http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: NARINDER SINGH & ANOTHER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       06/04/2000

BENCH: Ruma Pal, D.P.Wadhwa

JUDGMENT:

     D.P.  WADHWA, J.

     The  two  appellants  were  tried  for  offence  under Section  302/34  Indian Penal Code (for short ’IPC’).   They were  acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar by judgment dated  January  8, 1991.  Against their acquittal  State  of Punjab  filed  appeal in the Punjab and Haryana High  Court. The  complainant  also  filed  revision in  the  High  Court assailing  the  order  of acquittal by the  Sessions  Judge. High  Court by the impugned judgment dated January 20,  1998 allowed the appeal as well as the revision and set aside the acquittal  of  the  appellants.  High  Court  convicted  the second  appellant Ravinder Singh alias Khanna under  Section 302  IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for  life and  to  pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment  of fine  to  undergo  further  rigorous  imprisonment  for  six months.   First appellant was convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and similarly sentenced.

     It  is submitted before us that the High Court wrongly exercised its jurisdiction in setting aside the acquittal of the  appellants,  when Sessions Judge in a  well  considered judgment,  having weighed all the pros and cons of the case, had  rightly acquitted the appellants.  It could not be said that  the conclusions arrived at by the Sessions Judge  were perverse for the High Court to intervene.

     To appreciate the submissions of the appellants we may examine the record of the case.

     It  is not disputed that Gurdev Singh died a homicidal death on November 6, 1989.  He was a Granthi of Gurudwara of village  Talwandi  Fattu.   A  fortnight or  so  before  the fateful  day  when Gurdev Singh was murdered the  appellants had  visited  him.   They told him to vacate the  office  of Granthi  of  Gurudwara  of that village as  they  themselves wanted  to  assume the charge of office of Granthi  of  that Gurudwara.   Gurdev Singh was threatened that in case he did not heed to their demand he would be done to death.

     On  November 6, 1989 Gurdev Singh with his son  Hardip Singh  (PW-2) was going on a bicycle to village Jagatpur  in order  to  withdraw  the  money  from  his  account  in  the Cooperative Bank there.  Hardip Singh was pedaling the cycle

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

while  Gurdev  Singh was sitting on its carrier.  Around  12 O’clock  when they reached the metalled road near the  field of  one  Gurmej  Singh resident of Jagatpur,  they  saw  the appellants sitting near a tree.  They got up and intercepted Gurdev  Singh  and Hardip Singh.  Both got down  from  their cycle.   Appellant Narinder Singh proclaimed that they would teach  Gurdev  Singh  a lesson, as he had  not  vacated  the office  of Granthi of the Gurudwara as per their demand.  He grabbed  Gurdev  Singh  from  his   arms  while  the  second appellant  Ravinder  Singh  alias Khanna took  out  a  gatra kirpan,  which he was wearing and stabbed Gurdev Singh  with gatra  kirpan  on the left side of his neck.   Gurdev  Singh after  receiving the kirpan blow fell down.  Appellants then advanced  towards Hardip Singh menacingly.  Hardip Singh ran away  in order to save himself.  Appellants chased him for a while  and  then  abandoned the chase after  some  distance. Hardip  Singh  looked back and when he found that chase  had been  given up he returned to the spot where his father  had been  stabbed.   He found his father Gurdev Singh dead.   At that  time Bikar Singh Lambardar (PW-3) came there.   Hardip Singh left Bikar Singh at the spot to guard the dead body of his  father and he himself went to the Police Station, Banga to lodge a report.  However, Hardip Singh met Sub- Inspector Man  Singh  (PW-6) at the bus stand, Gunachaur.   S.I.   Man Singh  was the Additional S.H.O.  of Police Station,  Banga. Hardip Singh made statement (Ex.  PD) before S.I.  Man Singh on  the  basis of which a case under Section 302/34 IPC  was registered  at  Police  Station,  Banga  and  a  formal  FIR registered  against  the appellants.  Thereafter  S.I.   Man Singh  accompanied by Hardip Singh came to the place of  the occurrence.  He prepared the inquest report on the dead body of  Gurdev  Singh.   He  inspected the  spot,  lifted  blood stained  earth from the place where the dead body was lying. Turban  of  the deceased Gurdev Singh was lying towards  the head of his dead body which was also made into sealed parcel and   taken  into  possession.    After   completing   usual investigation  S.I.  Man Singh sent the dead body of  Gurdev Singh  for  post mortem examination.  Dr.   Gurvinder  Singh Chhatwal,  Medical  Officer,  Civil  Hospital,  Nawanshahar, conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Gurdev Singh  on  November  7,  1989.  According  to  him  injuries suffered  by Gurdev Singh were sufficient to cause death  in the  ordinary  course of nature.  On November 10, 1989  both the  appellants  were  produced before S.I.   Man  Singh  by Harinder  Singh (PW-4), Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Talwandi Fattu.   They were taken into custody.  In pursuance to  the disclosure  statement by the appellant Ravinder Singh  alias Khanna  gatra  kirpan (Ex.  P-1) was recovered by S.I.   Man Singh on November 11, 1989, which was lying concealed in the bushes  near  the canal minor in the area of  village  Bika. Kirpan  (Ex.  P-1) measured 5.2 inches along with gatra  was made  into  a sealed parcel and was taken  into  possession. Sealed  parcels  containing kirpan and blood stained  earth, where  the  kirpan  was found concealed, were  sent  to  the chemical  examiner who gave his report (Ex.  PL) and  opined that there were blood stains on the kirpan and earth.  After completion of the investigation police submitted the challan against  both  the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC.   By order  dated  February 16, 1990 of the  Judicial  Magistrate First  Class,  Nawanshahar the appellants were committed  to the  court of sessions to stand their trial.  Sessions Judge charged  the  appellant  Ravinder Singh alias  Khanna  under Section  302 IPC and appellant Narinder Singh under  Section 302/34  IPC.  Both the appellants pleaded not guilty to  the charges  framed against them and claimed to be tried.  After

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

the  conclusion of the evidence the appellants were examined under  Section  313  of Code of  Criminal  Procedure.   They denied the allegations in the evidence against them and said that it was a false case.  They did not lead any defence.

     Dr.  Gurvinder Singh Chhatwal (PW-1) in his deposition stated  that he had conducted the post mortem examination on the  dead  body of Gurdev Singh and he found  the  following injuries:  -

     "There was an incised wound 8cm x 5cm spindle shape on left  lateral side of the neck.  6cm above the clavicle.  On dissection  underlying  muscles  were   found  cut,  caroted vessels were cut partially.  Trachea was partially cut, and, the  apex of right lung had a wound of 2 x 3cms.  The  track of  wound was obliquely placed from left side to right  side in  a  backward and downward direction.  Pleural cavity  was full  of blood.  Rest of the organs were found to be healthy and normal."

     In his opinion death was due to massive haemorrhage on account  of  injuries  which led to shock  and  death.   The probable  time between the injuries and death was  immediate and  between  the death and post mortem 24 hours.  When  his statement  was recorded on the first day Dr.  Chhatwal  said that in his opinion injury in question could not be possible by  mini kirpan which is worn by an Amritdhari Sikh.  It  is not  disputed that both the appellants are Amritdhari Sikhs. On the request of the learned Public Prosecutor the case was adjourned  for further statement of Dr.  Chhatwal as on that day  case  property  including the ’kirpan’, weapon  of  the alleged  offence, had not been brought to the court from the police station.  Statement of Dr.  Chhatwal was continued on the  adjourned  date.  He said he had seen mini  sword  (Ex. P-1)  and that possibility of the injury in question on  the body of Gurdev Singh having been caused by that weapon could not  be  ruled out.  He said it was correct that  when  mini sword  (Ex.  P-1) would be taken out from the wound it would enlarge   the   wound.    He     was   questioned   in   the cross-examination as to why on the last date in the court he made  a  statement  that in his opinion injury  in  question could not be possible by a mini kirpan worn by an Amritdhari Sikh,  Dr.  Chhatwal said that he had made the statement  on the  basis of conjunctures.  He said he would stick to  that opinion  given that the injury in question could be possible with ’kirpan’ (Exh.  P-1).

     Hardip  Singh  (PW-2)  is the son of  deceased  Gurdev Singh.   He said both the appellants had come to his  father 10-15  days prior to the date of occurrence when he was also present  in  the  Gurudwara.  Both the appellants  told  his father  to  give  up  the job  of  Granthi  since  appellant Narinder  Singh  was  desirous of becoming Granthi  of  that Gurudwara.   He  said  his  father did not  agree  with  the proposal.   Both  the appellants went away after  holding  a threat  to the life of his father in case he did not give up the  job  of  Granthi  of   Gurudwara  Talwandi  Fattu.   He supported the prosecution version as noticed above.  Nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination which would cause any  doubt as to his testimony.  Hardip Singh said that  the money was in the name of his father in the bank and that the pass  book  of the bank was in a bag which was slung to  the handle  of  the cycle.  He said he did not produce the  pass book  before  the police.  He denied the suggestion that  he

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

never  witnessed the occurrence and that he came to know the murder  of  his  father at about 8.00 A.M.  on  November  6, 1989.   If we accept the suggestion of the appellants as put to  Hardip  Singh  it  would certainly run  counter  to  the statement of Dr.  Chhatwal as to the time of death of Gurdev Singh.

     Bikar  Singh  (PW-3) is Lambardar of Village  Talwandi Fattu.   He  said deceased Gurdev Singh had come to him  and complained to him that the appellant Narinder Singh had been holding  threats  to him by saying that he wanted to be  the Granthi  of Gurudwara of village Talwandi Fattu, which  post Gurdev  Singh  had allegedly usurped and that he would  face the music for the same.  Bikar Singh said that he counselled the deceased that the matter would be put before the village Panchayat  and  they  would  also go to the  father  of  the appellant  Narinder  Singh to tell him to restrain  his  son Narinder Singh.  Bikar Singh said that due to his being busy he  could  not  find  time to place the  matter  before  the village  Panchayat and in the meantime Gurdev Singh was done to death.  He said on the date of the occurrence when he was going  to village Jagatpur and had crossed village Mukandpur he saw both the appellants approaching him from the opposite direction  and  that they appeared to be in hurry.   He  saw that  appellant  Ravinder Singh alias Khanna was  holding  a mini  kirpan,  which  was stained with blood.   Bikar  Singh called  them  but they ignored him and went towards  village Mukandpur.   After  covering some distance he  found  Hardip Singh  (PW-2) crying.  He inquired from him the cause of his wailing and was told that the appellants had done his father to  death.   This part of the statement of Bikar  Singh  was objected  to  during the recording of his statement  on  the ground  that Hardip Singh had not said anything like that in his  deposition.  Bikar Singh said he found the dead body of Gurdev  Singh lying on the metalled road.  He deputed Hardip Singh  to go to the police station to report the  occurrence while  he  remained  at  the spot to guard  the  dead  body. Police arrived at the spot at about 2.30 P.M.  and completed the  necessary  formalities.  Statement of Bikar  Singh  has almost gone unchallenged in the cross-examination.  Harinder Singh   (PW-4)  deposed  to   the  alleged  extra   judicial confession  made by the appellants in having murdered Gurdev Singh.   This part of testimony of the witness has not  been believed  either  by the trial court or by the  High  Court. S.I.   Man Singh (PW-6) in his deposition narrated the steps taken  by  him  during the course of investigation  and  his filing  of  the charge-sheet against the appellants  in  the court.   With  this  evidence on record the  Sessions  Judge acquitted the appellants holding:  -

     i)  The  prosecution has failed to  establish  motive. The  prosecution  has  failed to show any  relation  between Ravinder  Singh alias Khanna and Narinder Singh.  The motive if  any  of  Narinder Singh i.e.  his aspiration  to  become Granthi  cannot  be  attributed to Ravinder  Singh  who  has allegedly caused the injury.

     ii)  Hardip  Singh is a got up witness.   Neither  the cycle on which Hardip Singh and Gurdev Singh were travelling nor the pass book of Bank were taken into custody by police. They  were going to Bank to withdraw money from the  account of  Gurdev Singh.  These two articles are not recovered from spot.   There  is  no reason for Hardip Singh  to  accompany Gurdev Singh.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

     iii)  Recovery  of weapon from Ravinder Singh by  S.I. Man Singh is not a sufficient circumstance.

     iv)  The medical evidence contradicts ocular evidence. The  doctor only later tried to improve upon his evidence in a manner favourable to the prosecution.

     v)  Prosecution case with regard to role attributed to Ravinder  Singh alias Khanna even if accepted to be correct, Narinder  Singh would not be made responsible for the injury allegedly inflicted by Ravinder Singh alias Khanna to Gurdev Singh.

     Division  Bench  of  the High Court  considered  whole aspect  of the matter afresh.  It examined the statements of prosecution  witnesses  and  other evidence which  had  been brought   on  record.   High   Court  also  considered   the submissions  of  the appellants that it could at best  be  a case  under Section 304 Part I or Part II, IPC.  High  Court found  the  evidence  led  by  the  prosecution   completely trustworthy.  It examined the contentions of the appellants: (1)  conviction could not be based on the solitary statement of  Hardip Singh, son of the deceased, who being prone to be actuated  by  sense  of revenge;  (2) Hardip Singh  was  not residing with his father at the relevant time but was living in  his native village Jagatpur, situated at a distance of 3 Kms.   from  village  Talwandi  Fattu;   (3)  there  was  no evidence  on record to show if the deceased Gurdev Singh had any  account  in the bank;  (4) Hardip Singh would not  have taken  to  heels  if he witnessed his father being  done  to death;   he would have rather tried to save his father;  (5) it  had not been shown if the FIR was recorded on the day of the  occurrence  at 2.30 p.m.  and there was no evidence  at what  time special report was sent to the Illaqa Magistrate; (6)  there  was  no motive to commit the  murder  of  Gurdev Singh,  Granthi  of Gurudwara, Village Talwandi Fattu  as  a Granthi  is  appointed  by a committee in  the  village  and resignation of Gurdev Singh as Granthi would have been of no consequence  for the appellants;  and finally that (7) there was  no evidence if the threat given to Gurdev Singh by  the appellants  were  brought to the notice of the Panchayat  of the village Talwandi Fattu, when Bikar Singh had told Gurdev Singh  that the matter would be brought to the notice of the Panchayat.   High  Court  did not find any merit in  any  of these   submissions.   Statement  of   Hardip  Singh   stood corroborated  by  other  evidence.  High  Court  found  that acquittal  of  the  appellants  was  not  justified  by  the evidence  on  record  and   it,  therefore,  overturned  the judgment  of the trial court, set aside the acquittal of the appellants and sentenced them as aforesaid.

     Mr.   Anil  Kumar  Gupta, who appeared  for  appellant Narinder  Singh,  raised similar pleas as were made  in  the High Court.  His principal argument was that in the impugned judgment  the High Court did not consider that there was  no common  intention  shared  by appellant  Narinder  Singh  to commit  murder of Gurdev Singh.  He said in the whole of the judgment  Section  34 does not find mention except when  the High  Court convicts Narinder Singh under Section 302/34 IPC and  awards him punishment.  In any case, he said,  Narinder Singh  did  not  share the common intention  to  commit  the murder  of Gurdev Singh.  He said there was no evidence that the murder of Gurdev Singh was planned.  It was a per chance meeting  on a public road.  Narinder Singh, when he  grabbed Gurdev  Singh of his hands, merely said he would be taught a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

lesson  as he had not resigned as Granthi in accordance with their  demand.  The appellants were not carrying any weapon. What  they  were  wearing  were mini  kirpans,  which  their religion  ordains and is normal for them to wear the same on their  body.  Common intention has to be proved by direct or circumstantial  evidence  and  in the present  case  it  has neither  been shown to exist.  Mr.  Gupta then said that the statement  of Hardip Singh (PW-2) has not been  corroborated with  material particulars.  The allegation that both Gurdev Singh  and  Hardip Singh were going on cycle to the bank  to draw  money could be corroborated only if the pass book  and the  cycle on which they were riding were seized and brought in  as evidence.  This non- production of pass book and  the cycle  was  fatal to the story of the prosecution.   Lastly, Mr.   Gupta again stressed that it has not been shown as  to how  both  the appellants could be said to have  shared  the common  intention  to commit the murder of Gurdev  Singh  as alleged by the prosecution.

     Ms.   Amita Gupta, appearing for the second  appellant Ravinder  Singh alias Khanna, similarly pointed out what she called  loopholes in the prosecution version on the basis of which  learned Sessions Judge had acquitted the  appellants. She  submitted on the basis of the evidence it could not  be said  that the accused could be the cause of death of Gurdev Singh as they never knew that Gurdev Singh and his son would be passing that way on the date of the occurrence.  Only one single  injury inflicted on Gurdev Singh which could at best bring the case under Section 304 Part-II IPC and not Section 302  IPC.   It would, therefore, appear that same  arguments had been repeated in the trial court, then in High Court and now  before us.  Ms.  Gupta lastly said that the High  Court exercised its jurisdiction wrongly in upsetting the judgment of  the  Trial Court of acquittal against  the  well-settled principles.   The  High Court while considering  the  appeal against  acquittal  is  not exercising  any  extra  ordinary jurisdiction.   Its power to consider and decide the  appeal against  the  judgment of acquittal is same as  against  the judgment   of  conviction.   However,   there  are   certain guidelines.   One is that if there are two views on evidence which  are reasonably possible one supporting acquittal  and the  other  indicating conviction, High Court in  an  appeal against  judgment  of acquittal should not interfere  merely because it feels that it would as a trial court have taken a different  view.  High Court will certainly interfere if  it finds that the judgment of acquittal is manifestly erroneous and   that  the  trial  court   was  acted   with   material irregularity or its appreciation of evidence lacks coherence or  it  has  made assumptions which are unwarranted  or  its evaluation  of  evidence  is such as to shock the  sense  of justice  and which has led to miscarriage of justice or  its reasoning   is  unintelligible  or   defies  logic  or   its conclusions are against the weight of the evidence.  We have examined  evidence in this case and we are of the view  that the  High  Court  was right in overturning the  judgment  of acquittal  of  the  Court of Sessions.  Perversity  is  writ large  on the face of the judgment of the trial court.   Its appreciation  of evidence is wholly inappropriate and it has acted  with  material  irregularity.   It  has  taken   into consideration   inconsequential  circumstances   to   record acquittal  of the appellants.  It was submitted that  Hardip Singh  resided  in Jagatpur, native village of the  deceased Gurdev  Singh  while  Gurdev Singh himself was  residing  in Village Talwandi Fattu being Granthi of the Gurudwara there. Mr.   Gupta  said that it was improbable that  Hardip  Singh

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

would  meet  Gurdev Singh on the date of the occurrence  and would  take  him  to  Jagatpur.  We do  not  find  there  is anything unnatural about it.  When Gurdev Singh deceased had to  withdraw  money  from the Co-operative Bank  in  Village Jagatpur,  his  son  was taking him there  on  cycle.   This version of Hardip Singh is disputed on the ground that cycle as  well  as  the passbook of the bank were not  taken  into possession  by the police and that no evidence had been  led if  Gurdev had any account in the Co-operative Bank.  Hardip Singh was not cross-examined if he was not telling the truth that  his father had an account in the bank in Jagatpur.  He was  not  questioned if he was not going on the  cycle  with Gurdev  Singh  sitting  on  the carrier.   He  was  asked  a question  about  the passbook of the bank and his reply  was that  the  passbook  was in the bag which was slung  to  the handle of the cycle and that he did not produce the passbook before the Police.  No question was asked from Sub-Inspector Man  Singh, Investigating Officer as to why he did not  take into  possession the cycle or the passbook.  In fact,  there has  been  no  cross-examination  by the  appellant  of  the statement of Sub- Inspector Man Singh.  Nothing has come out from  the  cross-examination of Sub-Inspector Man  Singh  by appellant  Ravinder  Singh alias Khanna.  Sub-Inspector  Man Singh gave a coherent picture of the investigation conducted by  him,  his recording of the FIR and the statement of  the witnesses  and  recovery of Kirpan on  disclosure  statement made  by  the  appellant Ravinder Singh alias  Khanna  under Section  27  of the Evidence Act.  Sub-Inspector  Man  Singh (PW-6)  stated that in connection with election duty, he was going  to  village  Mukandpur accompanied  by  other  Police Officers.  At the bus stand of Gunachaur Hardip Singh (PW-2) met  him.  Sub-Inspector Man Singh recorded the statement of Hardip  Singh  (Exh.  PD), made an endorsement on  it  (Exh. PD/1)  and  sent the same to the Police Station,  Banga  for registration  of the formal FIR (Exh.  PE) He then proceeded to  the  spot along with police officers and  Hardip  Singh. Dead body of Gurdev Singh was found lying on one side of the metalled  road.   He prepared inquest report.   Bikar  Singh (PW-3)  and some other persons were present at the spot.  He inspected the spot lifted blood stained earth from the place where  the  dead body was lying and made that into a  sealed parcel.   Towards  the  head of the dead body a  turban  was found  which  was also lifted and made into  sealed  parcel. Both  the  sealed parcels were taken into  possession  after getting the recovery memos duly attested.  Sub-Inspector Man Singh prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence.  He recorded  statement of witnesses and sent the dead body with inquest  report  for  post   mortem  examination.    Wearing apparels  of  the deceased were also taken  into  possession which included a turban bracelet and a gatra.  Sub-Inspector Man  Singh  then stated that both the accused were  produced before  him  by Harinder Singh (PW-4) on November  10,  1989 whom  he arrested.  Next morning, i.e., November 11, 1989 he took  out Ravinder Singh alias Khanna from the Police lockup for  interrogation.  He disclosed that he had kept concealed one  kirpan at a particular place.  His statement (Exh.  PK) was  recorded  which  was attested by Shiv  Singh  and  Head Constable  Ranjit  Singh.  Then Ravinder Singh alias  Khanna led  the  Police party to the disclosed place from where  he produced kirpan (Exh.  P-1).  Trace of kirpan was made (Exh. PK/2)  and the kirpan was taken into possession.  Site  plan of  the  place of recovery was also prepared.  He  completed investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the accused in  the court.  Accused Narinder Singh did not cross-examine Sub-Inspector  Man  Singh except for asking a question  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

request  for  remand  (Exh.DB) bore the endorsement  of  the Illaqa   Magistrate.    There  is   nothing  much   in   the cross-examination  by  accused Ravinder Singh alias  Khanna. Sub-Inspector  Man  Singh denied the suggestion that  Gurdev Singh  deceased  was murdered during the  night  intervening 5/6.11.1989  by some unknown assailant and that  information regarding his murdered reached him early morning and that he reached the spot at 8.00 a.m.  He also denied the suggestion that  time  of murder was designedly changed to explain  the delay  and  to  make probable and natural  evidence  of  the alleged  eyewitnesses.  Sub- Inspector Man Singh also denied suggestion  that  accused Ravinder Singh alias Khanna  never made  disclosure statement and that he also did not get  the kirpan (Exh.P-1) recovered.  That is all to the statement of Sub-   Inspector   Man  Singh.    His  testimony  has   gone unchallenged.   We have noted above that a question was  put to Hardip Singh in cross-examination that he did not witness the occurrence.  A suggestion was given to Hardip Singh that Gurdev  Singh was murdered during the darkness of the  night by  unknown assailant and that the information regarding his murder  was  known to him early morning and that he  reached the  spot  at 8.00 a.m.  This suggestion of  the  appellants does  not  find support if we refer to the statement of  Dr. Gurvinder  Singh  Chhatwal who conducted post mortem of  the body  of  Gurdev Singh.  Comment of the trial court  on  the statement  of Dr.  Gurvinder Singh Chhatwal that he tried to improve  upon  his  evidence in a manner  favouring  to  the prosecution  is unjustified to say the least.  On the  first day  when  he  made  the  statement,  Dr.   Gurvinder  Singh Chhatwal  said  that the injury in question on the  body  of Gurdev Singh could not be possible by mini-kirpan worn by an Amritdhari  Sikh.  It is not that there is any standard size of  such mini- kirpan.  Further statement of Dr.   Gurvinder Singh  Chhatwal  could not be recorded as case property  had not  been  brought on that day.  On the adjourned day,  when kirpan  (Exh.   P-1)  was  shown  to  Dr.   Gurvinder  Singh Chhatwal, he stated that there was possibility of the injury having  been  caused with the weapon like mini-kirpan  (Exh. P-1)  and that when this would have been taken out from  the wound,    it   would   enlarge     the   wound.    In    the cross-examination,  Dr.   Gurvinder Singh Chhatwal stuck  to his  statement.  There is nothing in his evidence which  can even  remotely suggest that he made a statement favouring to the   prosecution.   Dr.   Gurvinder   Singh  Chhatwal   was forthright  that when he made a statement on the first  day, it was merely by guesswork.  Both the appellants were acting in  concert.   Their  intention  to do  away  Gurdev  Singh, Granthi  was  manifest  when  a couple of  days  before  the occurrence they openly threatened him to kill him in case he did  not  give  up the post of Granthi of the  Gurudwara  of village Talwandi Fattu.  This is no argument for the defence that  since  the  Granthi  is appointed  by  the  Management Committee  of  the Gurudwara, appointment of  the  appellant Narinder  Singh as Granthi of Gurudwara would not have  been automatic  and,  therefore, there was no occasion to hold  a threat  to Gurdev Singh.  It was then submitted that it  was dangerous  to return the finding of guilt merely on the sole statement  of one witness, Hardip Singh in the present case. It  is  contended that the conduct of Hardip Singh  was  not natural.   He  took to his heels when his father  was  being assaulted and he made no efforts to protect his father which was  natural  for a son.  But then Hardip Singh  has  stated that  accused  also  wanted to assault him  and  to  protect himself, he ran from the spot.  Statement of Hardip Singh is cogent and reliable.  He gets corroboration from Bikar Singh

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

(PW-3).  Both Hardip Singh (PW-2) and Bikar Singh (PW-3) are natural  witnesses.   Statement of Harinder Singh,  Sarpanch (PW-4)  has  been disbelieved to the extent that  any  extra judicial confession was made to him by the appellants and in our  opinion rightly so.  That, however, does not in any way deviate  from the evidence on record which is cogent clearly pointing  to  the murder of Gurdev Singh by  the  appellants with  a  common intention.  It has to be held that  Narinder Singh,  appellant  grabbed Gurdev Singh by his arms and  the second appellant stabbed him.  When appellant Narinder Singh grabbed  Gurdev Singh, he said in so many words that  Gurdev Singh  would now be taught a lesson as he did not resign  as Granthi  of the Gurudwara of village Talwandi Fattu.  It  is not  disputed  that Amritdhari Sikh always carry  Kirpan  on their  body  and  in  that  view of the  matter  it  is  not necessary  for  the  appellants to carry any  other  arm  or weapon.   Kirpan  (Exh.P-1) was used to commit  the  murder. Trial  Court  totally  went  wrong when  it  said  that  the recovery  of  kirpan  from the second appellant  was  of  no consequence and was not sufficient to connect the appellants with the crime.  Both the appellants committed the murder of Gurdev  Singh,  Granthi  in   furtherance  to  their  common intention.   It  was submitted by Mr.  Gupta  that  Narinder Singh could not have convicted with the aid of Section 34 as this  section is nowhere mentioned in the impugned judgment. Mention of section in the judgment is not the requirement of law  to convict a person.  If the ingredients of the offence are  present, conviction can be made.  It is not material to bring  the  case  under Section 34 IPC as to who,  in  fact, inflicted the fatal blow.  High Court has rightly interfered in  the matter and sentenced the appellants accordingly.  We do  not  find  any merit in the appeal.   It  is  dismissed. Appellant Narinder Singh was ordered to be released on bail. His  bail bond shall be cancelled and he shall be taken into custody forthwith.