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

PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HARI SINGH & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/03/1974

BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH

CITATION:  1974 AIR 1168  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1975 SC2001  (20)  MV         1982 SC1325  (69)

ACT: Indian Penal Code--S.302, 307 read with S.  34--Murder--When the evidence of eye witnesses who were related to each other and the victims could be relied upon.

HEADNOTE: The  trial court had convicted the respondents  u/S.  302/34 I.P.C. and u/s. 307/34 I.P.c. for the death of two  persons- G&Z.   The  occurrence took place during the  night  between 18th  &  19th  June, 1969.  The victims  used  to  cultivate jointly with others.  The respondents and the two  acquitted accused persons were brothers who lived in the same village. It  is  said  that there was  enmity  between  the  deceased persons and the respondents.  The prosecution case was  that on  the of 18th June 1969, the respondents with  two  others attacked G&Z and as result G died but Z survived. The  trial court had convicted the respondents but the  High Court  acquitted them.  I On appeal by the State,  the  main question was whether the three alleged eye-witnesses, P.W.3, P.W.4 & P.W.5 who were related to each other and the victims could  be relied upon, when corroborated by other facts  and circumstances. Allowing the appeal, HELD :-(1) It is a principle, common to all criminal appeals by   special  leave  that  this  Court  will  refrain   from substituting  its  own  views  about  the  appreciation   of evidence  if the judgment of the High Court is based on  one of  two alternative views each of which was reasonably  open to  the High Court to accept.  If however, the  High  Courts approach   is   vitiated   by   some   basically   erroneous assumptions, or it adopts reasoning which, on the face of it is unsound, it may become the duty of this Court, to prevent a  miscarriage  of justice and to interfere  with  an  order whether it be of conviction or of acquittal.[729F] (2)  In the present case, the trial court had  accepted  the testimony of 3 eye witnesses, despite the fact that they are relations  of the victims.  It has been repeatedly  held  by this Court that the mere fact that witness is related to the victim  could not be a good enough ground for rejecting  his testimony  although it may be a ground for scrutinizing  his

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

evidence  more  critically  and carefully  where  facts  and circumstances   disclose  that  only  relations  have   been produced  and others, presumably independent  witness",  who were available, were not produced. [729 H] The ordinary presumption is that a witness speaking under an oath  Is  truthful  unless  and until  he  is  shown  to  be unreliable  or  untruthful.   In  any  particular   respect, witnesses solemnly deposing on oath in the witness box during  a  trial  upon a grave charge  of  murder,  must  be presumed  to act with a full sense of responsibility of  the consequences  of what they state. it may be that  what  they say  is so’ very unlikely or unreasonable that it  is  safer not to act upon it or even to disbelieve them. [730 F] In   the  present  case,  the  evidence  of  Z  who   became unconscious  due  to fatal blows by the  assailants  can  be accepted  when  his  evidence is  strongly  corroborated  by medical and other evidence. ’Therefore, the present case  is a fit case where this court will interefere.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 1970. Appeal by special  leave from the judgment and  order  dated the 17th June, 1970 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.258 of 1970. 726 Harbans Singh, for the appellant. Nuruddin Ahmed and U. P. Singh, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG,  J. The State of Panjab  ha contained special leave  to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab  and Haryana,  acquitting the two respondents from charges  under Sections 302 and 302/34 Indian Penal Code and under Sections 307/34  Indian.  Penal Code.  The Trial Court had  convicted the  respondents  under  each  of  these  two  sections  and sentenced Hari Singh to death under Section 302 Indian Penal Code  and  Gian Singh to life  imprisonment  under  sections 302/34  I.P.C.,  and  it had sentenced  both  to  six  years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, and, in  default of payment of fine, to undergo further  rigorous imprisonment for two years under Sections 307/34 I.P.C. The occurrence which gave rise to the prosecution of the two respondents  together  with two others,  Milkiat  Singh  and Dalip  Singh,  who were acquitted by the Trial  Court,  took place  during  the night between 18th and 19th  June,  1969. The  victims,  Gian Singh, deceased, and  his  nephew,  Zora Singh,  P.W. 3, cultivated lands jointly with Bachan  Singh, P.W. 5, his son Mukhtiar Singh, his two brothers Gian  Singh and  Sarwan  Singh, and, Surjit Singh, P.W.  4,  and  Jagjit Singh, the brothers of Zora Singh and sons of Sarwan  Singh. All  of them also lived together in village  Dhandri  Kalan. The  respondents  and  the  acquitted  accused  persons  are brothers who also lived in village Dhandri Kalan in District Ludhiana.   It is said that there had been a  fight  between Hari  Singh,  respondent, and Gian Singh  deceased  in  1968 which had been settled by the Panchayat.  In 1969,  sometime before  the  occurrence, another incident is  said  to  have taken  place.  Jagjit Singh and Mukhtiar Singh, by  show  of force, were said to have carried away some "toori’ in a cart to their house against the wishes of Hari Singh, respondent, and another person in his company.  Un doubtedly, the motive disclosed  was not be strong enough for a murderous  assault of a rather brutal kind on Gian Singh and Zora Singh.  This,

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

however,  is immaterial if the alleged eye-witnesses of  the occurrence could be relied upon to establish the prosecution case.  The whole question before the Courts was whether  the three alleged eye witnesses, Zora Singh, P.W. 3, and  Surjit Singh, P.W. 4, and Bachan Singh, P.W. 5, who are related  to each other and the victims, as stated above could be  relied upon,  when  corroborated by other facts  and  circumstances which may appear in the case, to sustain the conviction, The prosecution case was that Gian Singh and Zora Singh  had gone to their field for watering their sugarcane crop in  it on  the evening of 18th June, 1969.  At about 9 p.m.  Bachan Singh,  P.W. 5, and Surjit Singh, P.W. 4, are said  to  have carried  the meals for Gian, Singh and Zora Singh, who  were at  their  field  situated about "100  karams’  (nearly  100 paces) away from their tubewell, which was, as is usual, lit up by electric light.  After that, Gian Singh and Zora Singh went  to sleep a few feet from each other at their  tubewell while Bachan Singh and Surjit Singh are said to have  stayed on at the sugarcane 727 field  nearby.   At about mid night, Zora Singh is  said  to have  got up to urinate, and to have just laid himself  down on his cot after urinating. when he saw the respondents  and Milkiat  Singh and Dalip Singh Arrive. with  their  weapons. Hari Singh is said to have struck his kirpan on the neck  of Gian  Singh,  deceased, and Milkiat Singh is  said  to  have struck  Zora  Singh  on  the right  arm  with  his  Gandasa, whereupon  Zora  Singh  raised  an  alarm.   All  the   four assailants  then gave blows to the deceased and  Zora  Singh who had cried out: "Marditta-Marditta".  Bachan Singh,  P.W. 4,  and  Surjit  Singh, P.W. 4, rushed  to  their,  aid  and alleged  having seen the attack and the  assailants  running away. They found Zora Singh unconscious when they came  near him.   Gian Singh and Zora Singh were removed to a  Hospital in  Ludhiana,  where  Gian  Singh  died  at  5.45  a.m.  The condition of Gian Singh, which was not such as to enable him to make a dying declaration, was described as follows               "B.P. was not recordable.  Pulse 60/mt. fuble,               unconscious,    Gasping    cynotic.     Pupils               constricted’,  Reacting  Slugishly  to  light.               There was 8"x4" wound on the left side of  the               neck cutting deep to the muscles.  The trachea               was cut almost through and through and be  was               breathing  through  the hole of  the  trachea.               Hyoid  bone  was lying exposed in  the  wound.               Could  not feel the left carotid  artery.   No               bleeding was present when patient was  brought               to the hospital".               Zora  Singh  who survived  had  the  following               injuries :               1.  An  incised wound  3"x1/2"x2-1/2"  on  the               inner  side of left hand and was  cutting  the               5th and 4th matacarpals completely.               2. Incised wound 1/2"x 1/6"x flesh deep on the               inner side of left wrist.               3.  Incised  wound. 5" x 1" x 2" deep  on  the               outer  side of left hand and was chopping  off               the thumb completely from the hand.               4. Incised wound 6"x1/4"x  flesh deep back  of               left forearm lower part.               5.  Incised  wound 4" x 1" x 2"  deep  on  the               right  side of the face and the middle of  the               lower part of the nose and was cutting it  and               the right side of the upper jaw partially.               6. Inside wound 3" X 1/2"X l-1/2" deep on  the

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

             upper  part of the back of right side  of  the               neck   and   was  cutting  the,   spine   bone               partially.               7.  Incised wound 4"x 1"x 3" deep on the  back               of  right elbow and was cutting the ulna  bone                             completely  and  the forearm was  hang ing  just               with a flesh." A First Information Report of this occurrence was lodged  at 5.15  a.m. at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana, at a  distance of  7 miles from village Dhandri Kalan, disclosing  offences punishable under Sections 307 and 326 Indian Penal Code only as Gian Singh was still alive, at 728 that time.  It was stated in the F.I.R. that the respondents were  recognised and that two other unknown assailants,  who were young Sikhs, could be identified if produced before the witnesses. Surjit  Singh, P.W. 4, the maker of the F.I.R., upon  cross- examination denied that he had been tutored to state that he could  not  identify the two of the assailants as  they  had their  backs towards him.  He had stated in the F.I.R.  that they  were  youngmen although Milkiat Singh,  aged  53,  and Dalip Singh, aged 46, years were not so young.  He had  also stated there that he could identify the two youngmen thereby implying  that he had seen them properly.  He had stated  in his  evidence  that one or two bighas of  sugarcane  can  be irrigated  in an hour by their Tubewell.  Watering was  said to  have  commenced  at’ p.m. and Zora Singh,  P.W.  3,  had stated  that only 4 bighas of the field had to  be  watered. The  High  Court, therefore, did not think  it  likely  that either  Bachan Singh or Surjit Singh would still  remain  at the  Sugarcane  field  or  be awake at  the  time  when  the occurrence  took  place.  Moreover, the High  Court  thought that  both Bachan Singh and Surjit Singh were too far  away, at abount 100 karams, to be able to reach in time to see the occurrence. Bachan  Singh, P.W.5, had supported the statement of  Surjit Singh,  P.W.4, that he ran up to help the  attacked  persons after hearing Zora Singh Shouting: "Marditta-Marditta".   He said  that  he  saw the assailants from  a  distance  of  15 karams.   He also said that Hari Singh was using his  kirpan to  attack  and  that the other assailants  had  used  their gandasas.   On cross-examination, this witness  also  stated that he could not recognise the companions of Hari Singh and Gian Singh as they had their backs towards him, although  it was  proved  that he had stated before the Police  that  the unidentified persons were young Sikhs with Gandasas whom  he could identify if produced before him. The High Court had found some difficulty in getting over the statement  of Zora Singh, P.W. 3. It had observed that  Zora Singh,  aged  only about 16 years, would have tried  to  run away  as  soon as he saw four assailants by  electric  light attacking  Gian Singh only at a distance of 10 feet,  if  he was  really  awake.  It had also opened that he  would  have cried  out earlier-than the moment of time when he  received the  injury on his right arm if he was actually  awake  when the assault on Gian Singh, deceased, took place.  It was not disposed  to rely upon the statement of Zora Singh  that  he was  lying awake because he had got up to urinate 5  minutes before  the  occurrence  as this appeared to  it  to  be  an improvement  upon  his previous statement.  Zora  Singh,  on cross-examination, had explained that he had not stated this earlier  as he was not questioned about it.  The High  Court had doubted the veracity of Zora Singh because he disclaimed

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

knowledge  that Milkiat Singh and Dalip Singh were  employed in  the  Air Force although their fields  adjoined  his  own fields.  The High Court thought that it was likely that Zora Singh would have become unconscious after receiving injuries before  he could recognise his assailants.  The  High  Court had  also  attached importance to the fact that  no  special report  of the occurrence was proved to have been sent to  a Magistrate.  It has considered the explanation that this was due  to  the fact that the F.I.R.  disclosed  only  offences punishable under Sections 307 and 326 I.P.C. to be insuffi- 729 cient  to  explain this omission.  After  relying  upon  the observations of this Court in Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh  Vs. State  of Punjab(1) that the prcsecution must  traverse  the whole gap between "what may be true" and "what must be true" before  a conviction could be recorded in a  criminal  case, the  High  Court had given the respondents  the  benefit  of doubt and acquitted them. The Trial Court, on the other hand, which had the additional advantage of seeing the witnesses depose in the witness box, was  impressed  by the evidence of the,  three  alleged  eye witnesses  and  had convicted the respondents.  It  had  not relied  upon  the alleged recoveries by Hardit  Singh,  Sub- Inspector,  P.W.8,  of a kirpan on 28th June, 1969,  from  a straw-bin at a tube well at the instance of Hari Singh and a gandasa  on the roof of a tubewell at the instance  of  Gian Singh.   Both  the weapons were proved to  be  stained  with human blood.  As the recovery was shown to have taken  place 4 days after the arrest of the respondents, the Trial  Court thought  that  it  must have resulted from the  use  of  3rd degree methods during the interrogation of the accused.  The Trial  Court had also considered it unsafe to rely upon  the sole  testimony &the Investigating Officer on this  question when other witnesses of the. recovery were not produced  for some  unexplained  reason.  The Trial Court,  had,  however, relied upon the circumstance that the respondents could  not be  found when searched in their village and could  only  be arrested several days later. ’The question raised before us is: should we, even if we  do not  entirely  agree with the reasoning of the  High  Court, substitute  our own views and reverse an order of  acquittal by it ? It is enough to refer to the State of Madras Vs.  A. Vaidyanatha Iyer(2) to point out that this   Courts power of interference  under  Article 136 of  the  Constitution  with Judgments of acquittal is not exercised on principles  which are  different  from  those adopted by it  in  dealing  with convictions.   It  is a principle, common  to  all  criminal appeals by special leave, that this Court will retrain  from substituting  its  own  views  about  the  appreciation   of evidence  if the judgment of the High Court is based on  one of   two alternative views each of which was reasonably open to the High Court to accept.  If, however, the High  Court’s approach  is vitiated by some basically  errcneous  apparent assumption or it adopts reasoning which, on the face of  it, is  unsound,  it  may- become the duty  of  this  Court,  to prevent a miscarriage of justice, to interfere with an order whether it be of conviction or of acquittal. In  the  case  before us, the Trial  Court,  which  had  the additional  advantage of seeing the witnesses depose in  the witness  box,  had accepted the testimony of the  three  eye witnesses,  despite the fact that they are relations of  the victims.  It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the mere fact that a witness is related to the victim could  not be a good enough ground for rejecting his testimony although it  may  be  a ground for  scrutinizing  his  evidence  more

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

critically  and  carefully  where  facts  and  circumstances disclose that only relations have been produced and  others, presumably  independent witnesses, who were available,  were not  produced.  In the. instant case, there is  no  evidence that anyone (2) 1958 SCR 580 (1) AIR 1957 SC 637. 730 besides  the witnesses produced had actually  witnessed  the attack upon Gian Singh and Zora Singh. The  High  Court’s reasons for doubting the  correctness  of some of ’the statements of Surjit Singh, P.W. 4, and  Bachan Singh,  P.W.  5, as, for instance, that  they  had  actually failed  to recognise Milkiat Singh and Dalip  Singh  because they had their backs towards them when these very  witnesses had  asserted  before the police that the two  other  parti- cipants  were youngmen who could be identified by  them,  if produced  before them, are quite sound and reasonable.   If, however,  a  false implication was really intended  and  the F.I.R.  was  the  result of some conspiracy,  there  was  no reason to omit the names, of Milkiat Singh and Dalip  Singh, the  two  brothers of the respondents, from the  F.I.R.  The prosecution had an explanation for this omission.  This  was that  Zora  Singh,  who had seen and  recognised  these  two accused  persons had become unconscious before  their  names could be communicated to ’Surjit Singh.  The High Court  had itself  accepted the evidence that Zora Singh  had  actually become  unconscious.  In fact, it had gone to the extent  of holding, that he must have become unconscious even before he recognised  any  of the assailants.  On the  last  mentioned point,  we certainly do not find it, possible to accept  the view adopted by the High Court. It  is in dealing with the evidence of Zora Singh,  P.W.  3, that  the High Court seems to us to have adopted a  patently erroneous  approach and to have given grounds which  do  not appear  to us to be reasonably sustainable.  The High  Court seems to have assumed that Zora Singh must have invented the story that he had got up to, urinate so that he may pose  as an eye witness of the occurrence. The ordinary presumption is that a witness speaking under an oath  is  truthful  unless  and until  he  is  shown  to  be untruthful  or unreliable in :any particular  respect.   The High  Court,  reversing this approach, seems to us  to  have assumed  that witnesses are untruthful unless it  is  proved that  they  are  telling  the  truth.   Witnesses,  solemnly deposing  on oath in the witness box during a trial  upon  a grave charge of murder, must be presumed to act with a  full sense  of responsibility of the consequences ,of  what  they state.  It may be that what they say is so very unlikely  or unnatural  or unreasonable that it is safer not to act  upon it or even to disbelieve them.  The High Court bad no, doubt tried to show that this was the position with regard to  the whole of the testimony of Zora .Singh.  But, we do not think that it was successful. It  is true that the statement of a witness that he had  got up to urinate just before a murder was committed, so that he could  witness  the  murder,  looks  suspicious.   But,  the statement  is  not,  for  that  reason  necessarily  untrue. Again, if, as , the High Court believed, both Gian Singh and Zora  Singh were attacked almost simultaneously,  its  view, that  Zora Singh would have got up and Tun away  or  shouted earlier  than he was attacked had he been really  awake,  is unreasonable. Let us, however, assume, for the sake of argument, that  the High  Court’s guess is correct that Zora Singh was  actually

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

asleep when the 731 attack  upon  Gian Singh and the Zora, Singh.  began.   Even then  it would be quite unreasonable to and hold,  as.  the, High Court. did that Zora Singh must have become unconscious before he could see and recognise his assailants.  There was the  fight  of the electricity at the  tubewell  where  Zora Singh  lay on. his bed whether asleep or awake.  Zora  Singh must have necessarily  got up at, least when he was,  struck on  the  arm.   He could not have avoided  seeing  and  then recognising his assailants, whom he knew very well before he became  unconscious.  His account, that he was struck  first on the arm and then hecried out, is corroborated by the fact that  other  injuries indicate that. his face and  jaw  were aimed at and struck probably in an attempt. to silence  him. The  injuries were of such a nature that he must  have  been awakened, shouted, writhed in pain., and seen the assailants before  he became unconscious.  The absolutely  unacceptable guess  work indulged in by the High Court, that  Zora  Singh must  have  become  unconscious  before  he  could  see  and recognise his assailants, is utterly unsupported by evidence and seems very unreasonable. Even  if other parts of his evidence are, for  some  reason, not  accepted,  Zora  Singhs  statement  that  he  saw   and recognised assailants, before, he became unconscious  cannot be  held  to  be capable of arousing doubts.   There  is  no evidence  that the assailants covered him up with a  blanket or  a cloth, so as to disable him from seeing them,  before. attacking  him.  If we accept this part of the  evidence  of Zora  Singh,  as we think we must, since it is  so  strongly corroborated  by the medical’ evidence and there is  nothing on  record which conflicts with this inference,  it  becomes evident that he must have shouted for help.  If that be  so, it  is difficult to understand why Surjit Singh  and  Bachan Singh would, not go to his rescue as they naturally would on hearing shouts even if they were at some distance.  We think that,  judging  from  the  number of  injuries  on  the  two victims, the incident must have lasted long enough to enable Surjit  Singh,  P.W. 4, and Bachan Singh, P.W.  5,  to  rush towards the scene of occurrence and to see and recognise  at least the escaping assailants.  It is possible that they may have  exaggerated  in  stating that they  actually  saw  the attack on both the victims.  But that would not be enough to discard the whole of their testimony on the ground that they were  not likely to be present at their field nearby at  the time  of the attack.  There is no evidence to  suggest  that they were elsewhere at the time.  Indeed, the fact that they arranged for the transport of the victims to a hospital’  in Ludhiana  and  took them there before day-break  shows  that they were there to be able to do all this.  We do not  think that  the reasons given for suspecting their  presence  near enough  from  the tubewell. at their  sugarcane  field,  are strong enough to make it incredible that they should come to the help of the two attacked persons and to see at least the escaping assailants out of whom they recognised two. As  human testimony, resulting from widely different  powers of  observation and description, is necessarily  faulty  and even  truthfull  witnesses not  infrequently  exaggerate  or imagine or tell half truths. the Courts must try to  extract and separate the hard core of truth from the whole evidence. This is what is meant by the proverbial saying 732 that Courts must separate "the chaff from the grain".’  ’If, after  considering the whole mass of evidence, a residue  of acceptable  truth is established by the  prosecution  beyond

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

any reasonable doubt the Courts are bound. to give effect to the  result  flowing from it and not throw it  overboard  on purely  hypothetical and conjectural grounds.  In so far  as the  grounds given for rejecting the evidence of Zora  Singh appear  to  us  to  be  patently  unreasonable  and   highly conjectural,  we  think that the case before  us  calls  for interference  by  this  Court.  That evidence,  as  we  have already pointed out, is corroborated by medical evidence  as well as by the statements of Surjit Singh and Bachan  Singh. Hence,  although, the statements of Bachan Singh and  Surjit Singh,  taken  by themselves, may not have  been  enough  to warrant  the  conviction of the respondents, yet,  when  the evidence  of  Zora Singh, strongly corroborated  by  medical evidence  is there, we think that the statements  of  Surjit Singh & Bachan Singh could be used to support the conclusion thus  reached  without going to the extent of  holding  that Surjit Singh and Bachan Singh must be wholly believed before their evidence could serve any useful purpose at all as  the High Court seems to have erroneously thought.  Indeed, it is very  difficult  to  find a witness  whose  evidence  is  so flawless   that  it  has  to  be  wholly,  completely   and, unqualifiedly  accepted.  We think that the High Court  had, without  saying  so, ignored the principle  repeatedly  laid down  by this Court in appraising evidence, that  Courts  do not,  in  this country, act on the maxim :  "falsus  in  uno falsus  in  omnibus".   In considering the  effect  of  each allegation  proved to be incorrect or the likelihood of  its being  true or untrue, we have to view it in the light of  a whole  setting or concatenation of facts in each  particular case. There may be reasons for doubting the, worth of the evidence of  recovery from the respondents, but, that does  not  mean that  the  evidence  given by  Hardit  Singh,  S.I.,  P.W.8, relating  to  recoveries, is necessarily false so  that  the investigation  itself is tainted.  Similarly, the more  fact that,  after  the  lodging  of  the  F.I.R.,  the  necessary precaution  of  sending the special report to  a  Magistrate speedily  was  not  shown by the prosecution  to  have  been observed  does not mean that the whole, prosecution case  is false or unacceptable.  On the other hand, the fact that the F.I.R. discloses only offences punishable under Sections 307 and  326  I.P.C.  indicates that it must  have  been  lodged before,6. a.m.  In any event, before the Inquest  report  on the morning of 19-6-1969,  the  police had  before  it  the. prosecution version contained in   the  F.I.R.  to  which  a reference is made in the Inquest report.  The statements  of Bachan  Singh  and Surjit Singh were  also  recorded  before that.  Therefore, the alleged suspected delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. or in sending a special report to a Magistrate do  not, on the facts of this case, indicate an  attempt  to conspire and fabricate.  Indeed, if this was so, as  already observed,  one  would  have expected to find  the  names  of Milkiat Singh and Dalip Singh also in the F.I.R. instead  of a  description given of the unidentified youngmen which  did not  fit  these  two acquitted  accused  persons  who  were, therefore, given the benefit of doubt.  This feature of  the evidence indicates that the names of these two accused  were introduced  in the case only after Zora Singh  had  regained consciousness and revealed them as the pro- 733 secution alleged.  Hence, it is likely that the F.I.R.  must have  been made soon enough to contain the earliest  version before  Zora  Singh’s  version could get into  it  after  he regained consciouness. We think that the High Court had missed the core of truth in

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

the case and had unjustifiably rejected the prosecution case which was strong enough on the statement of Zora Singh alone corroborated  by medical evidence.  It had, we  think,  made the  error  of throwing away the prosecution  case,  without attempting to separate the chaff from the grain on the wrong assumption   that  the  two  were  inseparable  here.    We, therefore,  set  aside the order of acquittal  by  the  High Court  and  convict the respondents for  the  offences  with which  they were charged.  As, however, the occurrence  took place  several years ago, we refrain from awarding  a  death sentence  in  this  case.   We  sentence  both  Hari   Singh respondent u/s 302 I.P.C. and Gian Singh respondent sons  of Arjan  Singh  to  life imprisonment  under  Sections  302/34 I.P.C.  We also sentence each of them to six years  rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, and,  in default  of payment of fine, to rigorous imprisonment for  a further period of two years under Sections 307/34 I.P.C. The sentences awarded shall run concurrently. S.C.                        Appeal Allowed. 734