http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SAT PAL & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/10/1995

BENCH: MUKHERJEE M.K. (J) BENCH: MUKHERJEE M.K. (J) PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  Supl.  (4)   1 1995 SCALE  (6)86

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T M.K. MUKHERJEE. J.      Om Parkash @ Neelu, his two sons Satpal @ Sattu and Bir Bhan, and  Gulzar Singh  were arraigned  before the Sessions Judge, Bhatinda  for the  murder of  Janta Singh.  The trial ended in an acquittal of Sat Pal and conviction of the other three under  section 302  read with Section 34 I.P.C. with a sentence of  imprisonment for  life and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. While  the three  convicts filed appeals against their convictions, the State of Punjab filed an appeal against the acquittal of  Sat Pal,  and Bant  Singh, the  brother of the deceased, filed a revision petition seeking compensation. In disposing of  the appeals  and the  revision petition  by  a common judgment  the High  Court affirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court, reversed the acquittal of Sat  Pal by convicting and sentencing him to imprisonment for life  and a  fine of  Rs. 1,000/-  under Section  302/34 I.P.C. and  directed that the fine if realised shall be paid to the  heirs of  Janta Singh.  Hence these  appeals at  the instance of the four convicts.      The prosecution  case is that on December 5, 1981 at or about 11.45 A.M. Janta Singh (the deceased) was going to his outer house followed by his brothers Bant Singh and Mukhtiar Singh to  guard their  cattle. When  they had almost reached Bahamanwali Gali (lane) in their village the four appellants suddenly  emerged   from  that  qali  armed  with  different weapons. Om  Parkash had  a dang,  Sat Pal a kulhari and Bir Bhan and  Gulzar Singh had a gandasa each. Om Parkash raised a lalkara  exhorting his  companions that Janta Singh should not be allowed to escape. Immediately thereupon Bir Bhan and Gulzar Singh  gave successive  gandasa blows  on the head of Janta Singh  as a result of which he fell down. While he was lying on  the ground  both Sat Pal and Om Parkash gave blows on his  neck with  their respective weapons. On alarms being raised by  Bant Singh and Mukhtiar Singh they fled away from the spot  along with  their respective  weapons. Janta Singh

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

had in  the meantime  died at  the spot. The motive ascribed for the  murderous assault  was that a few days prior to the incident Om  Parkash had been arrested for having been found in  possession  of  opium  and  intoxicating  drugs  and  he suspected that  it was Janta Singh who had given information to the police.      It is the further prosecution case that Bant Singh then went and informed Zoravar Singh and Jang Singh, the Sarpanch and  Chowkidar   of  the   village  respectively  about  the incident. On  receiving the  information, Jang Singh went to guard the dead body of Janta Singh along with Mukhtiar Singh while Bant  Singh  accompanied  by  Zoravar  Singh  went  to Budhlada Police  Station to lodge an information. ASI Gurmit Singh recorded  the statement of Bant Singh and registered a case. After  making arraignment  to send a special report to the local  Judicial Magistrate, ASI Gurmit Singh went to the spot accompanied  by Bant  Singh and  Zoravar Singh. He held inquest upon  the dead  body of Janta Singh and forwarded it for post-mortem  examination. He prepared a rough site plan, seized some  blood stained  earth from  near  the  spot  and recorded the statements of Zoravar Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Jang Singh.  In course  of  investigation  he  arrested  the appellants and  pursuant to their statements discovered some lathis,   kulharis    and   gandasas.   On   completion   of investigation he  submitted a  charge-sheet against the four appellants.      The  appellants  pleaded  not  guilty  to  the  charges levelled against  them and  tendered written  statements  in support  of   their  claim   that  they   had  been  falsely implicated.      Though the  prosecution  examined  as  many  as  eleven witnesses including  Zoravar Singh  (PW 7)  and  ASI  Gurmit Singh (PW  11)  to  prove  its  case  its  success  depended primarily upon  the acceptance  of the ocular version of the incident as  given out  by Bant  Singh (P.W. 2) and Mukhtiar Singh (P.W.  6) and of Dr. A.K. Garg (P.W. 1), who held post mortem examination on the dead body of Janta Singh and found the following injures on his person:      1.    Incised  wound 2"  x 0.3"  on the  head      just  right   to  the   mid  line,  6"  above      occipital protuberance, placed vertically.      2. One  incised wound  1" x  1/3" present  on      head, 2. 1/2" to the left of injury No.1.      3. Abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" on the medial side of      right elbow.      4. One abrasion 1" x 1/2" behind left elbow.      5. Abrasion  1/2" x 1/2" on the other side of      left elbow.      6. Abrasion  1/2" x 1/2" on the poster medial      side of left elbow.      7. One  bluish bruise  4" x  1" on  the right      side of  chest 3"  from midline, against 2nd,      3rd and 4th ribs.      8. One  bruise of  bluish colour  6" x 3.1/2"      against left  clavicle 2nd  & 3rd ribs in the      shape like.      9. One  bruise 4.1/2" x 1/4" was transfersely      placed on  the neck  between  lower  jaw  and      thyroid protuberance.      10.  One   bruise  4"  x  1/4"  on  the  neck      obliquelly  to  right  side  against  thyroid      cartilage.      11. One  bruise 1/2’ x 1/4" on the right side      of the neck."      The trial  Court found that the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

6 could  be  safely  relied  upon  to  sustain  the  charges levelled against  the appellants  Om Parkash,  Bir Bhan  and Gulzar Singh,  more so,  as it was corroborated by the first information report  which was  promptly lodge  by P.W. 2 and the injuries  found by P.W. 1 on the person of the deceased. In acquitting the other appellant, namely, Sat Pal the trial Court recorded the following finding:      "After Janta  Singh had fallen on the ground,      Sat Pal  accused gave  two kulhari blows, one      on the neck and the other on the left side of      the  chest   of  the  deceased.  The  medical      evidence on the record shows that injuries on      the neck  and on  the chest  are not  incised      injuries. Faced  with this  situation the two      eye-witnesses  in  the  instant  the  changed      their stance  and instant  case changed their      stance and  tried to  explain  said  injuries      that the  first kulhari  blow, was given from      upard-downward while  holding the  handle  of      the kulhari  and the  second blow  was  given      from  flat   portion  of  the  blade  of  the      kulhari.  This   aspect  of   the   case   is      conspicuous by its absence from  the earliest      version given by the two eye-witnesses before      the police,  before the  post mortem had been      conducted. In  these circumstances,  it  will      not be safe to place imllicit reliance on the      testimony of  Bant Singh Mukhtiar Singh P.Ws.      as far as the infliction of the aforesaid two      injuries attributed  to Sat  Pal accused,  is      concerned."      The High Court concurred with all the findings recorded by the  trial Court  for convicting the three appellants and in reversing  the acquittal  of Sat  Pal the  High Court had this to say:      "So  far as  Sat Pal  is concerned, according      to  the  prosecution  when  Janta  Singh  had      fallen on the ground Sat Pal gave two kulhari      blows, one  on the  neck and the other on the      left side  of  the  chest  of  the  deceased.      According  to   the  medical   evidence,  the      injuries on the nect and in the chest are not      incised   injuries    and   the   prosecution      witnesses have  explained this that the first      kulhari blow  was give  from  upward-downward      while holding  the hendle  of the kulhari and      the second  blow was  given from flat portion      of the  blade of  the kulhari.  although this      aspect of  the case  is not  in the  earliest      version,  but   the   minutest   photographic      details cannot be expected to be given by the      eye-witnesses.  The   learned   trial   court      acquitted Sat  Pal respondent  on this ground      that these  injuries were  not explained   at      the  earliest   were  not  explained  at  the      earliest  version   and  go  counter  to  the      medical evidence.  In all  11  injuries  were      caused and  out of them for were abrasions on      the elbows. It may be that the said abrasions      were caused  as a  result of fall and not due      to direct  blows. the  appellants and Sat Pal      respondent   inflicted    blows   in    quick      succession and  it was  not possible  for the      eye-witnesses to  give an  exact account,  as      observed earlier.  Thus, we  are of  the view

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

    that  the   acquittal  of  Sat  Pal  was  not      justified by  the learned trial Court on this      ground."      Mr. Sushil Kumar  the learned counsel appearing for the appellants took  us through  the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to  contend that  the High  Court was  not  a  all justified in setting aside the order of acquittal or Sat Pal as  the  findings  recorded  by  the  trial  Court  for  his acquittal could not be said to be perverse.      Having considered  the impugned  judgments in the light of the  evidence on record we are in complete agreement with the High Court that the trial Court was not at all justified in recording  the acquittal  of Sat  Pal on the basis of the findings quoted  earlier. In  the F.I.R.  that was lodged by Bant Singh within two hours of the incident he categorically sated that while Janta Singh was lying on the ground Sat Pal gave axe  blows on  his neck as also on the left side of his chest. In  course of  the trial also Bant Singh stuck to his above version and gave further details regarding the mode of user of  the axe.  It was not expected of Bant Singh nor was it necessary  to give  minute details  in  the  F.I.R..  The finding of  the trial  Court as earlier quoted, for brushing aside the  evidence of  P.W.  2  as  against  Sat  Pal  must therefore be  held to  be perverse. For the self same reason the finding  of the  trial Court for discarding the evidence of P.W.  6, in  view of his omission to detail the manner of user of  the axe  by Sat Pal in his statement recorded under Section 161  Cr. P.C.  cannot be  sustained for it was not a material  omission   amounting  to   contradiction.   Having carefully gone  through the  evidence of Bant Singh (P.W. 2) and Mukhtiar  Singh (P.W.  6) we  are satisfied  that  their evidence as  against Sat  Pal is  also cogent and consistent and the  High Court  was fully justified in relying upon the same. So  far as  the other  three appellants  are concerned both the  learned courts  below, who were entrusted with the duty of  investigating into  questions of  fact have,  on  a proper discussion  and appraisal  of the  evidence, recorded their findings against them and sitting in this jurisdiction under Article  136 of  the Constitution  of India  we do not find any reason to interfere with the same.      It was  sought to be argued on behalf of the appellants that the  learned Courts  below failed  to notice  that  the prosecution signally failed to prove the motive ascribed for the alleged  murder, thereby  making its case suspect. Since both the  learned Courts below found the evidence of the eye witnesses regarding the actual murder acceptable, the motive and   for   that   matter   proof   therefor,   paled   into insignificance..      On the  conclusions as  above we dismiss the appeal and direct the  appellants, who are on bail, to their respective bail bonds to serve out the sentence.