REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 900 OF 2006

Jaswinder Singh …. Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab         …. Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant who stands convicted by the Court of  

Addl.  Sessions  Judge (Ad hoc),  Hoshiarpur,  Punjab  under  Section  302  

read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as  

‘the IPC’) and also under Section 307 IPC which is affirmed by the High  

Court of Punjab and Haryana and aggrieved by which the present appeal is  

filed in this Court.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that a criminal case was registered on  

the basis of the statement of Jasprit Singh, the complainant and PW-1, who  

stated in his report that he was residing in village Parowal for the last 12

years in the house of Joginder Singh and on 17.01.2001 at about 7.00 p.m.  

when he was sitting with his landlord’s son Jasbir Singh alias Tota and  

watching television while sitting on a double bed in the room, somebody  

from outside called Tota whereupon the complainant opened the door and  

found two young persons standing outside.  Both of them enquired about  

Jasbir  Singh  alias  Tota  upon  which  the  complainant  took  them inside  

where  Tota  was  sitting.   Then  Jasbir  Singh  alias  Tota  asked  the  

complainant to bring tea for those persons and the complainant went inside  

the house to tell the mother of Jasbir Singh alias Tota to prepare tea.  In the  

meantime he heard gun shot fire from the room and hearing the shot he  

immediately went to that room.  On entering the room he saw the young  

man firing shots on the head of Tota and the other young man saying that  

Tota should not be left alive.  The complainant alleged that he caught hold  

of the young man who fired at Tota and then the other young man, who  

was wearing a ‘Patka’, told the complainant pointing pistol towards him  

that he would also be killed along with Tota and then he fired the shot  

which hit the complainant on the finger of his left hand and left ankle as  

the complainant had caught the hand of that man in which he was holding  

the pistol.  Upon complainant raising the alarm Joginder Singh, the father  

of Jasbir Singh alias Tota, the deceased namely and Shiv Charan Singh,  

2

the  father  of  Jasprit  Singh,  the  complainant  reached  there.   The  man  

wearing patka ran away from the spot while firing shots  and the other  

young man who also tried to run away was overpowered and the pistol was  

snatched away from his hand.  The said young man was identified later as  

Charanjit  Singh  and  the  other  young  man  with  a  patka  accompanying  

Charanjit  Singh  was  identified  as  Jaswinder  Singh.   In  the  meantime,  

Jasbir Singh alias Tota fell on the bed and number of villagers collected  

there.   He  was  taken  to  the  Civil  Hospital,  Garhshankar  along  with  

complainant where he succumbed to the injuries whereas complainant was  

medically examined.  Sub-Inspector Gian Chand came to the hospital and  

recorded the statement of complainant on the basis of which the criminal  

case was registered.   

3. During the course of  investigation Sub-Inspector  Gian Chand took into  

possession the pistol and the licence of Charanjit Singh, the accused.  He  

visited the place of incident on 18.01.2001, prepared a rough site plan and  

recorded the statements of the witnesses.  He took into possession three  

empty cartridges, two led bullets of the cartridges, bloodstained bed sheet  

from the spot along with cap and a scooter bearing Registration No. PI Q-

68.  He also prepared inquest report on the dead body of Jasbir Singh alias  

3

Tota, the deceased.  The post-mortem examination was conducted by the  

doctor.   

4. On  completion  of  the  investigation  he  submitted  charge-sheet  against  

Charanjit Singh, Jaswinder Singh, Balbir Singh, Avtar Singh and Amarjit  

Singh.  It transpired that Balbir Singh, Avtar Singh and Amarjit Singh had  

conspired with Jaswinder Singh and Charanjit Singh to commit the murder  

of Jasbir Singh as he was instrumental in arranging the love marriage of  

daughter of  Balbir Singh.   

5. According to the prosecution, Balbir Singh had hired the contract killers  

for  eliminating  Jasbir  Singh  alias  Tota  for  arranging  marriage  of  his  

daughter  with one Jugraj  Singh because Balbir  Singh did not  want  his  

daughter  to  marry  that  man.   The  police  could,  however,  arrest  only  

Charanjit  Singh, Jaswinder Singh and Balbir Singh initially.  Therefore,  

Charanjit  Singh,  Jaswinder Singh and Balbir  Singh were challaned and  

Avtar  Singh and Amarjit  Singh were declared as proclaimed offenders.  

Later on Amarjit Singh was also arrested and his supplementary challan  

was presented and committed to the court.  Those four accused persons  

4

namely Charanjit Singh, Jaswinder Singh, Balbir Singh and Amarjit Singh  

were, therefore, tried whereas Avtar Singh was still a proclaimed offender.  

6. After submission of the charge-sheet, charges were framed under Section  

120-B, 302/34, 307/34, 449 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.  

When  the  charges  were  read  over  and  explained  to  the  accused  they  

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.   

7. During  the  course  of  trial  the  prosecution  examined  as  many  as  11  

witnesses  and  at  the  end  of  their  deposition  the  accused  persons  were  

examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for  

short ‘the CrPC’).  The defence examined the witness Satnam Singh as  

DW-1.  The trial court, namely the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge (Ad  

hoc),  Hoshiarpur,  Punjab,  after  hearing  the  arguments  of  the  counsel  

appearing  for  the  parties  and  on  examination  of  the  entire  records  

including the depositions and all the statements found accused Charanjit  

Singh,  Jaswinder  Singh  and  Balbir  Singh  guilty  and  convicted  and  

sentenced them by its judgment and order dated 18.09.2003.   

8. Balbir Singh was found guilty under Section 120-B read with Section 302  

IPC and sentenced  to  undergo  life  imprisonment  and  to  pay  a  fine  of  

Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous  

5

imprisonment  for  one month.   Charanjit  Singh was found guilty  under  

Section 302 and 307/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment  

and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further  

undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence under Section  

302 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine  

of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous  

imprisonment  for  one  month  for  offence  under  Section  307/34  IPC.  

Jaswinder Singh was found guilty under Section 302/34 and 307 IPC and  

sentence to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and  

in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for  

one month for offence under Section 302/34 IPC and to undergo rigorous  

imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default  

of  payment  of  fine  to  further  undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  for  one  

month for offence under Section 307 IPC.   

9. The trial court also found both Charanjit Singh and Jaswinder Singh guilty  

under  Section  449 IPC and under  Sections  27/54/59  of  Arms Act  and  

sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years  

and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to  

further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence under  

Section 449 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment  for  three years  

6

each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine  

to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days each.   

10.All  the  aforesaid  substantive  sentences  were,  however,  ordered  to  run  

concurrently.  Amarjit Singh was, however, given benefit of doubt and he  

was acquitted of all the charges leveled against him.

11.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and  

sentence accused Balbir Singh, Charanjit Singh and Jaswinder Singh have  

filed three separate appeals in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.  The  

said appeals were entertained and disposed of by a common order dated  

23.09.2005 passed by the High Court.   

12.After hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, the appeals filed by  

accused  Charanjit  Singh  and  Jaswinder  Singh  were  dismissed  thereby  

upholding the order of conviction and sentence passed against them by the  

trial court.  So far accused Balbir Singh is concerned, his participation in  

the commission of crime was held to be highly doubtful and so was his  

conviction  under  Section  120-B  IPC.   Consequently,  the  impugned  

judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against him was set  

aside and he was acquitted of all the charges framed against him.   

7

13.During the  course  of  hearing learned counsel  appearing for  the  parties  

submitted before us that to their information Charanjit Singh has not filed  

any appeal and only accused Jaswinder Singh has filed the present appeal.  

14.We heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also gone  

through the entire records.   

15.It  was  very  forcefully  argued  before  us  by  Ms.  Anu  Mehta,  learned  

counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant was neither named in  

the first  information report  nor any specific  role  and description of  his  

participation  had been given  therein  and that  he  was arrested from his  

house only on 10.02.2001, i.e. about after 25 days of the date of incident.  

It  was submitted that  the appellant  was arrested only on suspicion and  

without there being any material or specific evidence against him and that  

the entire prosecution case against him is a got up story and therefore he  

was liable to be acquitted of all the charges.  She also submitted that the  

Test Identification Parade (for short ‘the TIP’) was not held because the  

appellant was shown to the prosecution witnesses before any TIP could be  

held and consequently there was no justification for holding a TIP and in  

absence  of  the  same  both  the  courts  below should  have  held  that  the  

identity of the accused was not established in the trial.  Counsel appearing  

8

for the appellant also had taken us through the evidence on record and on  

the basis thereof she submitted that so far the appellant is concerned, there  

are a number of contradictions in the prosecution case and, therefore, he is  

required to be acquitted.  It was also submitted that the role ascribed to the  

appellant in the incident was highly improbable and unreliable in as much  

as while holding Jasbir Singh alias Tota, the deceased as alleged by the  

prosecution,  the  appellant  was  using  both  his  hands  and,  therefore,  he  

could not have brought out his pistol and fired from the said pistol on the  

injured witness, P.W.1.  

16.Counsel  appearing  for  the  respondent-State,  however,  refuted  all  the  

aforesaid submissions contending inter alia that the identity of both the  

accused persons  namely Charanjit  Singh and Jaswinder  Singh,  the  sole  

appellant herein were clearly established in trial.  He heavily relied on the  

evidence  of  Jasprit  Singh,  PW-1,  the  injured  eye-witness  and  also  on  

medical evidence to substantiate that the appellant is guilty of the charges  

framed against him.   

17.On a careful analysis of the facts and circumstances of the present case we  

find that Jasprit Singh, PW-1 as also the complainant, is the person who  

opened the door so as to enable both the accused persons namely Charanjit  

9

Singh and Jaswinder Singh to enter the house of Joginder Singh at the time  

when the incident took place.  He himself took both of them to the room  

where Jasbir Singh alias Tota, the deceased was watching television with  

the complainant just before the occurrence.  He also categorically stated in  

his statement that he had seen Charanjit Singh firing a shot with his pistol  

on the head of Jasbir Singh alias Tota, the deceased while the other young  

man wearing a patka was catching hold of the deceased and saying that he  

(the deceased) should not  be spared that day.   On seeing that situation  

Jasprit Singh, the complainant caught hold of Charanjit Singh and at that  

stage Jaswinder Singh, the present appellant who was wearing a patka took  

out  a pistol  from the fold of  his trouser  and fired at  Jasprit  Singh,  the  

complainant.  It has also come in evidence that when the present appellant  

was about to fire his pistol the complainant pulled his pistol downward and  

as such fire shot from his pistol had hit at the finger of his left hand and  

left foot near his ankle.  In the meantime, on hearing a noise raised by the  

complainant,  Joginder  Singh,  the  father  of  Jasbir  Singh  alias  Tota,  the  

deceased  and  Shiv  Charan  Singh,  the  father  of  Jasprit  Singh,  the  

complainant immediately came to the spot from inside the house and on  

their arrival Charanjit  Singh and Jaswinder Singh, the present appellant  

tried to run away from there.  While fleeing away, the present appellant  

10

fired shots from his pistol but the other accused person was overpowered  

and given beatings with fists and his pistol was also snatched.  The nabbed  

accused person came to  be identified as  Charanjit  Singh.   The driving  

license of Charanjit Singh was with him which was recovered and  which  

gave his complete identity.  In the meantime, Jasbir Singh alias Tota, the  

deceased fell down on the bed and blood started oozing out from his head.  

Jasprit Singh, the complainant was also bleeding from his left finger and  

ankle.  The deceased was taken to the hospital along with Jasprit Singh,  

the complainant.  Jasbir Singh, the deceased died on way to the hospital  

and accordingly his post-mortem was conducted in the hospital whereas  

Jasprit Singh, the complainant was medically examined and treated by the  

doctor of the hospital.   

18.We have a solitary eye-witness namely Jasprit Singh, the complainant as  

well as PW-1, who was present in the room where the incident had taken  

place.  All along he was sitting with Jasbir Singh alias Tota, the deceased  

and watching television.  He opened the door for both the accused persons  

to enable them to come inside the house, took both of them to the room  

where Jasbir Singh alias Tota, the deceased was sitting.  He saw Charanjit  

Singh firing upon the deceased and also grappled with him whereupon he  

was fired upon by the co-accused namely Jaswinder Singh (the appellant  

11

herein), who however, managed to flee away after the occurrence by firing  

from his pistol.  The evidence of the solitary eye-witness is also supported  

by the medical evidence and, therefore, there is no reason as to why such  

evidence should not be held to be trustworthy and reliable.  Jasprit Singh  

(PW-1)  is  the  lone  eye-witness  of  the  crime  who  had  seen  the  actual  

occurrence of the incident.  He vividly described the whole occurrence that  

has occurred inside the room.  The said evidence on record, according to  

us, inspires confidence in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

 19.A very strong argument was made before us by the defence in respect of  

the identity of the appellant particularly on the ground that he was shown  

to the witness before any TIP could be held.  On going through the records  

we  find  that  the  accused-appellant  has  refused  to  take  part  in  the  TIP  

taking up the plea that he was already shown to Jasprit Singh, PW-1 by the  

police.   We  cannot  accept  the  aforesaid  plea  taken  by  the  accused-

appellant for the simple reason that PW-1 had occasion to see the appellant  

not only when he opened the door but also when he took both of them to  

the room where Jasbir Singh alias Tota, the deceased was watching the  

television.  Moreover, he grappled with both of them.  He himself received  

gun shot injuries  in his hand as also on leg from the gun fired by the  

appellant.  He described the whole incident in his deposition as to how he  

12

received those  injuries.   He had seen the  appellant  accused from close  

quarter and also for a reasonable time.  He has also identified the accused-

appellant in the court as the person who had fired upon him.  His evidence  

is corroborated by the medical evidence of the doctor who   examined him.  

Therefore,  there  could be no dispute  with  regard to  the  identity  of  the  

accused – appellant.

20.On reading the evidence of the aforesaid eye-witness namely Jasprit Singh  

(PW-1) we find the same to be convincing, reliable and trustworthy.  We  

find  no  reason  to  disbelieve  the  aforesaid  statement  of  PW-1  and  

consequently,  we  find  no  merit  in  this  appeal,  which  is  dismissed  

accordingly.

  ...............………………………J.         [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]

   …................………………..J.              [Dr. B.S. Chauhan]

New Delhi, July 7, 2009

13

14