# 13 S.C.R. 633 ~ RANJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB

- **Citation:** [2013] 13 S.C.R. 633
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013-07-04
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1853 of 2009
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/13-s-c-r-633-ranjit-singh-v-state-of-punjab-28986
- **Pages:** 35

## Headnote

[2013) 13 S.C.R. 633
~
RANJIT SINGH
A
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 1853 of 2009)
JULY 4, 2013
B
· [T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]
)(
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 307 rlw 149 - Murder -
Attempt to murder - Unlawful assembly - Common object -
Mob comprising several persons allegedly armed with guns c
and sharp-edged weapons started firing and also launched
assault -
Two persons died - Held: Prosecution story as
narrated by PWs12 and 13 clearly implicated appellant 'B' and
proved that he had fired from his gun - That deceased was
.l
hit by a shot fired from the gun by 'B', corroborated not only D
...
from ocular testimony of the witnesses but also by forensic
evidence of the Ballistics Expert and seizures from the spot
- 'B' rightly convicted by the Courts below and sentenced to
imprisonment for life.- But prosecution failed to prove that five
other appellants i.e. 'M: 'G', 'A', 'J' and 'R' were armed with guns E
when they came to the place of occurrence - Reasoning of
the trial Court that the said five appellants were not carrying
~.
guns but carrying arms which they used to cause sharp edged
and blunt injuries to the deceased, not sustainable - All that
prosecution evidence may prove is that the said five
F
appellants were also present on the spot - But, being present
on the spot, by itself may not in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case be enough to implicate them u/
s. 149 f PC - Commission of an overt act, is not an essential
ingredient for attracting s. 149 /PC but given the exaggerations G
and embellishments in the prosecution story, the said five
appellants cannot be held guilty of murder with the help of
s.149 !PC or even in regard to offence uls.307 rlw s.149 !PC
also - Arms Act - s.27.
633
H
634
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 13 S.C.R.
A
The prosecution case was that a mob comprising
several persons armed with guns and sharp-edged
weapons like Gandasi, Kirpan and dangs came and
started firing at the complainant party and also assaulted
them. It was alleged that the assailants came to the spot
B to dispossess the complainant party from the land in their
cultivating occupation and to prevent them by criminal
force from harvesting the wheat crop that the later had
grown in the same. Two persons from the complainant
side, Amrik Singh and his son Vikramjit Singh, died
C because of firearm injuries. Shavinderjit Singh, another
son of Amrik Singh and nephew of informant (PW11 -
Ranjit Singh), received a gunshot injury.
Thirty one persons were arrayed as accused, of
which one was acquitted while twenty one persons were
D convicted under Section 148 IPC for the offence of
rioting. As regards the remaining nine accused, the trial
Court convicted eight who were alleged to be armed with
firearms under .sections 302 and 307 and the provisions
of Arms Act sentencing them to life imprisonment for
E
murder and imprisonment for a period of ten years for
attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC. The ninth
accused viz. Harbans Kaur wife of Mohinder Singh was
convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC
and sentenced to life imprisonment.
F
In the cross case registered on basis of the
statement of Mohinder Singh, the trial Court held that
even when the disputed plot of land was in possession
of the accused in the cross case (Complainant party in
the main case), yet they were not justified in using
G firearms to cause injuries to the opposite party. The trial
Court accordingly convicted Shavinderjit Singh under
Section 307 IPC, while Ramandeep Singh was found
guilty under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
Zora Singh who was added as an accused under Section
H
-
RANJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB
635
319 of the Cr.P.C. was convicted under Section 148 IPC A
while Ranjit Singh was given benefit of doubt and
acquitted.
Both parties appealed to the High Court. By that time,
Binder Singh, one of the nine convicts (from the accused 8
side in the main case), had passed away. Insofar as the
conviction

## Text

_Characters 0–39,665 of 68,243. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39665 for what follows._

[2013) 13 S.C.R. 633
~
RANJIT SINGH
A
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 1853 of 2009)
JULY 4, 2013
B
· [T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]
)(
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 307 rlw 149 - Murder -
Attempt to murder - Unlawful assembly - Common object -
Mob comprising several persons allegedly armed with guns c
and sharp-edged weapons started firing and also launched
assault -
Two persons died - Held: Prosecution story as
narrated by PWs12 and 13 clearly implicated appellant 'B' and
proved that he had fired from his gun - That deceased was
.l
hit by a shot fired from the gun by 'B', corroborated not only D
...
from ocular testimony of the witnesses but also by forensic
evidence of the Ballistics Expert and seizures from the spot
- 'B' rightly convicted by the Courts below and sentenced to
imprisonment for life.- But prosecution failed to prove that five
other appellants i.e. 'M: 'G', 'A', 'J' and 'R' were armed with guns E
when they came to the place of occurrence - Reasoning of
the trial Court that the said five appellants were not carrying
~.
guns but carrying arms which they used to cause sharp edged
and blunt injuries to the deceased, not sustainable - All that
prosecution evidence may prove is that the said five
F
appellants were also present on the spot - But, being present
on the spot, by itself may not in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case be enough to implicate them u/
s. 149 f PC - Commission of an overt act, is not an essential
ingredient for attracting s. 149 /PC but given the exaggerations G
and embellishments in the prosecution story, the said five
appellants cannot be held guilty of murder with the help of
s.149 !PC or even in regard to offence uls.307 rlw s.149 !PC
also - Arms Act - s.27.
633
H
634
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 13 S.C.R.
A
The prosecution case was that a mob comprising
several persons armed with guns and sharp-edged
weapons like Gandasi, Kirpan and dangs came and
started firing at the complainant party and also assaulted
them. It was alleged that the assailants came to the spot
B to dispossess the complainant party from the land in their
cultivating occupation and to prevent them by criminal
force from harvesting the wheat crop that the later had
grown in the same. Two persons from the complainant
side, Amrik Singh and his son Vikramjit Singh, died
C because of firearm injuries. Shavinderjit Singh, another
son of Amrik Singh and nephew of informant (PW11 -
Ranjit Singh), received a gunshot injury.
Thirty one persons were arrayed as accused, of
which one was acquitted while twenty one persons were
D convicted under Section 148 IPC for the offence of
rioting. As regards the remaining nine accused, the trial
Court convicted eight who were alleged to be armed with
firearms under .sections 302 and 307 and the provisions
of Arms Act sentencing them to life imprisonment for
E
murder and imprisonment for a period of ten years for
attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC. The ninth
accused viz. Harbans Kaur wife of Mohinder Singh was
convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC
and sentenced to life imprisonment.
F
In the cross case registered on basis of the
statement of Mohinder Singh, the trial Court held that
even when the disputed plot of land was in possession
of the accused in the cross case (Complainant party in
the main case), yet they were not justified in using
G firearms to cause injuries to the opposite party. The trial
Court accordingly convicted Shavinderjit Singh under
Section 307 IPC, while Ramandeep Singh was found
guilty under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
Zora Singh who was added as an accused under Section
H
-
RANJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB
635
319 of the Cr.P.C. was convicted under Section 148 IPC A
while Ranjit Singh was given benefit of doubt and
acquitted.
Both parties appealed to the High Court. By that time,
Binder Singh, one of the nine convicts (from the accused 8
side in the main case), had passed away. Insofar as the
conviction and sentence of six other convicts, Amrik
Singh, Rajinder Singh and Jaswinder Singh, Makhan
Singh, Gurdial Singh and Balwinder Singh are concerned,
the High Court held, the charges framed against them to C
have been proved and accordingly affirmed the order of
conviction passed by the trial Court.
The appeals filed by the remaining two convicts
Mohinder Singh and Harbans Kaur were allowed and they
were acquitted. That order of acquittal was assailed D
before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1853 of 2009 filed
by Ranjit Singh.
The conviction of Shavinderjit Singh (from the
complainant side in the main case) under Section 307 IPC E
was affirmed by the High Court. That order was
challenged before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1855
of 2009. Besides, Criminal Appeals No.17-18 of 2010 were
filed before this Court by Amrik Singh, Rajinder Singh and
Jaswinder Singh whereas Criminal Appeals No.2434-35 F
of 2009 were filed by Makhan Singh, Gurdial Singh and
Balwinder Singh.
Disposing of all the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. Since Mohinder Singh passed away during G
the pendency of proceedings before this Court, and since
counsel for the appellant- Ranjit Singh in Criminal Appeal
No.1853 of 2009 made a statement on instructions that he
does not propose to pursue the appeal against Harbans
Kaur, Criminal Appeal No.1853 of 2009 shall have to be H
636
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R.
A
dismissed as abated qua Mohinder Singh .and as not
pressed against Harbans Kaur. [Para 16] [649-A-B]
2. The prosecution story as narrated by PW12Shavinderjit Singh and PW13-Ramandeep Singh clearly
8
implicates Balwinder Singh and proves that he had fired
from his gun. That Amrik Singh was hit by a shot fired
from the gun by Balwinder Singh, gets support not only
from ocular testimony of the witnesses but by the
forensic evidenc·e of the Ballistics Expert and the
)(
seizures from the spot. There is in that view no manner
C of doubt that Balwinder Singh has been rightly convicted
-
by the two Courts below and sentenced to imprisonment
for life. [Para 28] [656-E-G]
Amrita alias Amritlal v. State of MP (2004) 12 SCC 224;
D Ba/aka Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 511:
1975 (0) Suppl. SCR 129 Ganesh v. State of Karnataka 2008
(11) SCALE 567; Sucha Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab
(2003) 7 SCC 643: 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 35 and Ugar Ahir
and Ors. v. The State of Bihar AIR 1965 SC 277 - referred
E to.
F
3.1. Makhan Singh, Gurdial Singh, Amrik Singh,
Jasvinder Singh and Rajinder Singh were accused of
having come to the spot armed with guns and shot at the
deceased Amrik Singh and Vikramjit Singh. The
prosecution case is that these accused persons had
freely used their weapons to kill Amrik Singh and
Vikramjit Singh. However, except the depositions of PWs
Shavinderjit Singh and Ramandeep Singh, there is no
other evidence to prove that allegation. The guns,
G allegedly carried by these accused persons have also
not been seized, nor is there any other independent
corroborative evidence regarding the use of the guns
such as recovery or seizure of the empty cartridges fired
from the guns. That apart if these accused had also
H
RANJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB
637
carried and fired guns as alleged, the number of A
causalities on the complainant side would have been
much higher and so would be the number of injuries on
the victims of the assault. Superadded to all these is the
fact that appellants Amrik Singh, Ranjinder Singh and
Jaswinder Singh were not even challaned by the
B
investigating officer. They were added as accused
persons subsequently under Section 319 Cr.P.C. based
on 'the exaggerated version of the prosecution witnesses
about which the High Court has been rightly so critical.
The High Court was it appears, aware of all these features, c
which render the prosecution case suspect, but in order
to overcome the difficulty arising out of the absence of
recovery of guns allegedly used by these appellants or
the absence of any other evidence to support the theory
of their use, the High Court has made out a new case in
D
...
.A
favour of the prosecution by holding that the appellants
except Balwinder Singh were armed with sharp and blunt
weapons used for causing injuries to the deceased and
not guns as claimed by the witnesses examined at the
trial. [Para 29] [656-G-H; 657-A-F]
E
3.2. The High Court was not correct in holding that
while three persons viz. Mohinder Singh (deceased),
>--
Binder Singh (deceased) and Balwinder Singh were
armed with guns, Makhan Singh, Gurdial Singh, Amrik
;-
Singh, Jasvinder Singh and Rajinder Singh were armed
F
with other weapons. There is no evidence to support the
finding that remaining accused/appellants were armed
with other weapons. The High Court ostensibly held so,
' "-t'
keeping in ·view the fact that apart from the gunshot
injuries found on the bodies of the dead, there were other G
injuries c_aused by sharp and blunt weapons also. The
presence of these injuries could not, however, be used
to place other weapons in the hands of persons who
were according to the prosecution case, carrying guns,
which they used freely in the incident that saw two
H
638
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 13 S.C.R.
A persons dead. While the High Court was correct in
....,
accepting that three guns were carried by the three
accused named above, it was wrong in attributing without
any evidence to support that finding that injuries to the
deceased Amrik Singh and Vikramjit Singh were caused
B by Makhan Singh, Gurdial Singh, Amrik Singh, Jasvlnder
Singh and Rajinder Singh with the help of weapons other
than firearms. [Para 30] [658-H; 659-A-D]
4. The essence of Section 149 IPC is that a member
c of an unlawful assembly is responsible for the acts
committed by any other member of the assembly in the
same measure as the persons committing such an act
himself is. The section thereby creates a vicarious or
constructive liability for all those who share the common
D object of the unlawful assembly provided the acts
constituting the offence are done in pursuit of the
j._
~
common object of the unlawful assembly or are acts
which the members of the unlawful assembly knew to be
likely to be committed in pursuance of that object. [Para
E
33] [660-A-C]
Baladin and Ors. v. State of U. P. Al R 1956 SC 181 ;
Masa/ti v. State of UP. AIR 1965 SC 202: 1964 SCR 133
and Bajwa and Ors. v. State of U.P. (1973) 1 SCC 714: 1973
~
(3) SCR 571 - referred to.
F
-
5. In the case at hand, the prosecution story is that
while the complainant party was harvesting the crop in
the fields in their possession, the accused including the
appellants came to the spot and started firing upon them.
G
In the first information report lodged by Ranjit Singh, no
Y·
specific roles were given to the accused, but at the trial
the witness attributed specific roles to each one of the
appellants. The High Court found the improved version
to be full of exaggerations and embellishments resulting
in the acquittal of the majority of the accused in the case.
H [Para 37] [662-C-D]
RANJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB
639
6.1. That in a faction ridden village community, there A
is a tendency to implicate innocents also along with the
guilty, especially when a large number of assailants are
involved in the commission of an offence is a matter of
common knowledge. Evidence, in such cases is bound
to be partisan, but while the Courts cannot take an easy B
route to rejecting out of hand such evidence only on that
ground, what ought to be done is to approach the
depositions carefully and scrutinise the evidence more
closely to avoid any miscarriage of justice. [Para 38] [662G-H; 663-A]
C
6.2. In this case, apart from certain vague and general
allegations that the members of the accused party fired
at the complainant party, there is no other overt act
attributed ~o them. The allegation that they were carrying
guns having been held not proved, the question of their D
firing from such guns does not arise. So also the finding
of the High Court that they were armed with other
weapons being contrary to the prosecution case itself
has been rejected by this Court. If that be so, all that the
prosecution evidence may prove is that Makhan Singh, E
Gurdial Singh, Amrik Singh, Jasvinder Singh and
Rajinder Singh were also present on the spot. But, being
present on the spot, by itself may not in the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case be enough to implicate
them under Section 149 of the IPC. It is true that F
commission of an overt act, is not an essential ingredient
for attracting Section 149 of the IPC but given the
exaggerations and embellishments in the prosecution
story, it is unsafe to find the five appellants i.e. Amrik
Singh, Rajinder Singh and Jaswinder Singh, Makhan G
Singh, Gurdial Singh to be guilty of murder with the help
of Section 149 of the IPC. The same is true even in regard
to an offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 of
the IPC also. [Paras 39, 40] [663-8-E]
H
640
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R.
A
7. Shavinderjit Singh (PW-12) and Ramandeep Singh
(PW-13) have attributed the injuries received by them to
other accused persons who stand acquitted and whose
acquittal has attained finality. According to Shavinderjit
Singh (PW12), he was attacked by Sharanjit Singh@ Kalu
B who gave him a dang blow on the left arm while Charan
Singh alias Charanu gave him a kirpan blow on his head.
Shamsher Singh Mal gave him a Gandasi blow on his
head and so did Pammi d/o Charan Singh with a Gandasi
(sharp edge weapon). All these blows were according to
c the witness given when he tried to save Vikramjit Singh
and Amrik Singh. The medical evidence led in the case,
however, does not support the above version. According
to Dr. Harminder Singh (PW3), all the injuries found on
the body of Shavinderjit Singh were found to be simple
0
in nature. The medical evidence does not support the
allegation that a murderous assault was made on this
witness. Even otherwise the witness has made an
improvement in his deposition before the Court, as the
version regarding the assault on him was not disclosed
in the statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. which
E omission has been duly confronted to him. [Para 41]
[663-G-H; 664-A-C]
8. Similar is the case with the injuries allegedly
-(
received by Ranjit Singh (PW-11) which have also been
F
described as simple by Dr. Harminder Singh. The
statement of Ramandeep Singh (PW13) makes no
qualitative addition to the prosecution case, in so far as
an attempt on the lives of Ranjit Singh or Shavinderjit
Singh is concerned. This witness does not give the
G details of the overt acts of the accused persons named
-;.-> :
by Shavinderjit Singh (PW12) in his deposition. The entire
case of the prosecution regarding an attempt to murder,
Shavinderjit Singh and Ranjit Singh is rendered suspect,
with the kind of contradictions, improvements and
H embellishments noticed by the High Court and even by
RANJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB
641
this Court. That being so, the conviction of appellants A
Amrik Singh, Rajinder Singh, Jaswinder Singh, Makhan
Singh and Gurdial Singh cannot be sustained even under
Section 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC, assuming
that these appellants were members of an unlawful
assembly and not innocent bystanders unaware of the B
alleged common object of the assembly. That holds good
even in regard to the charges for o~ences under Section
~
324 read with Section 149 & 379 read with Section 149
of the IPC also. [Para 42) [664-D-H; 665-A]
9. It is also abundantly proved that the appellant c
Shavinderjit Singh was injured, no matter the injuries were
found to be simple in nature. What is important is that in
an atmosphere surcharged as it was in the instant case,
firing from both sides, appear to have taken place, in which
D
"
_.+.
while Amrik Singh and his son Vikramjit Singh, were killed
a shot fired by Shavinderjit Singh appears to have hit
Harbans Kaur in the arm. [Para 44) (665-G-H; 666-A]
10. The version given by the injured witness
Mohinder Singh and his wife Harbans Kaur regarding the E
cause for their injuries is supported by the medical
evidence also. The High Court has held that the appellant
)..
could not claim the right of private defence because
Mohinder Singh was not armed with a gun when
appellant Shavinderjit Singh fired at him. There is no F
basis for that finding. If Mohinder Singh was not carrying
his gun, it is difficult to see how the same travelled to the
place of occurrence and was used for firing as many as
six rounds from the same. Seizure of the empty cartridges
''1'
and the Ballistic Expert's report establish the use of the G
gun belonging to Mohinder Singh. Though the view taken
by the High Court regarding Mohinder Singh's acquittal
is doubtful, but since Mohinder Singh is dead, the matter
is allowed to rest at that. The Courts below were not, in
the facts and circumstances of the case as also the
H
642
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 13 S.C.R.
A
confusion and doubts that arise regarding the
truthfulness of the version advanced by the prosecution
against appellant Shavinderjit Singh, justified in
convicting the appellant Shavinderjit Singh and
sentencing him to imprisonment. [Para 45) [666-D-GJ
B
11. In the result: (i) Criminal Appeal No.1853 of 2009
is dismissed as abated qua respondent Mo.hinder Singh
and as not pressed qua respondent Harbans Kaur; (ii)
Criminal Appeal No.1855 of 2009 filed by appellant
Shavinderjit Shigh ls also allowed and the appellant
C acquitted of the charges framed against him giving him
the benefit of doubt; (iii) Criminal Appeals No.17-18 of 2010
filed by Amrik Singh, Rajinder Singh and Jaswinder Singh
are also allowed and the appellants acquitted of the
charges framed against them giving them the benefit of
D doubt and (iv) Criminal Appeals No.2434-35 of 2009, filed
by Makhan Singh, Gurdial Singh and Balwinder Singh are
similarly allowed in so far as appellants Makhan Singh and
Gurdial Singh are concerned but dismissed qua appellantBalwinder Singh. [Para 46] [666-H; 667-A-D]
E
Case Law Reference:
(2004) 12 sec 224
referred to
Para 20
1975 (0) Suppl. SCR 129
referred to
Para 21
F
2008 (11) SCALE 567
referred to
Para 22
2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 35
referred to
Para 23
AIR 1965 SC 277
referred to
Para 24
G
AIR 1956 SC 181
referred to
Para 34
1964 SCR 133
referred to
Para 35
1973 (3) SCR 571
referred to
Para 36
H
RANJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB
643
'r
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
A
No. 1853 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 17 .03.2009 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal No.
585-DB/04.
B
WITH
~
Crl. A.N. 1855 of 2009, 17-18 of 2010 and 2434-2435 of 2009.
Rishi Malhotra, Kawaljit Kochar, Neelam Saini, Kusum c
Chaudhary, D.P. Singh, Shuchita Srivastav, Salil Bhattacharya,
Rajkiran Vats, Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Sanjay Jain for the
Appellant.
Kuldip Singh, Mohit Mudgal for the Respondents.
D
• ·+
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
T.S. THAKUR, J. 1.These appeals by special leave arise
out of a common judgment and order dated 17th March,'2009,
passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and
E
Haryana whereby Criminal Appeals No. 572-DB of 2004, 603DB of 2004, 646-DB of 2004 and Crl. Revision No.2410 of
2004 have been dismissed while Crl. Appeals No.1362-SB of
>-
2004, and 1388-SB of 2004 have been allowed. Criminal
Appeals No.585-DB of 2004 and 1314-SB of 2004 have been
F
similarly allowed by the High Court but only in part and to the
extent indicated in the judgment under appeal.
2. The factual backdrop in which FIR No.412 dated 3rd
May, 2001, under Sections 302, 307, 148 and 149 IPC and
. "--t
Sections 25, 27, 54 and 49 of the Arms Act came to be G
registered at Police Station Sadar, Patiala and a charge sheet
based on the investigation conducted in the said case and in
cross case No.SC No.58T/FTC dated 23rd April, 2004 came
to be filed before the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc),
Patiala, have been set out at length by the Trial Court as also H
644
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R.
A
the High Court in the judgments impugned before us. It is,
therefore, unnecessary to recapitulate the same overagain
except to the extent it is absolutely essential to do so for the
disposal of these appeals.
8
3. Briefly stated, FIR No.412 dated 3rd May, 2001 was
registered on the basis of a statement made by Ranjit Singh
(PW 11) to the effect that on 3rd May, 2001 at about 4.30/5.00
AM. the informant was along with his brother, Amrik Singh and
nephews, Vikramjit Singh, Shavinderjit Singh, Ramandeep
C
Singh and Gobind Singh harvesting the wheat crop grown by
Amrik Singh over a parcel of land in their possession situate
in village Chuharpur Kalan, District Patiala, when a mob
comprising several persons named by the informant armed with
guns and other weapons like Gandasi, Kirpan and dangs came
from the village side shouting that they should not allow the
D
complainant party to escape and should teach them a lesson.
Those with guns in the mob started firing at the complainant
party. Gunshot injuries sustained by Amrik Singh and his son
Vikramjit Singh felled them to the ground. The informant's
nephew Shavinderjit Singh also received a gunshot injury. The
E
mob then assaulted the complainant party including Amrik Singh
and his son Vikramjit Singh with sharp-edged weapons no
matter the two had already collapsed to the ground because
of the firearm injuries. They also attacked the informant and
Shavinderjit Singh. The informant further stated that Ramandeep
F
Singh and Gobind Singh who had concealed themselves
behind the harvesting combine raised an alarm and cried for
help whereupon the accused fled away from the spot with their
respective weapons.
G
4. The informant's father and other people from the village
in the meantime came to the spot hearing the noise and found
Amrik Singh and his son Vikramjit Singh dead due to gunshot
and other injuries received by them. They arranged vehicles to
remove the informant and Shavinderjit Singh to Rajindra
H
Hospital, Patiala for treatment leaving behind the dead bodies
Y.
RANJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB
645
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]
T.
of Amrik Singh and Vikramjit Singh in the fields where the
A
occurrence had taken place. According to the informant the
complainant party were in possession of 2% acres of land
situated in the vicinity of the village. The girdawari/revenue.
entries regarding the land were also in the name of Amrik Singh
the deceased. The assailants had come to the spot to
B
dispossess the complainant party from the parcel of land in
connivance with the Sarpanch of the village.
)"
5. A rival version regarding the genesis of the incident was
given by the accused party in the statement of Mohinder Singh c
recorded by SI Bhag Singh in the Rajindra Hospital at 2.00 p.m.
on 4th May, 2001. According to that version the informant was
on the night intervening 2nd/3rd May, 2001 sleeping along with
his wife, Harbans Kaur on the roof of his house. At about 3.00
a.m. they heard the noise of a harvesting combine machine in
D
+
the fields which had been taken on lease by the informant from
the Gram Panchayat and in which he had grown wheat crop.
The'wheat crop was being harvested by the complainant party
Zora Singh, Amrik Singh, Ranjit Singh sons of Gurdial Singh,
Vikramjit Singh, Shavinderjit Singh sons of Amrik Singh and
grandsons of Gurdial Singh besides 4-5 other persons with the
E
help of a combine. According to the statement of Mohinder
Singh the informant and his wife restrained the driver of the
>-
combine from harvesting the crop and questioned him as to
why he was doing so. At this stage Amrik Singh the deceased
who was carrying a gun fired at him. The gunshot hit the
F
informant on his left leg whereupon his wife raised an alarm.
But Shavinderjit Singh fired another gunshot which hit Harbans
Kaur on her left arm. Gurdial Singh, Zora Singh, and Ranjit
~-1'
Singh raised a lalkara that Mohinder Singh and his wife should
not be allowed to escape. Mohinder Singh at that stage fell
G
unconscious on the ground whereupon Gurdial Singh and his
family members forcibly harvested the crop in connivance with
each other. Based on the above statement of Mohinder Singh
a cross case was regii>tered against Shavinderjit Singh, Zora
Singh, Ramandeep Singh and Ranjit Singh under Sections 307,
H
646
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R
A
447, 379, 511, 148 and 149 IPC and under Sections 25, 27
..,
54 and 59 of the Arms Act.
6. The police investigated both the versions in which
process, the investigating officer collected blood-stained earth
B
from near the dead bodies of Amrik Singh and Vikramjit Singh,
besides two live cartridges and fourteen empty cartridges
seized from the place of occurrence. One combine harvester
along with its engine was also seized from the spot besides a
~
kirpan along with its cover, one Toka, one Gandasa (Sharp
c
edged cutting weapons), one Dang (lathi), one iron pipe and a
stick.
7. Certain recoveries were made from the accused
persons allegedly on the basis of disclosure statements made
by them including a .. 12 bore DBBL Gun that was seized from
D
the house of Balwinder Singh @ Bindi. Another .12 bore DBBL
+
t
Gun was seized from accused Binder Singh. Similarly, DBBL
""'
Gun along with its licence was also seized from the house of
Mohinder Singh, accused just as a .315 bore rifle was recovered
from the house of Shavinderjit Singh.
E
8. Post-mortem examination of the dead bodies, ballistics
report regarding the use of the weapons and the statements
of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
completed the investigation· and culminated in the filing of a
-4
F
charge sheet against twelve accused persons in the main case
·-
and framing of charges against them. In the course of trial,
...
nineteen other persons were added as accused under Section
319 of the Cr.P.C. all of whom pleaded not guilty and claimed
a trial.
G
9. A cross case was similarly filed against Shavinderjit
7-'
Singh, Ramandeep Singh and Ranjit Singh, but in the course
of trial the Court added Zora Singh, Gobind Singh and Gurdial
Singh as accused persons under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Gobind
Singh and Gurdial Singh having died during the trial, the
H
proceedings abated qua them.
>-
RANJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB
647
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]
10. The Trial Court recorded the statements of sixteen A
prosecution witnesses in the main case including PW11-Ranjit
Singh, PW12-Shavinderjit Singh who were injured
eyewitnesses besides PW13-Ramandeep Singh who also
claimed to be present on the spot but escaped any injury.
Besides these witnesses the prosecution also examined B
PW14-0.P. Aggarwal, PW15-lnspector Sewa Singh and
PW16-Bhupinder Singh Virk.
11. In the cross case twelve prosecution witnesses were
examined including PW1-Mohinder Singh, PW3-Dr. Gian Singh, C
PW4-Ashok Kumar, PW5-Harbans Kaur (injured), PW7Charanjot Singh Walia, PW8-Dr. Gurinder Singh Mann, PW9Bhupinderjit Singh Virk and PW10-Bhag Singh.
12. Accused in both the cases pleaded innocence and
false implication in their statements under Section 313 of the D
Cr.P.C. DW1-Dr. Ruby Oberoi, DW2-Dr. Gian Singh and DW3Dr. Gurinder Singh Mann were examined in defence in the main
case and DW1-Satish Grover, DW-2 Jang Singh, DW-3 Dr.
O.P. Aggarwal, DW-4 Dr.Harminder Singh, DW-5 Ashok
Kumar and DW-6 Shavinder Singh in the cross case.
E
13. The Trial Court appraised the evidence adduced
before it and held that Gurdial Singh was in cultivating
possession of the disputed parcel of land which became the
proverbial bone of contention between the rival groups. The trial
F
Court further found that the incident had taken place in two parts.
In the first part, twenty two accused persons who were not
armed with any firearms participated and committed an offence
of rioting punishable under Section 148 of the IPC. One of the
accused, Amarjit Kaur, Sarpanch had the right of private G
defence to protect the property of the Gram Panchayat and was
accordingly acquitted. The rest of the twenty one accused
persons found guilty under Section 148 were sentenced to
imprisonment for a period of three years.
14. As regards the remaining nine accused, the trial Court H
648
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 13 S.C.R.
A
convicted eight who were alleged to be armed with firearms
'"(
under Sections 302 and 307 and the provisions of Arms Act
. sentencing them to life imprisonment for murder and
imprisonment for a period of ten years for attempt to murder
under Section 307 of the IPC besides fine and sentence in
B
default of payment thereof. The ninth accused viz. Harbans Kaur
wife of Mohinder Singh was convicted under Section 302 read
with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonm~nt.
Appellants in the Criminal Appeals No.17-18 of 2010 and
)\_
Criminal Appeals No. 2434-35 of 2009 were among those
c convicted for murder and attempt to murder and sentenced as
indicated above.
15. In the cross case the trial Court held that even when
the disputed plot of land was in possession of the accused in
the cross case (Complainant party in the main case), yet they
D
were not justified in using firearms to cause injuries to the
-+
opposite party. The trial Court accordingly convicted Shavinderjit
......_
Singh under Section 307 of the IPC, while Ramandeep Singh
was found guilty under Section 307 read with Section 149 of
the IPC. Zora Singh who was added as an accused under
E
Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. was convicted under Section 148
IPC while Ranjit Singh was given benefit of doubt and acquitted.
16. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and
-\
sentence awarded by the trial Court, both the parties appealed
F
to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court, as
noticed earlier, has dismissed some of those appeals while
allowing some others in full or part as we shall presently indicate.
Insofar as the conviction and sentence of six accused persons,
appellants before us in Criminal Appeals No.17-18 of 2010
G and 2434-2435 of 2009 are -concerned, the High Court has
.,_.,
held, the charges framed against them to have been proved
and accordingly affirmed the order of conviction and sentence
passed by the trial Court. The appeals filed by Mohinder Singh
and, Harbans Kaur against their conviction and sentence have
H
been allowed and the said two persons acquitted of the
charges framed against them. That order of acquittal has been
-
RANJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB
649
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]
assailed in Criminal Appeal No.1853 of 2009 filed by Ranjit
A
Singh. We may straightaway point out that since Mohinder
Singh has passed away during the pendency of these
proceedings, and since learned counsel for the appellantRanjit Singh in the said Criminal Appeal has made a statement
on instructions that he does not propose to pursue the appeal
B
against Harbans Kaur, Criminal Appeal No.1853 of 2009 shall
have to be dismissed as abated qua Mohinder Singh and as
not pressed against Harbans Kaur. This would also mean that
qua the said two accused the proceedings stand concluded
finally, leaving us with the Criminal Appeals filed on behalf of c
the six accused in the two sets of appeals filed by them and
referred to above, and Criminal Appeal No.1855 of 2009, filed
by Shavinderjit Singh against his conviction under Section 307
IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, and the sentence
of seven years imprisonment awarded by the High Court. The
0
conviction of the rest of the accused in the two cases, having
been set aside, by the High Court, the absence of any challenge
to the acquittal has gained finality for the view taken qua them.
17. Coming then to Criminal Appeals No.17-18 of 2010
and 2434-2435 of 2009, we must at the threshold mention that
E
the High Court has on a reappraisal of the evidence adduced
at the trial come to the following conclusions:
(i)
Amrik Singh and Vikramjit Singh, two victims who
got killed in the incident, died because of
F
haemorrhage and shock resulting from the gunshot
and other injuries suffered by them. In the case of
Amrik Singh, nine injuries were found on his body
out of which injuries 1 to 3 were caused by firearms
whereas injuries 4 to 9 were caused by sharp
G
edged and blunt weapons. In the case of Vikramjit
Singh, eleven injuries were found on his body out
of which irtjuries 1 to 4 were caused by firearms,
whereas injuries 5 to 9 and 11 were caused by
sharp edged weapons, while injury no. 10 was
caused by a blunt weapon.
H
A
B
c
D
E
;
650
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 13 S.C.R.
(ii)
From out of the complainant party in the main case,
Ranjit Singh and Shavinderjit Singh were also.
injured. In so far as Ranjit Singh was concerned,
PW3-Dr. Harminder Singh found six simple injuries
on his person. In the case of Shavinderjit Singh
there were five injuries on his body which were ·also
found to be simple in nature. None of these injuries,
it is obvious, were caused by firearms.
(iii)
Two of the accused persons namely, Mohinder
Singh and Harbans Kaur had also sustained
gunshot injuries.
(iv)
Neither the complainant party nor the accused have
offered any explanation leave alone an acceptable
one for the injuries received by the opposite side.
(v)
The rival versions as to the genesis of the incident
were both highly exaggerated and that both the
parties had embellished the aclual occurrence by
adding embroideries to the same which made it
difficult for the Court to believe the two versions in
tote.
(vi)
Despite such exaggerations and embellishments
the case was not one in which the Court could not
separate the grain from the chaff and discover the
F
truth.
G
H
(vii) The incident had started in the early hours of 3rd
May, 2001 when the complainant party comprising
Amrik Singh, Vikramjit Singh, Shavinderjit Singh,
Gurdial Singh besides four to five other persons
started harvesting the crop with the help of a
combine in the field. Mohinder Singh and Harbans
Kaur appeared on the scene to object to the
harvesting of the crop and in the altercation that
followed, the deceased Amrik Singh and
.
+
RANJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB
651
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]
't
Shavinderjit Singh fired shots at them with their
A
guns. Two of these guns were recovered from the
complainant party. Immediately after this incident,
Amrik Singh, son of Gurdial Singh, his son Rajindra
Singh @ Raju, Binder Singh and Balwinder Singh
appear to have come on the scene with deadly
B
weapons and caused injuries to Amrik Singh and
Vikramjit Singh.
~
(viii) The High Court further held that all the eight persons
were not armed with guns as stated by the c
-
prosecution witnesses. Some of them were armed
with blunt weapons like Gandasi and Lathi. In the
opinion of the High Court, in the latter part of the
incident only seven persons participated, who
caused injuries to the deceased as well as the two
D
-+·
injured persons from the complainant party. The
involvement of thirty one persons by the complainant
side was an exaggeration, just al!\ the allegation that
all the thirty one accused were armed with deadly
weapons was an exaggeration.
E
18. Learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeals
No.17-18 of 2010 and 2434-2435 of 2009, strenuously argued
that since the High Court had recorded a finding that the
versions given by both sides were dubious in nature with several
exaggerations and embellishments, made to conceal the truth
F
from the Court, the High Court was not justified in holding the
appellants guilty. It was contended that tile grain was so
irretrievably glued to the chaff that any attempt to separate the
two was bound to fail or lead to injustice as has happened in
'-i
the instant case. It was also contended that the version given
by the eye witnesses namely, Ranjit Singh (PW11 ), Shavinderjit
G
Singh (PW12) and Ramandeep Singh (PW13) was not reliable
and that in the absence of any reliable and cogent evidence
as to what exactly transpired on the spot, it was unsafe to
convict the accused, leave alone half a dozen of them.
H
652
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 13 S.C.R.
A
19. On behalf of the respondents it was contended that
embellishments and exaggerations do not prevent the Court
from looking for and discovering the truth, no matter the Courts
in this country have often noticed a tendency among the
aggrieved party to use an incident involving commission of a
s crime for implicating as many members of the opposite side
as possible. That is what appears to have happened in the
instant case also, inasmuch as the prosecution alleged that as
many as thirty people came on to the land with deadly weapons,
including several firearms. The High Court was, therefore,
)(
C perfectly justified in acquitting those falsely implicated but that
did not prevent the High Court from closely scrutinising and
-
appraising the evidence led in the case to discover the truth
and to do justice keeping in view the fact that two persons had
lost their lives in the incident.
D
20. We have given our anxious consideration to the
submission made at the Bar. It is true that there is at times a
tendency among people affected by a crime to spread the net
wider and implicate even those who were not directly
concerned with the incident. That tendency has been often
E deprecated by this Court. Dealing with a similar situation this
Court in Amrita alias Amritlal v. State of MP, (2004) 12 SCC
224, observed:
F
G
H
".;.The tendency of the closely related witnesses to
involve all family members in the commission of offence,
when there is severe enmity between the deceased and
the accused does not mean that the entire testimony
shall be rejected and, thus, acquitting even those who
committed the crime. The extent to which the evidence
is worthy of acceptance depends upon facts of each
case. In such cases, it is the duty of the courts to separate
the grain from the chaff where it is so possible and to
convict the accused if called for on the basis of evidence
despite the fact that the same witness also falsely
implicated others. Mere acquittal of some of the accused
,'
RANJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB
653
[T.S. THAKUR, J.]
on the same evidence by itself does not lead to a A
conclusion that all deserve to he acquitted in case
appropriate reasons have been given on appreciation of
evidence both in regard to acquittal and conviction of the
accused .... •
·
21. To the same effect is the order of this Court in Ba/aka
Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, (1975) 4 SCC 511, where
this Court said:
B
" ... the Court must make an attempt to separate grain
from the chaff, the truth from the falsehood, yet this could
C
only be possible when the truth is separable from the
falsehood. Where the grain cannot be separated from the
chaff because the grain and the chaff are so inextricably
mixed up that in the process of separation the Court
would have to reconstruct an absolutely new case for the
D
prosecution by divorcing the essential details presented
by the prosecution completely from the context and the ··
background against which they are made, then this
principle will not apply. n
22. In Ganesh v. State of Karnataka, 2008 (11) SCALE
567, this Court held that :
E
" ... When the prosecution is able to establish its case by
acceptable evidence, though in part, the accused can be
convicted even if the co-accused have been acqqitted
F
on the ground that the evidence led was not sufficient to
fasten guilt on them ... "
23. In Sucha Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, (2003) 7
SCC 643, again this Court pointed out the approach to be
G
adopted in situations where the Courts are dealing with partly
true and partly false depositions. The following passage is
apposite:
" ...