1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 448 OF 2007   

   MUKHTIAR SINGH & ANR.                                ..         Versus    STATE OF PUNJAB                                        ..Respondent        

JUDGMENT    Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.      1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order of the Division  

Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court, allowing the appeal filed by the  

respondent State.  By the impugned judgment the Division Bench set aside the  

order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhatinda and  

convicted both the appellants for offence punishable under Section 302 read  

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).  The  

appellants-accused were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a  

fine of Rs. 10,000/- each with default stipulation.    

2. The prosecution version as unfolded during the trial is as follows:  

 A land dispute had been going on between Mukhtiar Singh and his  

brother Babu Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) which had ended in  

favour of the deceased.  Mukhtiar Singh was aggrieved thereby.  His two sons  

Gurmail Singh and Harbans Singh had caused injuries to the deceased which  

resulted into fracture of his leg and thereafter Harbans Singh son of Mukhtiar  

Singh was murdered by deceased and his son Buta Singh.  

2

 On 15.04.1994, the deceased and his family members which included  

his wife Surjit kaur, son Makhan Singh, daughter-in-law Jasvir Kaur and father-

in-law of daughter of deceased Balwant Singh decided to visit Bathinda jail  

where the son of the deceased was lodged.  In order to catch a train to  

Bathinda they reached Kahangarh Railway Station which was next to their  

village at about 5:00 AM and waited there for the arrival of the Train.  Since the  

train was late from its scheduled time the ticket counter at the Station was  

closed.  Except the deceased all had seated themselves on a bench while the  

deceased was standing nearby.  In the meantime Mukhtiar Singh armed with a  

kirpan and his son Gurmail Singh armed with a takua came there.  Mukhtiar  

Singh gave two kirpan blows one on the neck of the deceased and another on  

his head.  Consequently, he fell down.  Immediately thereafter Gurmail Singh  

gave blows on the chin, right shoulder, left shoulder and chest of the deceased.  

The family members of the deceased raised an alarm.  Mukhtiar Singh accused  

exclaimed that they had avenged murder of his son.  

 One SPO Gurdas Singh who was posted on the Assault Post,  

Kahangarh Railway Station came running and challenged the accused but both  

the accused managed to escape.  A wireless message was received in the  

railway station Bathinda at 11:50 AM upon which ASI Gurdip Singh  

accompanied by other police officials reached the Kahangarh Railway Station  

where he found Surjit Kaur, Makhan Singh, Jasvir kaur, Balwant Singh  and  

SPO Gurdas Singh present. He prepared the inquest report Ex. PC which was  

attested by Surjit Kaur and Makhan Singh. Thereafter statement Ex. PM, of  

Surjit Kaur was recorded at 5.15 PM, on which he made an endorsement Ex.

3

PM/1, upon which formal FIR EX. PM/2 was registered in the concerned Police  

Station.  The ASI Gurdip Singh went to the spot, lifted the blood stained earth  

and put it into a container.  After sealing the same, the container was taken into  

possession vide recovery memo Ex. PK which was attested by the witnesses.   

 SPO Gurdas Singh also produced a pair of shoes which was taken into  

possession vide memos Ex.P.U. and a sum of Rs. 165/- which was recovered  

from the person of the deceased.  A rough site plan Ex.PR of the place of  

occurrence was prepared by the Investigating Officer.  The autopsy on the  

dead body of the deceased was conducted on the next day (16.4.1994) by Dr.  

Kuldip Rai.  

  Thereafter, Sub-Inspector Hukam Chand arrested both the accused on  

20.4.1994.  The investigation was taken up by ASI Gurdip Singh and during  

interrogation accused Mukhtiar Singh suffered a disclosure statement Ex.PU  

about concealing of kirpan and blood stained clothes.  Thereafter, the accused  

Mukhtiar Singh got recovered his kirpan and blood stained clothes.  Kirpan was  

taken into possessin vide memo Ex.P.U./1 and its sketch Ex.P.U./2 was also  

prepared.   The blood stained clothes were also taken into possession vide  

separate recovery memos.  Similarly Gurmail Singh accused also suffered a  

disclosure statement Ex.P.V. about concealment of takua and blood stained  

clothes.  Thereafter, he also got recovered takua which was taken into  

possession vide recovery memo Ex.P.V. and its sketch Ex.P.V./2 was also  

prepared.  His blood stained clothes were also taken into possession.    

 After the completion of the investigation, challan was filed against both  

the accused and they were charged under Section 302/34 IPC.  During the trial

4

Dr. Kuldip Rai was examined as PW 1, Makhan Singh, son of the deceased  

was examined as PW 2; Surjit Kaur, wife of the deceased was examined as  

PW 3; ASI Gurdip Singh was examined as PW 4 and SPO Gurdas Singh was  

examined as PW 5.      

 The trial Court acquitted both the accused of the charges on the ground  

that the testimony of two eye witnesses cannot be believed as the  

circumstances confirm absence of the eyewitness at the place of occurrence.  It   

was further stated by the trial Court that the prosecution case was nothing but a  

got up story, knitted after due deliberation between the police and the named  

eye witnesses.  On appeal by the State the High Court set aside the order of  

the trial Court.  It held that the trial Court had discarded the testimony of two  

eye witnesses on feeble grounds and had entertained un-necessary doubts  

despite there being clear and sufficient evidence pointing towards the guilt of  

the accused.    

  3. Mr. Aman Lekhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant very  

eloquently argued that it was a blind murder and the appellants have been  

falsely implicated due to the previous animosity.  While elaborating his  

argument he submitted that there was significant delay in giving the information  

to the police and that the alleged eyewitness were not present at the time of the  

incident and came to the railway station at 3:00 PM only.  He submitted that  

story knitted by the prosecution is belied which is established from the very fact  

that before recording the statement of the eye witness who were well present  

there the ASI proceeded to prepare the inquest report.    

5

4. On the other hand Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned counsel appearing for the  

State while supporting the judgment of the High Court submitted that the Trial  

Court committed grave error while acquitting the accused appellants, in as  

much as, the presence of the eye witnesses was natural and the delay in  

communicating the offence and lodging the First Information was well explained  

by the prosecution.   

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

perused the testimonies on record in addition to other documents.    

 6. Before proceeding with the discussion on the merit of the appeal, we  

would like to mention that the trial court acquitted both the accused persons.   

The aforesaid order of acquittal was, however, set aside by the Division Bench  

of the High Court. While doing so, reasons have been given by the High Court  

and that too after discussing the law laid down by this Court with respect to the  

formalities and pre-conditions required to be followed by the court before  

setting aside the order of acquittal.  We have very carefully perused the  

aforesaid reasons and on careful perusal we found that the reasons given for  

setting aside the acquittal of the accused persons are cogent and strong.   

There are two eye witnesses to the occurrence, namely, Makhan Singh, PW-2,  

who happened to be the son of the deceased, and Surjit Kaur, PW-3, widow of  

the deceased.  Although the counsel appearing for the appellant strongly  

submitted that none of the aforesaid eye-witnesses were present at the time of  

occurrence but we are unable to accept the said statement for the simple  

reason that on the day of the alleged occurrence the deceased was going to  

meet his son Buta Singh and was at the Kahangarh Railway Station to catch a

6

train at 5.00 a.m.  Since Buta Singh was in jail, therefore, it was natural that not  

only the father, the deceased but also his wife Surjit Kaur, son Makhan Singh  

and other family members were accompanying the deceased so as to meet  

Buta Singh, one of the family members in the jail.  Much was said about the  

absence of any train ticket with the alleged eye witnesses but absence of the  

same in our considered opinion was well explained.  The train was late from its  

scheduled time due to which the ticket counter was also not opened, and  

therefore, there was no question of purchasing the tickets for traveling in the  

train and production of the same in the trial.  

 7. Argument was also advanced by the senior counsel appearing for the  

appellant regarding the conduct of the eye-witnesses in not intervening while  

the accused persons were allegedly attacking the decease.  PW-3, the widow  

of the deceased was a lady whereas Makhan Singh, PW-2, was aged only 15-

16 years at the time of the alleged occurrence.  Therefore, it cannot be  

expected that a lady and a small boy of 15-16 years would dare to intervene in  

the attack made by the two accused persons being armed with sharp edged  

weapons in their hands.  PW-5, Gurdas Singh, SPO reached at the scene of  

the occurrence immediately after the occurrence and in fact he ran after and   

pursued the accused persons but was unable to catch them.  While scrutinizing  

the evidence of PW-5, we find no reason to disbelieve the statement of the said  

officer.  He was not an investigating officer nor has he any connection with the  

case apart from being a witness.  He also flashed the initial information which  

was received by PW-4, Gurdeep Singh, the investigating officer, at Railway  

Police Station, Bathinda.  Much was said about the aforesaid information,  

which was sent to the investigating officer stating only that a dead body is lying

7

at the Railway Station, Kahangarh.  There is no dispute that the aforesaid  

information was very sketchy since the details of the incident were not given in  

the aforesaid information.  But as it was a telegraphic information, therefore, it  

cannot be said that the absence of material information in any manner destroy  

the case of the prosecution.    

 8. PW-5 has clearly stated in his statement that no telephone was installed  

at the Railway Station, Kahangarh but there was a telephone installed at the  

Railway Control Room at the Railway Station which, however, was found to be  

out of order.  He also stated that he had gone to GRP Police Post at Budhlada  

from where he sent a message to the Control Room at Bathinda on telephone  

about the occurrence.  The aforesaid statement clearly explains the delay in  

sending the information and also explained as to why detailed information  

regarding all materials leading to the occurrence was not mentioned by him.   

He cannot be called in any manner an interested witness; in fact he was a most  

dis-interested witness.  Nothing has been brought on record to show that he is  

inimical to the accused persons.   He has specifically stated in his depositions  

that he saw the aforesaid accused running towards the village side carrying  

weapons.  His presence at the spot cannot be doubted as it is established that  

he was at duty at the Railway Police Post, Kahangarh, which is the place of  

occurrence.  He has also stated in his depositions that he had in fact chased  

the two accused persons up to a certain distance but could not manage to nab  

them and that when he returned to the scene of occurrence, Surjit Kaur, PW-3,  

disclosed to him about the occurrence.  This shows that he did not see the  

accused persons attacking the deceased but learnt about the same from an  

eye witness and the said information about the dead body lying at the platform

8

was flashed by him, for he knew that on receipt of the aforesaid information the  

police should start investigation and during that course police would definitely  

ask eye witnesses and get all the information from them.  In any case, his  

information would be hearsay evidence, but as the same corroborates the  

substantive evidence of PW 2 and PW 3 the same would be admissible, as was  

held in the case of Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, [(2003) 11 SCC 241],  

wherein it was observed that evidence of such nature could be used to  

corroborate the substantive evidence. However, in that case, as there was no  

substantive evidence the benefit of said evidence was not granted.   

 9. During the course of examination a kirpan and takua were recovered  

pursuant to the discloser statement made by the accused.  The aforesaid  

weapons were shown to Dr. Kuldip Rai, PW-1, who gave his opinion that the  

injuries on the person of the deceased could be inflicted by the said weapons.   

In the opinion of the doctor, the death was caused due to shock and  

hemorrhage as a result of the injuries received, which were ante-mortem and  

were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.  The aforesaid  

fact of recovery of the weapons and also blood stained clothes sufficiently  

prove and establish involvement of the accused in the occurrence as alleged by  

the prosecution.  We find no reason to disbelieve the eye-witnesses, namely,  

PW-2 – Makhan Singh and PW-3 – Surjit Kaur nor do we find any reason to  

discard the evidence of PW-5, who had reached the place of occurrence  

immediately after the attack on the deceased and in fact he chased the two  

accused persons for some distance.  

9

10.  Upon taking all the facts into consideration including that of the fact of  

recovery of the alleged weapons at the instance of the accused would explicitly  

prove and establish that the accused persons are guilty of the offence alleged  

against them.  We are of the considered opinion that the High Court was  

justified in setting aside the order of acquittal and also convicting the accused  

persons for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing them to undergo  

rigorous imprisonment for life.  With the aforesaid findings we find no infirmity in  

the impugned order, which we uphold and consequently dismiss the appeal.                                 

............................................J                                                         [Dr. Arijit Pasayat]  

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

New Delhi;  January 20, 2009