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

PETITIONER: TEJA SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/01/1997

BENCH: MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI, K.T. THOMAS

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T      Thomas J.      This  appeal   is  by  special  leave  granted  to  the appellant Teja  Singh who  is the  maternal uncle of Balwant Singh who  died of  injuries on  9.4.1987. Police  challaned three paternal  uncles of Balwant Singh (Kehar Singh, Bachan Singh and Jit Singh) besides some others. The Sessions Court convicted those  three uncles of Balwant Singh under section 302 read  with Section  34 and  under section  201 read with section 34  of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred  only) each  on the  first count  and  rigorous imprisonment for  six months and a fine of Rs. 200/- (Rupees two hundred  only) each  on the  second count.  But the High Court allowed their appeal and acquitted them.      The incident  which led  to the  death of Balwant Singh son of  Didar Singh  took place  during the  early hours  of 9.4.1987. Didar Singh and appellant Teja Singh and the three respondents herein  are the sons of one Bhagwan Singh. After his death  disputes arose  between Didar Singh and one other respondent Bachan  Singh in respect of a landed property. On the previous  day of  death of  Balwant Singh  there was  an altercation and a brawl between Bachan Singh and Didar Singh over construction  of a  structure made  by Bachan  Singh. A Police complaint  was made by Didar Singh thereon and a case was registered against the accused persons.      Prosecution case  is that  Balwant Singh  went to their tubewell on  his scooter  during the early hours of 9.4.1987 as per  his usual practice. When he reached there, the three respondents and their companions confronted him and forcibly took him and his scooter in a tractor trolly and decoyed him to a  far away  place. On the way, they killed Balwant Singh and threw his dead body on the side of Patiala Sarhind Road, about 12 kms. away from the tubewell.      The main  items of  evidence which  prosecution adduced against the accused against the following: (1) Balwant Singh died of  injuries inflicted on him during the early hours of 9.4.1987; (2)  Narinder Singh (PW6) brother of Balwant Singh saw the  accused persons  forcibly taking  the deceased in a tractor trolly.  PW6 conveyed  the said  information to  his

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

uncle PW2  who, in turn, informed the local Panchayat Member (PW5) Mohinder  Singh; (3)  dead body  of Balwant  Singh was found lying  on the roadside near which his scooter was also lying; (4)  Labh Singh (PW7) saw the accused throwing a dead body  on  the  road  side  ruing  the  early  hours  of  the occurrence day;  (5) Amar Singh (PW9) saw the tractor trolly at about  4.30 a.m.  near the place (where the dead body was later found)  and all  the accused  were sitting  inside the trolly;  (6)  The  extra-judicial  confession  made  by  the accused to Bhajan Singh (PW8).      Sessions court  did not accept the evidence of PW7-Labh Singh, PW8-Bhajan Singh and PW9-Amar Singh. However, learned Sessions Judge  relied on  the evidence  of  Narinder  Singh (PW6) as corroborated by Teja Singh (PW2) and Mohinder Singh (PW5). Even  so, benefit  of doubt  was given to the accused persons except  Kehar Singh,  Bachan Singh  and  Jit  Singh. Accordingly, those  three were  convicted and  sentenced  as aforesaid.      The Division  Bench of  the High  Court of  Punjab  and Haryana while  acquitting  the  convicted  accused,  totally rejected the evidence of PW7-Labh Singh and the testimony of PW8-Bhajan  Singh   (who  spoke   about  the  extra-judicial confession). But nothing was said about the evidence of PW2, PW6 and  PW9 for  acquitting the accused. The Division Bench highlighted three  features of  this case,  which  are:  (1) there were  over 10  injuries on  the dead body which in the opinion of  the doctor  could have  been caused  in a  motor accident; (2)  accused had  no  reason  to  anticipate  that Balwant Singh  would go  to the tubewell during the untimely hours; (3) No blood was noticed on the tractor trolly of the accused when  it was  seized  by  the  police.  These  three features  persuaded   the  Division   Bench  to   reach  the conclusion that  the accused  would not  have committed  the murder of Balwant Singh.      Autopsy on the dead body of Balwant Singh was conducted by Dr.  Om Prakash  Goyal (PW1). As the ante-mortem injuries noticed  by   the  doctor   on  the   dead  body  have  some implications as to the conclusions to be drawn, we reproduce them below:      "Swelling 9 cms x 9 cms on the left      temporal region  extending to  left      parietal  margin.   On   dissection      there   was   extensive   hameotoma      underneath. Muscles  were contused.      There was irregular horizontal line      of fracture  on left  temporal bone      going  downwards  and  towards  the      base of the skull. The fracture was      turning transversely,  through both      the    anterior    craneal    fosse      extending to  the  right  zygomatic      bone.    There     was    extensive      collection  of   blood  in  cranial      cavity  and   corresponding   there      tissue was contused.      2. Abrasion  3 cms  x 1  cm at  the      base  of  neck  left  side,  8  cms      medial to  the tin  of the shoulder      joint. On  dissection clavicle  was      found fractured.      3. Multiple  abrasions on  back  of      left fore-arm.      4. Multiple abrasions in an area of      9 cms  in diameter on right lateral      side of  abdomen, 4  cms above  the

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

    right iliac crest.      5. Multiple abrasions on an area of      4 cms  in diameter on right lateral      side of  abdomen, 4  cms above  the      right iliac crest.      6. Abrasions 5 cms x 3 cms on front      and lateral aspect of right knee.      7. Abrasion  1 cm  x 1  cm on front      and medial  aspect of right foot, 4      cms below medial malleolus.      8.  Abrasions   4  cms   x  4   cms      irregular in front of left leg just      above knee joint.      9. Abrasion  19  cms  x  9  cms  on      lateral aspect of left ankle joint,      just above  lateral malleolus.  Its      edge were contused.      The walls  of the  ribs on the left      side numbering  from 5  to 10  were      fractured at multiple sides causing      injuries  to   lungs.   There   was      collection of  blood on left plural      cavity. The  spleen  was  lacerated      badly and  there was  collection of      blood in the abdominal cavity."      It is  true, in  cross-examination PW1 Doctor said that those injuries  could as  well have  been caused  even in  a motor accident.  But on  a closer  scrutiny of  the injuries impells us  to rule out the possibility of motor accident to cause all  these injuries e.g. fractures on the ribs 5 to 10 have no  corresponding external  injury. If  those fractures were caused  in a  motor accident  necessarily there  should have  been  corresponding  external  injuries.  But  if  the deceased was  manhandled by  the assailants  with bare hands and legs (either by stamping or by hitting on the chest when the victim  is lying) those fractures could have been caused without causing  any  corresponding  external  injury.  That apart,  the   minor  damage   noticed  on   the  scooter  is incompatible with  the theory of motor accident resulting in such number of injuries.      The doubt  expressed by the High Court that accused had no cause  to anticipate  the visit  of Balwant  Singh at the tubewell site  is only  a conjecture.  Evidence  shows  that deceased Balwant  Singh went  to the  tubewell site  on that morning as per his usual practice. Here the accused are none other than his father’s brothers. It was quite probable that they knew  the time  when somebody  from Didar’s  house hold would go  to the  tubewell site  every morning. At any rate, absence  of   prosecution  evidence  as  to  the  source  of information for  the accused  regarding deceased’s  visit at the tubewell  is too  fragile a  reason for disbelieving the prosecution story.      Similarly, absence of blood on the tractor trolly is of no consequence.  As we have extracted the injuries above, we may point out that none of the injuries was such as to cause bleeding out,  much less  any profuse bleeding. Hence, it is not necessary that the tractor trolley should have contained noticeable blood.  But learned  judges  of  the  High  Court should have  borne in  mind, in  that context, that when the tractor trolly  was seized  by the police on the next day of occurrence (as  per Ex.  PQ) blood stained brick pieces were found lying therein. So it is not a case of total absence of blood inside the tractor trolly.      While there  is  no  good  reason  for  disturbing  the findings of  the Division  Bench of the High Court regarding

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

the credibility  of the  evidence of  Labh Singh  (PW7)  and Bhajan Singh  (PW8), we  are of  the view  that rejection of their testimony is hardly sufficient to upset the finding of the trial  court that  the accused  had forcibly  taken  the deceased and  killed him  and left  his  dead  body  on  the roadside.      The formidable  circumstance for the prosecution is the evidence of  PW6 -  Narinder  Singh  who  was  also  at  the tubewell when Balwant Singh reached by 4.00 a.m. He reported to his  uncle Teja  Singh (PW2)  that the  accused had taken Balwant Singh  in the  tractor trolly  and  was  beaten  up. Importance  of   the  aforesaid  piece  of  evidence  gained strength when  PW2 -  Teja Singh, who is none other than the brother of  accused Kehar Singh, Bachan Singh and Jit Singh, had reported the master to the member of Panchayat (Mohinder Singh-PW5) on  the same  morning itself. Nothing can be said against the  evidence of PW5 which shows that Teja Singh met him at  about 8.00  a.m. and  informed him that when Balwant Singh did  not return  to his  house even  after a long time from the  tubewell Teja Singh went there to enquire about it and was  told by  the youngster  (Narinder Singh)  that  the accused  persons   and  three  or  four  other  persons  had kidnapped Balwant Singh to murder him after inflicting blows on him.  Sessions Judge  before whom  the above persons gave evidence placed  complete reliance  on their  testimony. The High Court  could not  point out a single reason to sideline the said evidence.      Along with  the above, we have to consider the evidence of Amar  Singh (PW9)  who deposed  that he  happened to come across a  tractor trolly  wherein the  accused were  sitting near the  petrol pump and the time then was around 4.30 a.m. One scooter  and a  person was found lying in the trolly and to a  query made  by the  witness to  Kehar Singh the latter replied that  as his  nephew was  seriously ill he was being taken for  treatment. There  can be no dispute that what PW9 has said  was with  reference to  the date  of occurrence in this case.  The only  reason mentioned by the Sessions Court for not  placing reliance on the evidence of this witness is that he is a relative of Didar Singh. Firstly, it was only a suggestion put  to him  in cross-examination  and it was not admitted by  the witness.  Secondly, even  if it  is so, his relationship with  Didar Singh  would as well be good enough for his  relationship with  the accused persons who are none other than the brothers of Didar Singh. Hence, it is no good ground for  over-looking the  telling circumstance spoken to by this  witness. High  Court has  completely overlooked his evidence.      A scrutiny  of the  evidence and  consideration of  the arguments addressed to us lead us to the conclusion that the High Court  has seriously  committed error  in side-stepping the important evidence of PW6-Narinder Singh, PW2-Teja Singh and PW5-Mohinder  Singh, besides  of PW9-Amar Singh and that the conviction  and sentence passed on the three respondents should not  have been  lightly interfered  with by  the High Court.      We, therefore, allow this appeal and upset the judgment of the  High Court.  We restore  the conviction and sentence passed by  the Sessions  Court on  the three respondents. We direct the  Sessions Judge,  Patiala to take immediate steps to put  the respondents  - Kehar Singh, Bachan Singh and Jit Singh -  who are  accused in  the case,  back  in  jail  for undergoing the sentence.