REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.349-350 OF 2002

State of Punjab          ....Appellant

Versus

Gurdev Singh & Ors.       ....Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.  

1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of

the Punjab and Haryana High Court directing acquittal of the respondents.

It  is  to  be  noted  that  four  out  of  six  respondents  were  found  guilty  of

offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) and sentence of imprisonment for life

1

and fine of Rs.500/- with default  stipulation.   It  was awarded by learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur.

2. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:

Gursewak  Singh on 24.5.1994 reported to the police that  he is the

resident of village Gurdaspura and they are five brothers and he is eldest to

all. Bhupinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) is younger to

him and Raj Kanwar Singh is younger to Bhupinder Singh and Chitranjan

Singh is youngest to all. Being the eldest to all brothers, the complainant is

the head of the family and is responsible for looking after the entire land

belonging to them, situated in village Gurdaspura. They took possession of

400 Bighas of land at village Gurdaspura through the orders of the Court on

22.3.1994. The said land was previously being cultivated by Mewa Singh

son of  Geja Singh  adopted  son of  Keeru  Singh,  now resident  of  village

Kalaudi and by others. On 23.5.1994, he along with his brother Raj Kanwar

Singh were going towards their village in Maruti  Car bearing registration

No .PB 138/5659,  whereas  his  brother  Bhupinder  Singh  was  also  going

towards village Gurdaspura after doing his domestic work on his scooter

No.Hl A-870. Bhupinder Singh was going ahead of the complainant, while

2

he  and  Raj  Kanwar  Singh  were  following  Bhupinder  Singh  on  the  car.

When they reached near the passage going towards village Nai Wala, within

the area of village Khurana, at about 2.00 p.m. a Jeep bearing registration

No.PYG351 came from the side  of  Sangrur,  which  was  being  driven by

accused Mewa Singh son of Geja Singh. Accused Mewa Singh overtook the

Car of the complainant and knowingly hit the scooter of Bhupinder Singh

with an intention to kill him, as a result of which Bhupinder Singh fell down

on the road and then accused Mewa Singh stopped his jeep.  Accused Mewa

Singh had a rod in his hand. Accused Geja Singh son of Kartar Singh Jat,

Resident of Village Kalaudi was armed with rod and accused Gurdev Singh

son of Geja Singh was armed with hockey stick, accused Ram Singh son of

Surjit  Singh  was  armed  with  hockey stick,  Jagtar  Singh  accused  son  of

Chhaju  Singh  Ghumar,  resident  of  Gurdaspura  was  armed  with  soti  and

accused Gurmit Singh alias Gala, son of Bachan Singh, Ghumar resident of

Gurdaspura was armed with rod. They got down from the jeep and at once

started causing injuries to Bhupinder Singh. Accused Mewa Singh gave Rod

blow on the head of Bhupinder Singh. Accused Geja Singh also gave Rod

blow  on  the  forehead  of  Bhupinder  Singh.  Thereafter,  accused  Gurdev

Singh gave hockey stick blow to Bhupinder Singh, which hit on his chin.

Accused Ram Singh then gave Hockey stick blow which hit on the nose of

3

Bhupinder  Singh.  Thereafter  accused  Jagtar  Singh  gave  soti  blow  to

Bhupinder Singh, which hit on the right side of his temple and then accused

Gurmal Singh alias Gela, abovesaid, gave Rod blow, which hit in the left

side of chest of Bhupinder Singh. Accused Geja Singh, raised Lalkara that

Bhupinder Singh should not be left alive and he be killed and be taught a

lesson. Thereafter all the accused again caused injuries to Bhupinder Singh

with their respective weapons, which hit him on his legs, arms, hands, chest,

abdomen also on the abdomen, the complainant and his brother Raj Kanwar

Singh  raised  alarm, which  attracted  Charanpal  Singh son of  Har  Narain,

resident  of  village  Nai  wala  and  he  also  raised  alarm “NA MARO NA

MARO".  On  this  all  the  accused  ran  away  from  the  spot  with  their

respective weapons towards Bhawani Garh side in their jeep.  Being afraid

the complainant and his brother Raj Kanwar Singh stood at a distance and

watched the occurrence. Due to the injuries received by Bhupinder Singh,

he became unconscious and he was taken to Civil Hospital, Sangrur by the

complainant and his brother Raj Kanwar Singh and Charan Pal Singh in the

car  of  the  complainant  for  treatment,  but  due  to  his  serious  condition,

Bhupinder  Singh was referred  to  Rajindera Hospital,  Patiala,  but  he was

taken to D.M.C. Ludhiana for better treatment by the complainant and his

brother Raj Kanwar Singh and Charan Pal Singh. They stayed to D.M.C.

4

Ludhiana as the condition of Bhupinder Singh was very serious and they

were to look after him. On 24.5.1994 the complainant was going to give

information to the police when S.I. Ashok Mohan, S.M.O of Police Station,

Sadar Sangrur met him and he got recorded his aforesaid statement. Further

stated by the complainant that in this connection security proceedings are

also  pending  in  the  Court  of  S.D.M.  Sangrur.  The  motive  behind  the

occurrence is that the complainant party had taken possession of their land

from  the  accused  in  pursuance  to  the  orders  of  the  Court  in  village

Gurdaspura on 22.2.1994. After recording the above statement (Ex. PE) of

complainant  Gursewak  Singh,  S.I.  Ashok  Mohan  made  his  endorsement

(Ex. PE/1) and sent the same to the Police Station through Om Parkash, on

the basis of which formed F.I.R. (Ex. PE/2) was registered by MMC Swaran

Singh under Sections 307/323/148/149 IPC. Thereafter, S.I. Ashok Mohan

along with the complainant went to the place of occurrence, inspected the

spot and prepared rough site plan (Ex.PJ) with correct marginal notes.  From

the place of occurrence, scooter bearing registration number HI A-870 with

madguard having dents and broken back lights, was taken into possession

through recovery memo (Ex. PF),  which was attested  by ASI Lachhman

Dass(P29) and Gursewak Singh (PW6). Thereafter, the Investigating officer

went  to  C.M.L. Ludhiana,  where the injured  was declared unfit  to  make

5

statement. On this, the investigating officer recorded the statement of Raj

Kanwar  Singh  (PW6).  He  requested  for  opinion  of  the  Doctor  vide  his

application (Ex. PW12). On 25.5.1994, another application (Ex. PW12/B)

was  given  before  the  doctor  and  the  Doctor  declared  injured  Bhupinder

Singh  unfit  to  make  statement.  On 5.6.1994  accused  Geja  Singh,  Mewa

Singh, Gurmal Singh and Jagtar Singh were arrested in the area of village

Kalwarh Kalan when they were going in Jeep No.HYG-351. The personal

search memo (Ex. PW9) was prepared and two rods were recovered from

the jeep. The said jeep along with its registration certificate and the rods

(Ex.P1 and P2) were  taken into possession  through  recovery memo (Ex.

PW9/A) attested by the aforesaid PWs. Statements of the recovery witnesses

were recorded by the investigating officer.

Further, the case of the prosecution is that Bhupinder Singh died in

C.M.C  Ludhiana,  on  17.7.1994.  ASI  Kulwant  Singh  went  to  C.M.C.

Ludhiana  and  prepared  inquest  report  (Ex.  PG)  and  the  offence  was

changed  to  under  Sections  302/148/149  I.P.C.  The  dead  body  of

Bhupinder  Singh  was  postmortemed  in  Civil  Hospital,  Sangrur.

Statements  of  P.W.s  were  recorded.  Rough  site  plan  was  prepared.

Accused Gurdev Singh,  Sh.  Ram Singh surrendered themselves  in  the

6

Court  of  Shri  S.M.S.  Mahial,  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,  Sangrur  on

18.8.1994 and they were formally arrested by ASI Kulwant Singh.  After

completion of the investigation and other formalities, the report u/s 173

Cr.P.C.  was  prepared  by  S.I.  Ranjit  Singh  on  21.8.1994  and  was

submitted in the Court on 1.9.1994.  

Since the trial  court  had accepted  the  prosecution  version and had

convicted the accused persons, appeals were filed by them before the High

Court.  Primary stand before the High Court was that the evidence on record

does not show that the deceased lost his life on account of any homicidal

attack, on the contrary the evidence on record clearly establish that he died

as a result of vehicular accident.  The High Court found the defence version

to be acceptable and directed acquittal.

3. In  support  of  the  appeal  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant-State

submitted  that  the  High  Court  has  attached  unnecessary  importance  to

certain notings made in the medical record at the time of admission of the

deceased.  It is stated that the medical opinion did not rule out homicidal

attack.

7

4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that

the deceased lost his life after about 55 days of the alleged occurrence on

account of Septicemia. It is pointed out that the High Court has referred to

the evidence on record and found that the prosecution has tried to project a

death on account of vehicular accident to be homicidal death.  It is to be

noted  that  the  High  Court  took  note  of  several  factors  which  have

considerable  significance.   Firstly  it  was  noted  that  there  was  delayed

lodging of the First information report.  PW 5 who is an advocate even did

not choose to make a statement either to the police or to the medical officer

about the alleged homicidal attacks.  He actually appeared on the scene very

late and tried to change the factual position.

5. Raj  Kunwar  Singh PW 8 stated  that  about  15  to  20  injuries  were

inflicted by each of the accused persons on the person of the deceased.  The

High Court found it to be totally out of context and unusual conduct of PWs

5&8 was also highlighted.

6. It was pointed out that the accused persons and the deceased PWs.

5&6 were in inimical terms and some of the litigation have been travelled

upto this Court.

8

7. The  background  facts  highlighted  by the  defence  to  indicate  false

implication on the background facts was accepted by the High Court.  It is

to be noted that one of the factors was the following entry:

“In  the  entry  in  the  Medico  Legal  Report Ex.PW6/A,  it  is  mentioned  that  it  was  a  road  side accident  case  when  the  deceased  was  taken  to  the hospital first of all.  So according to the learned counsel for  the  appellants,  the  occurrence  right  from  the beginning was described as a case of accident.  He has read over the portion of the bed head ticket Ex.PD which is reproduced hereunder:

“40  years  old  male  came  with  closed  head injury, blunt  trauma chest  and abdomen following RTA at  about  2.30  PM near  Sangrur.   Details  of accident not known but he was going on a scooter. He was taken to Civil hospital, Sangrur by labourers from where he is referred here.”

8. The Investigating Officer (PW 12) clearly stated that he did not find

any  blood  on  the  scene  of  occurrence  and  also  found  no  sign  of  the

homicidal  attack  as  projected.   Even  the  scooter  number  was  wrongly

mentioned. The High Court further noticed that the scene of occurrence was

shifted.  With reference to the evidence on record the High Court concluded

that this was a case where injuries were received in a motor accident and it

was given the colour of homicidal death.  The High Court has analysed the

9

evidence and, as noted above, came to the conclusion that the prosecution

has tried to make a vehicular accident’s case into a case of homicidal death.

The aspects highlighted by the High Court are germane and relevant.  That

being  so  we  find  no  scope  for  interference  in  these  appeals,  which  are

accordingly dismissed.  

......... .............................................J.

(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

.......................................................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi; October 17, 2008

10