle and  

had been given Rs.900/- for meeting the expenses to travel back to Bihar.  

However,  they  came  back  to  Mohali  and  informed  the  other  migrant  

3

labourers about the incident  and, also, that he was suspicious that Jaldhar  

had been killed.  Thus,  on the basis of the said statement, Sections 307 and  

364   IPC were  added  to  the  previous  sections.  Again  on  4th July,  2000  

statement of Sikander Rai (PW-6) was recorded. He had stated that Jaldhar  

died on the spot but in order to avoid the hue and cry of the labourers,  the  

assailants  had  taken  the  dead  body  under  the  pretext  to  get  him proper  

treatment and the dead body was thrown in the canal at about 2.30 a.m. in  

the night. He had been threatened that, in case, he disclosed the factum of  

the  death  of  Jaldhar  he  would  also  be  killed.  Thus,  on  the  basis  of  his  

statement, offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was also added.   

5. The police recovered the dead body of Jaldhar on 5.7.2000 from the  

canal about 40 KM. away from the place of occurrence and post mortem was  

conducted. After completing investigation, the charge sheet was submitted  

against  the  appellants  alongwith  Inderjit  Singh,  Gurdeep  Singh,  Balbir  

Singh, Kanwal Preet Singh and Amarjit Singh.  The prosecution examined  

19 witnesses  to  prove  its  case  including  the  complainant  Darshan Singh  

(PW-4), Sikandar Rai (PW-6) and Babu Lal (PW-7). However,  Amarjeet  

Singh, who was leader of the assailants remained absconding and thus, could  

not be put to trial.  The trial  Court convicted all  the accused persons and  

sentenced them to undergo RI for life under Section 302/149 IPC and to pay  

4

a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default further to undergo RI for one year. They  

were also sentenced to undergo RI for one year under Section 148 IPC. All  

the  accused  persons  were  sentenced  to  undergo  RI  for  five  years  under  

Section 307/149 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each; in default to further  

undergo RI for one year. They were sentenced to undergo RI  for two years  

under Section 364 IPC and to pay a fine of  Rs.100/-  each;  in default  to  

further undergo RI for one year.  All the accused persons were sentenced to  

undergo RI for six months under Section 342 IPC. They were also sentenced  

to undergo RI for six month under Section 506 IPC. All the accused persons  

were also sentenced to under RI for one year under Section 201 IPC and to  

pay a fine of Rs.100/- each; in default  to further undergo RI for one year.  

All the accused persons were sentenced to undergo RI for six months under  

Section 120-B IPC.  Accused Inderjit Singh was also sentenced to undergo  

RI for one year  under Section 30 of the Arms Act and to pay a fine of  

Rs.100/- each and in default to further undergo RI for one year.  

6. Being  aggrieved,  all  the   convicted  persons  preferred   six  appeals  

before the High Court which were heard together. The High Court vide its  

judgment and order dated 31.8.2005 allowed the Criminal Appeals filed by  

Gurdip Singh and Balbir Singh against whom  the charge of conspiracy had  

5

been framed and dismissed other four appeals and maintained the conviction  

and sentences awarded by the Trial Court.  

7. Against  the  said  common  judgment  and  order  of  the  High  Court,  

Inderjit Singh (Accused), the purchaser of the land in dispute from Rattan  

Singh, Balbir Singh and Smt. Rajwinder Kaur  preferred the Special Leave  

Petition before this Court and it stood dismissed. Kanwal Preet Singh did not  

prefer any Special Leave Petition. The other remaining convicted persons  

filed this appeal.  

8. Shri  Subhash Sharma,  learned counsel  appearing for the appellants  

has agitated all the issues which had been raised before the Courts below and  

his thrust of arguments had been that, the Criminal Appeals preferred by  

Gurdip  Singh  and  Balbir  Singh   had  been  allowed  by  the  High  Court  

disbelieving  the  theory  of  conspiracy  for  taking  possession  of  the  said  

disputed land forcibly. Therefore, if the foundation of the case disappears,  

the entire case goes. More so, it is submitted that names of the appellants  

had not been mentioned in the FIR.  There was inordinate delay in lodging  

the FIR. The dead body of the Jaldhar (deceased) was recovered after about  

two weeks of the incident. The body was completely in a decomposed state.  

Thus, it was not in a condition where one could identify the body and in  

6

such a fact situation, the appellants ought to have, also been acquitted by the  

High Court.  

9. On the contrary, Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel for the State has  

submitted  that  the  issue  of  delay  in  lodging  the  FIR  has  been  fully  

considered by the courts below and the courts were satisfied that there was  

no delay at all as the complainant/informant remained in the custody of the  

assailants.  The doctors  who conducted the  post  mortem deposed that  the  

body could be identified and it has been identified by  Sikandar Rai  (PW-6).  

More  so, the acquittal of Gurdip Singh and Balbir Singh by the High Court  

would have no  bearing on the merits of the case, for the reason, that Rattan  

Singh and Balbir Singh had already sold the land to Inderjit  Singh. They  

wanted to get rid of the land as it had been a subject matter of litigation  

between the parties for long and it was  Inderjit Singh who had the grudge  

and wanted to take forcible possession of  the land from the complainant  

party. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.  

10. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel  

for the parties and perused the record.  

7

11. The land in dispute belonged to one Dalip Singh who had three sons,  

namely, Gurbux Singh, Hakam Singh and Rattan Singh. It appears that the  

land had come in the share of Rattan Singh and as he was not having any  

issue,  he  had  taken  in  adoption  Balbir  Singh,  son  of  his  wife’s  sister.  

Rajwinder Kaur got married with Balbir Singh. Gurbux Singh and his wife  

Gurcharan Kaur were having the claim on the said land and, in this dispute,  

their son Gurjit Singh was murdered in 1997 by Rattan Singh and Balbir  

Singh.  In the said case, Balbir Singh stood convicted and his appeal was  

pending before the High Court.  In view of long pending dispute over the  

land it was decided by Rattan Singh, Balbir Singh and Rajwinder Kaur to get  

rid of the same and an agreement to sell was executed in favour of Inderjit  

Singh after receiving the sale consideration on 14th February, 2000. Inderjit  

Singh after having the agreement, wanted to take forcible possession of land  

from Gurcharan Kaur and her son Mandeep Singh.  Rattan Singh, Balbir  

Singh and Rajwinder Kaur after receiving the consideration money for the  

land and executing the agreement might not be very much interested in the  

land  or to recover the possession thereof. Prosecution case had been that it  

was Balbir Singh, who hatched the conspiracy to take forcible possession of  

the land.  

8

12. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record,  

the  High  Court  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  statement  of  Gurcharan  

Singh (PW-18) in respect  of  the fact  of  hatching a conspiracy by Balbir  

Singh and Gurdip Singh, at the bus stand  Bassi Pathana   on 21st June,  2000  

at 7.30/8.00 p.m. was not worthy of credence. Gurcharan Singh (PW-18), a  

chance witness could not explain under what circumstances he was present  

at the bus stand at the said time.

13. In Sachchey Lal  Tiwari v. State of U.P. (2004) 11 SCC 410,  this  

Court  while considering the evidentiary value of the chance witness in a  

case of  murder which had taken place in a street and passerby had deposed  

that  he had witnessed the incident,   observed as under:

“If the offence is committed in a street only passer- by will be the witness. His evidence cannot be brushed aside  lightly or viewed with suspicion on the ground that he was a  mere chance witness. However, there must be an explanation  for his presence there.”  

14. The Court further explained that the expression ‘chance witness’ is  

borrowed from countries where every man’s home is considered his castle  

and every one must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in  

another man’s castle. It is quite unsuitable an expression in a country like  

9

India where people are less formal and more casual, at any rate in the matter  

of explaining their presence.  

15. The evidence of a chance witness  requires a very cautious and close  

scrutiny and a chance witness must adequately explain his presence at the  

place of occurrence (Satbir v. Surat Singh (1997) 4 SCC 192;  Harjinder  

Singh  v.  State  of  Gujarat  (2004)  11  SCC  253;  Acharaparambath  

Pradeepan & Anr. v. State of Kerala (2006) 13 SCC 643; and Sarvesh  

Narain  Shukla  v.  Daroga  Singh  and  Ors.  (2007)  13  SCC   360).  

Deposition  of  a  chance  witness  whose  presence  at  the  place  of  incident  

remains  doubtful  should  be  discarded  (vide  Shankarlal  v.  State  of  

Rajasthan  (2004)  10  SCC  632).   Conduct  of  the  chance  witness,  

subsequent to the incident may also  be taken into consideration particularly  

as to whether he has informed anyone else in the village about the incident.  

(vide Thangaiya v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005) 9 SCC 650).

16. Gurcharan Singh (PW-18)  met the informant Darshan Singh (PW-4)  

before  lodging  the  FIR and the  fact  of  conspiracy  was not  disclosed  by  

Gurcharan  Singh  (PW-18)  and  Darshan  Singh  (PW-4).   The  fact  of  

conspiracy has not  been mentioned in the FIR.   Hakam Singh,  the other  

witness on this issue has not been examined by the prosecution. Thus, the  

10

High  Court  was  justified  in  discarding  the  part  of  the  prosecution  case  

relating to conspiracy.   However, in the fact situation of the present case,  

acquittal of the said two co-accused has no bearing, so far as the present  

appeal is concerned.

17. Undoubtedly, in the FIR appellants’ name have not been mentioned.  

The FIR is not the encyclopedia of all the facts relating to crime.  The only  

requirement is that at the time of lodging FIR, the informant should state all  

those facts which normally strike to mind and help in assessing the gravity  

of the crime or identity of the culprit briefly.

18. In the FIR, in addition to the names of Balbir Singh and Gurdip Singh,  

name of Amarjit Singh, the absconding accused, has been mentioned.  The  

complainant  Darshan  Singh  (PW-4)  has  also  mentioned  that  he  could  

identify  some  of  the  assailants  if  they  come  before  him.   Thus,  the  

complainant was not aware of the names of all the accused persons.  The  

submission in this regard remain preposterous.  The motive for committing  

the offence  has fully been explained therein that they wanted  the forcible  

possession of the land from the complainant party. The land in dispute had  

also been the cause of murder of nephew of the informant Darshan Singh  

(PW-4) as his nephew Gurjeet Singh was killed by Rattan Singh and Balbir  

11

Singh, the vendors of the land to Inderjit  Singh.  The delay in lodging  FIR  

has fully been explained by the prosecution and both the courts below have  

accepted the same. The concurrent findings recorded by the courts below on  

this issue do not warrant any interference whatsoever in this Court.  Sikandar  

Rai (PW-6) and Babu Lal (PW-7) had been the two independent witnesses.  

They had come from Bihar as migrant labourers.   No explanation could be  

furnished by Shri Subhash Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants as to  

for what reason either of the said witnesses could depose falsely. Sikandar  

Rai (PW-6) had been all along with the deceased Jaldhar and he had also  

witnessed  the  throwing  of  his  dead  body  in  the  canal.   The  Tata  Sumo  

vehicle  used in the offence was recovered.  It  belonged to Inderjit  Singh,  

vendee of the land.   There is full corroboration to the prosecution case by  

Sikandar Rai (PW-6) and Babu Lal (PW-7). Both of them had been cross  

examined by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants but nothing  

could be elicited which could shake their credibility.

19. Darshan Singh (PW-4) was an injured witness. He had been examined  

by the doctor.  His  testimony could not  be brushed aside lightly.  He had  

given full  details  of the incident  as he was present  at  the time when the  

assailants reached the tube well.  

12

20. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka 1994 Supp  

(3) SCC 235, this Court has held  that the deposition of the injured witness  

should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his  

evidence  on  the  basis  of  major  contradictions  and  discrepancies,  for  the  

reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case,  it is proved  

that he suffered the injury during the said incident.  

21. In  State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand and Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 629,   a  

similar view has been re-iterated observing that the Testimony of a stamped  

witness   has  its  own  relevance  and  efficacy.   The  fact  that  the  witness  

sustained injuries  at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his  

testimony that he was present during the occurrence.  In case the injured  

witness is subjected to lengthy cross examination and nothing can be elicited  

to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon (vide  Krishan & Ors. V.  

State of Haryana (2006) 12 SCC  459).  Thus, we are of the considered  

opinion that evidence of Darshan Singh (PW-4) has rightly been relied upon  

by the courts below.

22 The main contention raised by Shri Subhash Sharma, learned counsel  

for the appellants is that identification parade was never held though it was  

necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case for the reason that the  

13

names of the appellants have not been mentioned in the FIR. However, we  

do  not  find  any  substance  in  such  an  argument  for  the  reason  that  S.I.  

Gurdial  Singh (PW-12),  the investigating officer has made it  clear in his  

cross examination that identification parade could not serve any purpose for  

the  reason  that  the  witnesses  were  present  at  the  time  of  arrest  of  the  

accused, rather they had been arrested on identification by the witnesses.  

Babu Lal (PW-7)  was present at  the time of their arrest.  At the time of  

recovery of  vehicle Tata  Sumo, Sikandar  Rai  (PW-6)  was  present  in  the  

vehicle itself and it was recovered when accused Inderjit Singh was driving  

the vehicle and four other accused were also sitting therein. In such a fact  

situation,  though identification  in  a  case  like  this,  may be  of  paramount  

importance, but in view of the fact that  the accused had been identified by  

the witnesses at the time of arrest itself,  holding the identification parade  

would have been a futile exercise/inconsequential.

23. Identification parade is of paramount importance in a criminal case.  

In  S.C. Bahri v. State of Bihar AIR 1994 SC 2420, this Court held that  

when the accused person is not previously known to the witness concerned,  

the identification of the accused by the witness soon after his arrest is of  

great importance because it furnishes an assurance that the investigation is  

proceeding  on  right  lines  in  addition  to  furnishing  corroboration  of  the  

14

evidence  to  be  given  by the  witness  later  in  court  at  the  trial.   But  the  

position would be entirely different when the accused or culprit who stands  

trial  had been seen at  times  by  the  witness  as  it  may do away with  the  

necessity of  identification parade.

24. Where  the  accused  has  been  arrested  in  presence  of  the  witness  

accused has been shown to the witness or  even his photograph has been  

shown by the Investigating Officer prior to test identification parade, holding  

identification  parade  in  such  facts  and  circumstances  remained  

inconsequential. (vide Shaikh Umar Ahmade Shaikh v. State of Maharasthra  

AIR 1998 SC 1922; Dastagir Sab & Anr. v. State of Karnataka (2004) 3  

SCC  106;  and  Maya  Kaur  Baldevsingh  Sardar  &  Anr.  v.  State  of  

Maharashtra (2007) 12 SCC 654).     

25. It has been vehemently submitted by Shri Subhash Sharma, learned  

counsel for the appellants that the dead body of Jaldhar, deceased had been  

completely de-composed as it remained  in the water for two weeks, and  

there  was  no  material  before  the  trial  Court  to  hold  that  the  dead body  

recovered from the canal was that of Jaldhar, deceased.  The trial Court  as  

well as the High Court has considered this issue with care and caution.  Dr.  

D.S. Bhullal (PW-2) who conducted the post mortem  alongwith Dr. O.P.  

15

Aggarwal had opined that the death was due to fire arm injuries as the body  

was having lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the right side  of head  

underneath skull bone and 1 cm x 0.75 cm lacerated wound with everated  

margins was also present on the left side of the head. Underneath skull bone  

shows irregular opening of the same size. Dr. Bhullal (PW-2) has deposed  

that  the body was highly decomposed and grossly swollen wearing shirt,  

pant and underwear. The injuries found on the dead body were ante-mortem  

and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The dead body  

was identified by Sikandar Rai  (PW-6) and Babu Lal  (PW-7).   The trial  

Court had considered the deposition made by Dr. Bhullal (PW-2) and other  

evidence particularly, the deposition  of Sikandar Rai (PW-6) and Babu Lal  

(PW-7)  and came to the conclusion that, in spite of the fact, that the body  

was highly de-composed as it remained in water  for two weeks, the identity  

of  Jaldhar,  the  deceased  stood  proved  from  the  consistent  and  cogent  

statements  furnished  by  Darshan  Singh,  complainant  (PW-4)  and  two  

labourers  Sikandar  Rai  (PW-6)  and  Babu  Lal  (PW-7)  who  proved  the  

presence of the deceased at the relevant time when the incident had taken  

place in which the fire shot was made by the accused. The witnesses had  

fully identified the clothes found on the person of the deceased as they were  

same at the time of incident and at the time of recovery of the dead body.  

Had  the  victim/deceased   was  not  having  any  injury  on  his  person  the  

16

argument of the defence counsel could have been of some substance.  But as  

in the instant case, Dr. Bhullal (PW-2) proved the injuries of fire arm on  

forehead  of  the  deceased  which  was  fully  corroborated  by  the  other  

witnesses, the question of any doubt in identification of the dead body of  

Jaldhar, deceased could not arise.  The High Court has considered the issue  

taking into account the depositions of other witnesses Sikandar Rai (PW-6)  

and Babu Lal (PW-7) and affirmed the said finding.  

26. In the instant case as the dead body of Jaldhar had been identified by  

two fellow labourers  and the medical evidence is same as that of ocular  

evidence and the dead body was found with the clothes which Jaldhar was  

wearing at the time of incident, the issue of identification does not require  

any further consideration.  In a case where the dead body is found in a jungle  

which had been eaten away by vultures or other animals and garments have  

also been found in torn condition and the dead body stood converted into a  

skeleton  and has been fully  de-composed,  the  identification of  the  dead  

body may not be a trustworthy evidence and in such a case the DNA test  

may be required. (vide  Keshav v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 13 SCC  

284).  But in the instant case, the facts are not the same.  Thus, in view of the  

above,  we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the  

17

courts below on the issue of identification of dead body also does not  call  

for any interference.   

18

27. In view of the above, we find no exceptional circumstance warranting  

interference by this Court.  Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.  

          ……………………………J.           (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)  

          ……………………………J.           (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

New Delhi, August 26 , 2009

19

20

21

22