http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SURJIT SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       05/05/1999

BENCH: G.T.  NANAVATI, S.N.    PHUKAN.

JUDGMENT:

NANAVATI.  J

     This appeal 1s directed against the judgment and order passed  by the Designated Court, Amritsar, in Sessions  Case No.   24 of 1995.  The Designated Court convicted him  under Section  302  read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 of  the TADA Act.

     The  case  of  the prosecution was that on  6.5.92  at about  7.00 p.m., the appellant along with Paramjit Singh  @ Pamma,  Sarwan Singh @ Jhaj and Hardip Singh @ Deepa went to the  house  of Sajjan Singh.  They were in military  uniform and carried fire arms.  The appellant had one A.K.-47 rifle. All  of them entered the house of Sajjan Singh and  demanded keys  of ’chobara’ from his son Attar Singh.  As Attar Singh refused  to hand over the keys, there was grappling  between Attar Singh and those persons.  Seeing this incident his son Sukhwant  Singh  ran out of the house to inform the  village people  ana  also to CRPF officials who were present in  the village.   Meanwhile  the accused entered the  house,  fired some shots.  The shot fired by the appellant hit Attar Singh and led to his death.

     In  order  to prove its case, the  prosecution  re1ied upon  the  evidence of three eye-witnesses Sajjan Singh  (PW 1),  Hambar Singh (PW 2) and Satwinder Kaur (P.W 3).  It  is not  necessary  to refer to the medical evidence  ana  other evidance,   The   Designated  Court   believed   the   three eye-witnesses  and convicted the appellant.  The other three accused  were  later  killed  in  a  police  encounter  and, therefore,   the  trial  had   proceeded  only  against  the appellant.

     Learned  counsel for the appellant took ue through the evidence  of  Sajjan  Singh (P.W 1)  and  the  Investigating Officer  and submitted that his evidence on material  points stands  contradicted  by the evidence of  the  Investigating Officer  and,  therefore,  he should not have  been  beneved without  any  independant corroboration.  He submitted  that according  to Sajjan Singh (P.W 1) a handgrenade was  thrown by  the  accused  and it had  exploded.   The  Investigating Officer  in his evidence has stated that he did not find any evidence to say that any bomb had exploded in the house and, therefore,  there was no question of his seizing parts of  a bomb from that house.  Sajjan Singh (P.W 1 ) has also stated that  some  window panes were broken as a result of f  iring

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

and  police had seized the same.  The Investigating  Officer has  denied  this  also.   We do not think  that  these  two inconsistencies  are  of such a nature as would  render  the evidence  of Sajjan Singh (P.W 1) unacceptable.  An  attempt was  made to persuade us to hold that the incident had taken at some other place.  We see no substance in it.  In view of the evidence on record, we will have to proceed on the basis that  the incident did take place Inside the house of Sajjan Singh and Attar Singh.  In fact suggestions were made to the eye-witnesses  in cross-examination and it wa s also  stated by  the appellant in his statment made under Section 313  of the  Cr.P.C.  that Paramjit Singh.  Sarwan Singh and  Hardip Singn  had  gone to the house of Sajjan Singh (P.W 1  )  and killed  Attar  Singh.   There  is no  reason  to  doubt  the evidence  of o ther witnesses and also of the  investigating Offcer  that  the  place of the incident was  the  house  of Sajjan  Singh.   As regards the evidence of Hambar  Singh  ( P.W.   2  ) and Sawinder Kaur (P.W 3) no infirmity in  their evidence  could  be  pointed out by the  le  arned  counsel. Incident took place at about 7.00 p.m.  and, therefore, they were  very likely to be present in their house.   Therefore, there  is  no good reason to doubt their presence.   Nothing has  been brought about in -the cross-examinaton which would crea te any doubt regarding veracity of their evidence.  The evidence  also  discloses that they had no enemity with  the accused  and there was no reason for them to falsely involve the accused in commission of this crime.

     It  was further argued by the learned counsel for  the appellant  that even if it is believed that the incident had taken  place  in  the house of Sajjan Singh,  the  appellant should  have  been  acquitted  as in  the  First  Informaton Report,  name of the appellant was not rnentioned as one  of the  assailants.   We  do  not find any  substance  in  this contention  also.   It was stated in the  First  information Report  that along with accused Paramjit Singh @ Pamma,  his brother  was  also present.  In his further  statement,  the complainant  hadclarified  that the name of that brother  is Kakku.   The  evidence discloses that the  appellant’s  nick name  is  kakku.  in fact all the accused were known to  the witnesses  since long and, therefore, there was no  question of  any mistaken identity.  As we do not find any  substance in  any of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, this appeat fails and is dismissed.