http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: SARBIR SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/02/1993

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

CITATION:  1993 SCR  (1)1027        1993 SCC  Supl.  (3)  41  JT 1993 (2)   159        1993 SCALE  (1)573

ACT: Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Conviction under-Murder- Proof of-Circumstantial evidence-Appreciation of evidence by Court-Duty  of Court-Evidence adduced by  prosecution  clear and unambiguous-Effect of.

HEADNOTE: The prosecution case was that the appellant and the deceased were  intimate  friends.   The  appellant  nursed  a  grudge against the deceased, as he misbehaved with the wife of  the appellant. On July 8, 1979 in the morning the deceased accompanied  the appellant  to  Mohali,  where the  appellant  wanted  to  do business.   At Mohali, the appellant went to the brother  of his  wife  (P.W.  11) and borrowed a  bicycle,  leaving  the deceased at a shop. later both left the shop on the bicycle. The  deceased was pedalling the bicycle while the  appellant was  sitting behind on the carrier of the bicycle.   P.W.  5 saw  them  going by the side of the  Gurdwara,  Sahib  Singh Sabha.  At about 2.45 P.M. on the same day, P.W. 5 when went to  the Gurdwara, one Om Parkash came there and  told  P.W.5 that  an injured Sikh gentleman was lying on the  ground  in the  campus  of  the Gurdwara.  P.W. 5  accompanied  by  one Balwinder Singh came to the spot.  He identified the  victim lying on the ground bleeding profusely.  The members of  the Gurdwara  Committee  were summoned.  The  members  who  were available reached.  The victim succumbed to the injuries  in the  meantime.   P.W.  5 accompanied by  one  Chatter  Singh lodged  the First Information Report at 4.00 p.m., the  same day. The prosecution case was based solely on the  circumstantial evidence  and  it  could  prove  the  chain  events   beyond reasonable doubt by the evidences of its witnesses. The appellant was convicted under section 302 of the  Indian Penal  Code  and was sentenced to undergo  imprisonment  for life by the trial Court. 1027 1028 Dismissing the appeal, this Court, HELD  : 1.01. It is said that men lie but  circumstances  do not.   Under  the circumstances prevailing  in  the  society today,  it  is  not  true  in  many  cases.   Sometimes  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

circumstances  which  are sought to be  proved  against  the accused  for purpose of establishing the charge are  planted by  the  elements  hostile  to  the  accused  who  find  out witnesses to fill up the gaps in the chain of circumstances. [1031D] 1.02.     In   countries  having  sophisticated   modes   of investigation,  every  trace left behind by culprit  can  be followed  and pursued immediately.  Unfortunately it is  not available in many parts of this country.  That is why Courts have   insisted  (i)  the  circumstances  from   which   the conclusion  of  guilt  is to be drawn should  in  the  first instance  be  fully  established;  (ii)  all  the  facts  so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the  guilt of the accused and should be such as  to  exclude every hypothesis but the one sought to be proved; (iii)  the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature; and (iv) the chain of evidence should not have any reasonable ground  for a  conclusion consistent with the innocence of the  accused. [1031E-F] 1.03.     If  at  a  trial the  prosecution  adduces  direct evidence  to  prove  the  charge,  the  Court  is  primarily concerned whether the witnesses who have testified about the role  of  the  accused  are reliable.   Once  the  Court  is satisfied  that the witnesses who Pre said to have seen  the occurrence  are  trustworthy  and  inspire  confidence,  the finding  of  guilt  has to be  recorded,  if  otherwise  the accused  has  to  be  acquitted.  But in  a  case  based  on circumstantial  evidence neither the accused nor the  manner of  occurrence  is known to the persons connected  with  the victim. [1031B-C] 1.04.     Suspicion and conjecture should not take place  of legal proof.  It is true that the chain of events proved  by the prosecution must show that within all human  probability the offence has been committed by the accused, but the Court is  expected to consider the total cumulative effect of  all the  proved  facts along with the motive  suggested  by  the prosecution which induced the accused to follow a particular path.   The existence of a motive is often  an  enlightening factor  in  a  process of  presumptive  reasoning  in  cases depending on circumstantial evidence. [1032C-D] 1.05.     The evidence adduced on behalf of the  prosecution is clear, 1029 unambiguous  and  in unmistakable terms establish  that  the appellant  is the perpetrator of the crime and  nothing  has been  brought to Court’s notice which leaves any gap in  the circumstances  to  establish  the  guilt  of  the  appellant [1036B] Reg v. Hodge, (1838) 2 Lewin 227; Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343; Deonandan Mishra v.  The  State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 801; Govinda  Reddy  v. State of Mysore, AIR 1960 SC 29; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State  of  Maharashtra,  AIR  1984  SC  1622;  Ashok   Kumar Chatterjee v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1989 SC 1890  and State  of U. P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC  840, referred to.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 918  of 1981. From  the Judgment and Order dated 10.8.81 of the  Punjab  & Haryana High Court in Crl.  A. No. 417 DB of 1980. U.R.  Lalit,  M. Qmaruddin and Mrs. M.  Oumaruddin  for  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

Appellant. Ranbir Singh Yadav and R.S. Suri (NP) for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.P.  SINGH,  J.  The appellant  has  been  convicted  under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been  sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, for causing the murder  of Paramjit Singh. It is said that the appellant and the deceased were intimate friends  and  they  used to visit  frequently  each  other’s house.   But  Paramjit  Singh (hereinafter  referred  to  as ’deceased’)  misbehaved with the wife of the  appellant  and because of that the appellant had nursed a grudge.  On  July 8,  1979 in the morning the appellant asked the deceased  to accompany  him to Chandigarh and Mohali where he  wanted  to take  some suitable shop for his business.  They  boarded  a bus  of  the  Road  Transport  Corporation  at  Patiala  for Chandigarh  at about 9.59 A.M. Gurcharan Singh  (PW-8)  also came  to Chandigarh by the same bus.  The appellant and  the deceased  reached Chandigarh at about 11.30 A.M.  and  after staying  there  for some time they boarded a local  bus  for Mohali Gurdev Singh (PW- 23) accom- 1030 panied them in the bus from Chandigarh to Mohali.  At Mohali after  getting down from the bus the appellant went  to  Raj Kumar  Singh  (PW-711) brother of his wife  and  borrowed  a bicycle  from  him.   During this period  the  deceased  was sitting  at  a  shop  and  taking  aerated  water.   Shortly thereafter,  the appellant arrived with the bicycle  at  the said  shop and both left on the bicycle.  The  deceased  was pedalling  the bicycle and the appellant sat behind  on  the carrier.   Both  were seen going on the  bicycle  by  Jaimal Singh (PW-5) by the side of the Gurdwara, Sahib Singh Sabha, Mohali.  Jaimal Singh (PW-5) after taking his meals went  to Gurdwara Sahib Singh Sabha at about 2.45 P.M. the same  day. One  Om  Parkash,  came  there and  told  him  that  a  Sikh gentleman was lying on the ground in the campus of the  said Gurdwara  in  an  injured condition.   Jaimal  Singh  (PW-5) accompanied  by Balwinder Singh, Sewadar, came to  the  spot and  found  the  victim lying on  the  ground  and  bleeding profusely.  He identified him to be the same person whom  he had  seen  earlier  on the bicycle.  The  victim  could  not speak.  Jaimal  Singh (PW-5) left Om Parkash  and  Balwinder Singh,  Sewadar,  at the spot and summoned  members  of  the Gurdwara  Committee. Some of the members who were  available reached.  But  in the meantime the victim succumbed  to  the injuries. They searched  for   the   assailant.   Thereafter Jaimal Singh (PW-5) accompanied by Chatter Singh went to the Police  Station  Mohali  and lodged  the  first  information report at 4.00 P.M. the same day. It  is further the case of the prosecution that  near  about the time of    the  occurrence the appellant was seen coming from the side of the     Gurdwara Sahib Singh Sabha and  was noticed  on the way by Joginder Singh (PW-9) with  blood  on his hand. On being asked the appellant gave  out that he had a  fight with someone. and he was going to the  hospital  to get  his injuries dressed. Gurdev Singh (PW-23) on  his  way back from the  hotel  also  saw the appellant going  on  the bicycle and found him puzzled.     He  also saw the hand  of the appellant stained with blood and blood marks  on     his clothes  as well. On querry the appellant said that  he  had got the   injury  through barbed wire and was going  to  the doctor to get his wounds dressed.  Last  in  the  chain   of events,  the appellant reached the house of Raj Kumar  Singh (PW-11) and returned him his bicycle. It is also the case of the prosecution that next day on July

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

9, 1979,  the appellant made over the his shirt to Ram Gopal (PW-6), Dry Cleaner, 1031 asking  him  to remove the stains from it.  A  copy  of  the receipt prepared in connection with the aforesaid shirt  was produced  during  the trial.  The doctor who held  the  post mortem  examination  found  several incised  wounds  on  the person of the deceased including injury on the abdomen. There  is  no  dispute that the prosecution  case  is  based solely  on the circumstantial evidence.  If at a  trial  the prosecution adduces direct evidence to prove the charge, the Court is primarily concerned whether the witnesses who  have testified about the role of the accused are reliable.   Once the  Court is satisfied that the witnesses who are  said  to have  seen  the  occurrence  are  trustworthy  and   inspire confidence,  the  finding of guilt has to  be  recorded,  if otherwise  the accused has to be acquitted.  But in  a  case based on circumstantial evidence neither the accused nor the manner of occurrence is known to the persons connected  with the  victim.   The first information report is  lodged  only disclosing the offence, leaving to the investigating  agency to find out the offender. It is said that men lie but circumstances do not.  Under the circumstances  prevailing  in the society today, it  is  not true  in many cases.  Sometimes the circumstances which  are sought  to  be  proved against the accused  for  purpose  of establishing the charge are planted by the elements  hostile to the accused who find out witnesses to fill up the gaps in the   chain   of   circumstances.    In   countries   having sophisticated  modes  of  investigation,  every  trace  left behind  by  the culprit can be followed  and  pursued  imme- diately.  Unfortunately it is not available in many parts of the this country.  That is why Courts have insisted (i)  the circumstances  from which the conclusion of guilt is  to  be drawn  should  in the first instance be  fully  established; (ii) all the facts so established should be consistent  only with  the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and  should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one sought to be proved; (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature;  and (iv) the chain of evidence should not have  any reasonable  ground  for  a conclusion  consistent  with  the innocence of the accused. A note of caution has also been struck regarding the role of imagination.   In the case of Reg v. Hodge, (1838)  2  Lewin 227, it was said:               "The  mind  was  apt to  take  a  pleasure  in               adapting  circumstances  to one  another,  and               even  in straining them a little, if need  be,               to force them to form parts of one               1032               connected  while; and the more  ingenious  the               mind  of the individual, the more  likely  was               it, considering such matter, to overreach  and               mislead  itself,  to supply some  little  link               that is wanting, to take for granted some fact               consistent  with  its  previous  theories  and               necessary to render them complete.’               It  has  been  impressed  that  suspicion  and               conjecture  should  not take  place  of  legal               proof  It  is true that the  chain  of  events               proved  by  the  prosecution  must  show  that               within  all human probability the offence  has               been  committed by the accused, but the  Court               is  expected to consider the total  cumulative               effect of all the proved facts along with  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

             motive  suggested  by  the  prosecution  which               induced  the  accused to follow  a  particular               path.   The existence of a motive is often  an               enlightening   factor   in   a   process    of               presumptive  reasoning in cases  depending  on               circumstantial evidence. Coming  to the facts of the present case, Pritam  Kaur  (PW- 12), mother of the deceased, has deposed that the  appellant went to her house in the morning and took the deceased  with him saying that he win be accompanying him to Mohali because the  appellant  had to select a suitable  shop.   Thereafter both of them left together.  There does not appear to be any reason  on the part of the mother of the victim  to  falsely state  about the deceased going along with the appellant  in the  morning  of July 8, 1979.  Gurcharan Singh  (PW-8)  has testified  that  at 9.30 A.M. he saw the appellant  and  the deceased at the bus stand.  He exchanged greeting with them. They told him that they were going to Chandigarh or  Mohali. The deceased purchased two bus tickets for Chandigarh in his presence.  Gurcharan Singh (PW-8) travelled in the same  bus with  the appellant and the deceased and all the three  came out  from the bus at Chandigarh together.  Sahib Chand  (PW- 24),   an   employee  of  the  Punjab   Roadways   Transport Corporation,  had  sold  two  tickets.   The  yard   control register  was produced before the Court to prove in  respect of  sale  of the two tickets which were recovered  from  the person  of  the  deceased at the time  to  the  post  mortem examination.   The  two tickets were recovered  on  July  8, 1979, on the date. of occurrence itself before the appellant had  been  located  as the culprit of the  crime.   The  two tickets recovered from the person of the deceased 1033 establish that the deceased had travelled from Patiala along with  one  another person who was close to him  because  the deceased  was keeping both the tickets in his pocket.   This circumstances corroborates the evidence of Pritam Kaur  (PW- 12) as well as of Gurcharan Singh (PW-8). The other circumstance in the chain of events, according  to the  prosecution,  is that the appellant  and  the  deceased boarded a local bus at Chandigarh for Mohali reaching  there at  about  1.30  P.M. Gurdev Singh  (PW-23),  who  was  then employee in Colonization Department, Sector 22,  Chandigarh, and  residing at Badheri, also travelled in the  same  local bus.  He belonged to Patiala.  Gurdev Singh (PW-23) saw  the appellant  and the deceased getting down from the local  bus at  Mohali.  They also exchanged greetings with him  and  on being  asked the appellant told him that they were going  to select  a shop.  They walked together for a  short  distance and  thereafter Gurdev Singh (PW-23) went to take his  meals at a dhaba.  Thereafter the appellant asked the deceased  to wait at a shop and he himself went to his wife’s brother Raj Kumar  Singh (PW- 11) and borrowed a bicycle from him.   Raj Kumar  Singh  (PW-11)  although  a  close  relation  of  the appellant  has  testified that the appellant  took  his  red bicycle from his house at about 1.30 P.M. Jaimal Singh  (PW- 5)  saw  the deceased taking aerated water at the  shop  and later saw the appellant and the deceased both going together on  a red bicycle.  The deceased was pedalling  the  bicycle and the appellant was sitting on the carrier.  Gurdev  Singh (PW23) aforesaid who had left the appellant and the deceased while going to the dhaba for taking his meals, after  taking his meals, at about 2.30 P.M. again saw the appellant coming on  the  same bicycle alone.  The appellant appeared  to  be puzzled  and his hands were stained with blood.  There  were also blood spots on his clothes.  Gurdev Singh (PW-23) asked

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

him. as to what had happened to him.  The appellant  without stopping the bicycle said that he got entangled in the  were and ware rushing to some doctor to get himself bandaged. Yet  another witness Joginder Singh (PW-9) who had  gone  to Mohali  in  search of some plot saw the appellant  at  about 2.15  P.M. coming on a red colour bicycle.  He also  noticed the hand of the appellant stained with blood.  On query  the appellant  told  Joginder Singh (PW-9) that he had  a  fight with  some person and was going to hospital for dressing  of his  wounds.   Thereafter the appellant went  to  Raj  Kumar Singh  (PW-11) his brother-in-law to hand over  the  bicycle aforesaid. 1034 It  may be mentioned that in the Court Raj Kumar Singh  (PW- 11)  stated  that this appellant had gone to  his  house  at about  1.30 P.M. and taken his red colour bicycle  which  he returned  the  same day later.  But he denied  that  he  had stated during investigation that he had seen injuries on the hand of the appellant.  He also denied that he had told  the police during investigation that the appellant was  mentally agitated.  Still the fact that the appellant had taken  from him  his  red colour bicycle at about 1.30  P.M.  which  the appellant  returned  to  him later the  same  day  has  been testified by him.  If this part of the evidence of Raj Kumar Singh  (PW-11) is accepted which we find no reason to  doubt then his evidence corroborates the evidence of Jaimal  Singh (PW-5) and Gurdev Singh (PW-23) that the appellant was going with the deceased on a red colour bicycle at about 1.30 P.M. and  about  2.30 P.M. the appellant was seen coming  on  the bicycle alone.  Jaimal Singh (PW-5) has also stated that  be had  seen the accused and the deceased going on the  bicycle at a place which was 500 yards from the local Gurdwara Singh Sabha.  Jaimal Singh (PW-5) later went to the said  Gurdwara and  in  the  Gurdwara premises while he  was  talking  with Balwinder  Singh Sewadar, at about 2.45 P.M. one Om  Parkash came  there and informed that a Sikh gentlemen was lying  on the  ground  in  an injured condition.   All  of  them  went towards the place where the injured was lying.  Jaimal Singh recognised the victim to be the same person whom he had seen earlier  taking aerated water at the shop and later  on  the bicycle along with the appellant.  Blood was coming out from his  abdominal region.  The victim was not in a position  to speak.  Jaimal Singh (PW-5) went to call the members of  the Gurdwara Committee.  Two members of the Gurdwara reached the spot.   But  by  that  time victim  had  succumbled  to  his injuries.  Therefore they went to the Police Station  Mohali where  Jaimal  Singh  (PW-5) lodged  the  first  information report at 4.00 P.M. Jaimal Singh (PW-5) did not know  either the  name  of the appellant or that of the deceased  but  he stated  in the first information report that he had gone  to Dhaba  and at about 1.30 P.M., while taking meals he  saw  a fair  complexioned  Sardar  taking  aerated  water  in   the adjoining  ’shop.  After taking meals when he was  going  on the  road,  again he saw the same Sardar pedalling  a  cycle going  towards Gurdwara Singh Sabha Mohafi and behind him  a young Hindu Mona was sitting on the cycle.  Then he gave the details as to how then at the Gurdwara, at about 2.45  P.M., one Om Parkash told him that one Sardar was lying in a comer of Gurdwara in an injured 1035 condition.   He  went and-identified that he  was  the  same young man whom he had seen taking aerated water at the  shop and  then on the bicycle.  The first information report  was lodged within one-and-a-half hours of the occurrence  giving the  aforesaid  details.  The statements made in  the  first

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

information report corroborate fully the testimony of Jaimal Singh (PW-5) in Court.  Once the evidence of Jaimal Singh is accepted,  it  supports  and corroborates  the  evidence  of Gurdev  Singh (PW-23) who had travelled with  the  appellant and deceased in local bus from Chandigarh to Mohali and  had got  down at Mohali at 1.30 P.M. He later saw the  appellant at about 2.30 P.M. returning on the bicycle with injuries on hand  and blood on clothes.  Gurdev Singh (PW-23)  knew  the appellant as well as deceased from before. Apart  from the evidence of the witnesses, who  have  proved the different links in the chain of events, the shirt  which the  appellant  was  wearing and on  which  blood  had  been noticed   by  witnesses  as  already  mentioned  above   was recovered  from the laundry of Ram Gopal (PW-6).   According to Ram Gopal (PW-6) on July 9, 1979 the appellant had  given that  shirt  to  remove certain stains.   He  had  issued  a receipt  to the appellant and one chit was tagged  with  the shirt  for  identification.  The third was kept  by  way  of record.   The  shirt  was seized and sent  to  the  chemical examiner who found human blood on the said shirt.  The shirt as well as the bicycle were produced as exhibits before  the Trial  Court and have been identified by the  witnesses  who were  examined  on behalf of the prosecution.  None  of  the witnesses  examined on behalf of the prosecution  appear  to have  been set up or planted by any inimical  source.   They are  neither  interested in the deceased nor have  any  bias against the appellant. So far the motive which impelled the appellant to commit the murder,  it has been suggested on behalf of the  prosecution that  the appellant and the deceased were  intimate  friends but  the  appellant had a suspicion that  the  deceased  was misbehaving  with  his wife, for which the appellant  had  a resentment.  The resentment was never allowed to be surfaced by the appellant by way of strong protest or  confrontation. However, he had mentioned this to Darshanjit Singh  (PW-13), Kanwaljit Singh (PW-14) and Sarup Lal (PW-15).  ’rile  three witnesses aforesaid have deposed as to how the appellant was carrying a suspicion and was tense from inside in respect of the  conduct  of  tile deceased.  There is  nothing  on  the record  to  show  that the aforesaid  three  witnesses  were either inimical to the appellant or 1036 interested  in the deceased because of that they could  have concocted  a  motive  for commission of  the  crime  by  the appellant. According  to  us  the evidence adduced  on  behalf  of  the prosecution is clear, unambiguous and in unmistakable  terms establish that the appellant is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing has been brought to our notice which leaves  any gap  in  the  circumstances to establish the  guilt  of  the appellant.   The facts of the case stands the  scrutiny  and tests  as laid down by this Court in the cases  of  Hanumant Govind  Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR  1952  SC 343;  Deonandan  Mishra v. The State of Bihar, AIR  1955  SC 801;  Govinda  Reddy  v. State of Nysore, AIR  1960  SC  29; Sharad  Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR  1984 SC 1622; Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of Madhya  Pradesh, AIR 1989 SC 1890 and State of UP v. Ashok Kumar  Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. V.P.R. Appeal dismissed. 1037

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