http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SUBA SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/11/1994

BENCH: MUKHERJEE M.K. (J) BENCH: MUKHERJEE M.K. (J) AHMADI, A.M. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  Supl.  (1) 269 JT 1995 (1)     8  1994 SCALE  (4)870

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: M.K. MUKHERJEE, J. 1.      This  appeal  under  Section  14  of  the  Terrorist Affected  Areas  (Special  Courts)  Act,  1984  is  directed against  the  judgment  and order dated  February  28,  1985 rendered  b?  the  Special Court,  Ferozpur  convicting  the appellant  under  Section 302 of the Indian Penal  Code  and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.  2.     Shorn of details, the case of the  prosecution is as under:        On  April 18, 1984 the betrothal ceremony  of  Jagtar Singh  brother of Pritam  Singh (the deceased) was  to  take place in   village Takhtupura  Amongst others, the appellant was an invite thereto. After the   ceremony was over in  the evening food    and drinks were served to the guests. At  or about 11 P.M. Pritam Singh requested the appellant to  leave as he, by then, had his food and drink.  The appellant  took serious  exception to such solicitation of Pritam Singh  and restored  that  the, guests should not be  treated  in  that manner. To avoid any further untoward incident Pritam Singh, Jagtar  Singh,  Lahora Singh and others took  the  appellant aside  to  escort him to his place of work in  the  village. After  they had proceeded a little distance,  the  appellant again   took  Pritam  Singh  to  task  for   insulting   and humiliating him. He then brought out a pistol from the  fold of his loin cloth, fired at Pritam Singh hitting him on  the abdomen  and ran away.  Pritam Singh, while being  taken  to the hospital, succumbed to his. injuries.  In the,  meantime Jagtar  Singh  went  to Nihalsinghwala  Police  Station  and lodged   an  information  about  the  incident.    On   that information  a case registered and ASI Prithi Singh  (PW  7) took  up  the  investigation.  He  went  to  the  place   of occurrence, collected blood stained earth from the spot  and sent  the  same to the Chemical  Examiner  for  examination. After completion of investigation he submitted charge  sheet against  the  appellant  and  in due  course  the  case  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

committed to the Court of Session. 3.      The  appellant  pleaded not  guilty  to  the  charge levelled   against  him  and  asserted  that  he   did   not participate in the betrothal ceremony. According to him,  he was falsely implicated by Jagtar Singh owing to enmity. 4.     To  prove its case the prosecution  relied  primarily upon  the  ocular version of the incident as  given  out  by Jagtar  Singh (PW 3) and Lahora Singh (PW 5). Both  of  them stated that the appellant had participated in the  betrothal and  there after consumed food and liquor. They next  stated that at or about 11 PM., Pritam Singh asked the appellant to leave  the  place  and  that  the  appellant  felt  insulted thereby.  They then stated about the subsequent  conduct  of the appellant which culminated in 10 his  firing  at Pritam Singh with a pistol. In  their  cross examination  an attempt was made on behalf of the  appellant to prove that there was no light at the scene of  occurrence so  as  to enable them to identify the  miscreant  but  such attempt  failed.  On  the contrary, through  the  site  plan prepared  by the Investigating Officer and exhibited  during the  trial (Ex.P.3) the prosecution established  that  there was  an  electric post there. This  apart,  considering  the sequence  of vents and the fact that the parties were  known to  each other from bfor, there could not be any  scope  for mistaken  identity.   Having  carefully  gone  through   the evidence  of  PW  3  and PW 5-we  do  not  find  any  reason whatsoever  to  disbelieve them, particularly  when  nothing could  be elicited in cross examination to  discredit  them. Then  again, the evidence of PW 3 finds ample  corroboration from the FIR which was promptly lodged within three hours of the incident and contains the substratum of the  prosecution case. 5.    The next corroboration of their evidence is  furnished by Dr. B.K. Goel (PW 1 ), who conducted autopsy on the  body of  the deceased-  His uncontroverted testimony  shows  that the deceased had the following injuries on his person:               "1  .A lacerated punctured wound 1 cm x 11  cm               with  inverted margins on the frontal  surface               of  the abdomen midway  between  costrophrenic               angle  and  umbilicus 1 cm away  from  midline               towards  left.  The wound  was  surrounded  by               marked blackening.               2.  Lacerated punctured would 1.5 cm x 1.5  cm               with averted margins on the left flank of  the               abdomen  just  below anterior  superior  iliac               spine (left).               The  direction of the wound was downwards  and               outwards.   Both the wounds communicated  with               each  other. The stomach, the parts  of  small               intestines  were lacerated and  the  abdominal               cavity was full of clooten blood." According to PW 1 the death was due to shock and haemorrhage caused by the aforesaid injuries and that the injuries  were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause  death. From  the testimony of the Investigating Officer (PW  7)  we get  that he seized some earth from the spot  under  seizure memo  (Ex.P. 15) and sent the same to the Chemical  Examiner for examination.  The report of the Asstt. Chemical Examiner (Ex.p.7)  indicates that blood was found thereupon  and  the report of the Asstt. Serologist (Ex.P.6) indicates that  the same was stained with human blood. The above reports also to some  extent  corroborate  the  evidence  of  the  two   eye witnesses  regarding the place where the incident had  taken place.

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

6.     Relying upon the finding of Dr. Goel (PW 1 ) that the stomach of the deceased was empty, it was strenuously argued before  Us that the case of the prosecution that  after  the betrothal  ceremony  food  and  liquor  were  served   stood completely  belied.   We do not find any substance  in  this contention in absence of any question put to either PW 3  or PW 5 as to whether the deceased had consumed food or  drink. While  on this point we cannot also lose sight of  the  fact that  since  the  betrothal  was of  his  own  brother,  the deceased as the host was expected to wait for his dinner and drink,  (if not a teetotaller) till the guests had left.  In any view of the matter, the mere absence of drink or food in the   deceased’s  stomach  cannot  make  the  case  of   the prosecution untrustworthy. 7.   As has already been noticed, the 11 appellant’s  defence was that he did not participate in  the betrothal  ceremony;  and in support of this  contention  he examined one Gurjant Singh (DW 1 ). He stated that while  he had participated in that ceremony the appellant did not.  He further stated that after the ceremony was over by 5 P.M. he and  all  the  other guests left. He  also  spoke  about  an altercation that took place between the appellant and Jagtar Singh  a few days before the incident. In cross  examination he admitted that even though he appeared before the  police, he  did not make any such statement before them. We  are  in complete  agreement with the learned trial Judge  that  this conduct of DW1 in not disclosing as to what happened in  the ceremony when the Police came to investigate into  the  case makes his evidence unworthy of credit. 8.      On the conclusions as above we uphold  the  impugned judgment  and  order  of the trial  Court  and  dismiss  the appeal. The appellant, who is on bail, will now surrender to his bail bond to serve out the sentence.