# [1974] 1 S.C.R. 328

- **Citation:** [1974] 1 S.C.R. 328
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1973-08-06
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1972
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1974-1-s-c-r-328-5977
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

328
STATE OF PUNJAB
t.
JAGIR SINGH AND ORS.
August 6, 1973
~H. R. KHANNA AND A. ALAG!RISWAMI JJ.]
A
Criminal practice and procedure-Appreciation of evidence and sentence.
B
The respondents were convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The
High Court acquitted them in appeal.
In appeal to this Court, setting aside the acquittal,
HELD : ( 1) A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale :wherein one is free to
give flight to one's imagination and phantasy. It concerns itself
with
the
question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime
with which he is charged. Crime is an event i_n real life and is the product
of interplay of different human emotions.
In_ arriving at the conclusion about
the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court
has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of :Prcb:.bilities, its intrinsic worth
and the animus of witnesses.
Every case in the final analysis would have to
depend upon its own facts.
Although the benefit of every
reasonable doubt
should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject
evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the
nature, of conj~ctures. [337F-H]
In the present case, the High Court has rejected the prosecution
evidence
which was ex facie of a convincing nature on grounds which partake of the
nature of conjccture5 and 5ormise~. The view taken by the High Court is
manifestly unreasonable and has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
A perusal
ctf the judgment of the High Court :shows that in
acquitting
the
accusedrespondents, the High Court approached the entire matter in a spirit of distrust
and suspicion of the various officers who dealt with the case. [337H-338B]
c
D
(2) The High Court, while rejecting the prosecution evidellce, made unE
warranted criticism couched in harsh languag? about the magistrate wtio received the copy of F.I.R., the doctor, the investigating
officer and the
Sessions
Judge who tried the case. [337E-FJ
(3) In view of the fact that more than two yea~ had elapsed ~ince the
High Court acquitted the respondents, it would be more appropriate to sentence
the accused to imprisonment for life instead of to the extreme penalty.
[3388--C]

## Text

328
STATE OF PUNJAB
t.
JAGIR SINGH AND ORS.
August 6, 1973
~H. R. KHANNA AND A. ALAG!RISWAMI JJ.]
A
Criminal practice and procedure-Appreciation of evidence and sentence.
B
The respondents were convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The
High Court acquitted them in appeal.
In appeal to this Court, setting aside the acquittal,
HELD : ( 1) A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale :wherein one is free to
give flight to one's imagination and phantasy. It concerns itself
with
the
question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime
with which he is charged. Crime is an event i_n real life and is the product
of interplay of different human emotions.
In_ arriving at the conclusion about
the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court
has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of :Prcb:.bilities, its intrinsic worth
and the animus of witnesses.
Every case in the final analysis would have to
depend upon its own facts.
Although the benefit of every
reasonable doubt
should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject
evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the
nature, of conj~ctures. [337F-H]
In the present case, the High Court has rejected the prosecution
evidence
which was ex facie of a convincing nature on grounds which partake of the
nature of conjccture5 and 5ormise~. The view taken by the High Court is
manifestly unreasonable and has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
A perusal
ctf the judgment of the High Court :shows that in
acquitting
the
accusedrespondents, the High Court approached the entire matter in a spirit of distrust
and suspicion of the various officers who dealt with the case. [337H-338B]
c
D
(2) The High Court, while rejecting the prosecution evidellce, made unE
warranted criticism couched in harsh languag? about the magistrate wtio received the copy of F.I.R., the doctor, the investigating
officer and the
Sessions
Judge who tried the case. [337E-FJ
(3) In view of the fact that more than two yea~ had elapsed ~ince the
High Court acquitted the respondents, it would be more appropriate to sentence
the accused to imprisonment for life instead of to the extreme penalty.
[3388--C]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 7 of
1972.
Appeal by special Leave from the judgment and
order
dated
25-2-1971 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Cr!.
Appeal
No. 1031/70.
A. N. Mulla and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
Nuruddin Ahmed and R. L. Kohli, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KHANNA, J.
Nine accused Jagir Singh (27), Baljit Singh (36),
Karam Singh (30), Amarjit Singh (38), Atma SiMh (27). Cfonqn
Singh (22), Tarlok Singh (19), Joginder ·Singh (22)
and
Swarn
Singh (23) were tried in the court of Sessions Judge Gurdasour in
c'onnection with an occurrence which took place on Julv 8, 19~8 in
village Longowal Khurd.
In the c'mrse of that occurrence Labh Singh
(35), Joginder Singh (30) and Lakha Singh (25) received fatal inF
G
II
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
PUNJAB v. JAGIR SINGH (Khanna, J.)
3 29
1unes.
Injuries were also received by Ajit Singh,
Jar~ail Singh,
Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh FWs.
Learned Sessmns Judge
convicted Jagir Singh and Baljit Singh under section 302 Indian Penal
Code on two counts for causmg the death of Joginder Singh and Lakha
Singh deceased and sentenced them to death on each count.
The said
two accused were also convicted under section 302 read with section
34 Indian Penal Code in connection with the murder of Labh Singh
and wer~ sentenced to undergo imprisonment for Jife on that account.
In addition to that, the aforesaid two accused were convicted under
~ection 307 Indian Penal Code on four counts for the injuries caused
to Mohinder Singh, Ajit Singh, Jarnail Singh and Harbans Singh PWs
and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
three years on each count.
Karam Singh accused was convicted under
section 302 Indian Penal Code for causing the death of Labh Singh
deceased and was sentenced to death. In connec ion with the death
of Joginder Singh and Lakha Singh, Karam Singh was convicted unact
section 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code on two counts and
was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
Karam Singh was,
ht addition, convicted under section 307 read with section 34 Indian
Penal Code for injuries caused to Ajit Singh, Jarnail Singh, Mohinder
'!ingh and Harbans Singh and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years on each count. The remaining
six accused were acquitted by the Sessions Judge.
On appeal and
reference, the Punjab and Haryana High Court acquitted Jagir Singh,
Baljit Singh and Karam Singh by giving them the benefit of doubt. The
State of Punjab has now come up in appeal to this Court by special
leave against the judgment of the High Court acquitting the above
mentioned three accused respondents.
Out of the nine accused, Karam Singh, Amarjit Singh and Baljit
Singh are brothers.
Likewise, J agir Singh, J oginder Singh and Tarlok
Singh accused are brothers. Chanan Singh accused, who is a constable
in the Border Security Force, and Swarn Singh accused too
are
brothers.
Atma Singh accused is the maternal uncle of Jagir Singh.
Amongst the three deceased persons, Labh Singh and Joginder Singh
were brothers. Chanan Singh (PW 8) and Mohinder Singh (PW 27)
are the brothers of those two deceased persons. Harbans Singh (PW
21 ) is brother of Lakha Singh deceased.
The prosecution case is that the relations between, the party of the
accused and that of the deceased persons were strained for about 10
or 12 years before the occurrence, and the two groups had since then
been involved in a number of cross criminal cases.
About two vears
before the occurrence, Lakha Singh deceased along with some o'thers
had caused injuries t? ~tma Singh and Puran Singh, uncle of Jagir
Smgh accused.
A cnmmal case was on that. account pending in the
court of Magistrate Batala.
July 8'. 1968 was the date of hearing
m that case and on that day Chanan Smgh (PW 8) accompanied Lakha
Singh to the court at Batal~ for pursuing that case.
After the proceedings of the case were over, Chanan Singh (PW 8) came back with
Lakha Singh deceased to his house in village Longowal Khurd. Longowa\ Khurd is at a distance of about two.and-a-half miles from Batala.
The house of Labh Singh deceased was at a short distance from that
330
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
· [ 1974] 1 s.c.R.
.
.'A
of Lakha Singh in Longowal Khurd.
Chanan Singh (PW 8) himself
lived in Longowal Kalan which is at a distance oi tcbout h'":l and ahalf furlongs from Longowal Khurd._
When Chanan Singh (PW 8) was still present at the !muse of
Lakha Singh deceased, it is stated, they heard the noi~e of changars
(challenging shouts) from near the ho.use of Labh Smgh _deceased.
Hearing the noise of changars, Lakha Smgh deceased and his brother
Harbans Singh (PW 21) went to the house of Labh Singh.
Chanan
Singh PW also followed ·them to the house of Labh.Singh. On arrival·
there Chanan Singh (PW 8) fonnd Labh Singh, Joginder Singh and
.Laid1a Singh deceased as well as Ajit Singh (PW 19), Jarnail Singh
(PW 22) Mohinder Singh (PW 27), Harbans Singh (PW 21), Bawa
Singh (P\V 25) and Chanan Singh (PW 26) present in the courtyard
of Labh Singh's house. Joginder Kaur, wife of Labh Singh,
and
Harbans Kaur, wife of Bawa Singh, too were· present there; Tue nine
accused are then stated to have come near the compound wall of the
courtyard of Labh Singh's house. The compound wall was about sixand-a-half. feet high from outside and four-and-a half feet high from
inside because the courtyard was at a higher level than the gr.ound
outside. At the instigation of Tarlok Singh, Atma Singh and Swarn
Singh accused, it is stated, Jagir Singh and Baljit Singh accused threw
one hand-grenade each into the courtyard of Labh Singh's house. Both
the hand-grenades exploded in the courtyard as a result of which Labh
Singh, J.oginder Singh and Lakha Singh deceased and Mohinder Singh,
Jarnai! Singh, Ajit Singh and Harbans Singh PWs received injuries.
• All the nine accused then came inside the courtyard of the house of
Labh Singh deceased. Karam Singh and Amarjit Singh accnsed were
armed with spe3fS.
Tarlok Singh, Joginder Singh, Atma
Singh,
Chanan Singh and Swarn Singh accused had kirpans, while Jagir Singh
~nd Baljit Singh were empty handed. Karam Singh accused on arrival
delivered a spear blow in the left flank of Labh Singh deceased. Amarjit Singh accused also gave a spear blow oi:t the right arm of Labh
Singh.
Receiving these injuries, Labh Singh fell down. Jogindcr Singh
accused dealt a kirpan blow on the nose of Harbans Singh PW, while
Chanan Singh accused gave a blow with his sheatlied kirpan on the
back of 1vfohinder Singh PW. Swarn Singh accused stepped towards
Chanan Singh (PW 8) for attacking him witli a kirpan whereupon
Chan an Singh (PW 8) took np a danda from the courtyard of Labh
Singh and brandished it towards Swarn Singh.
One blow with that
danda was ;;iven on the left shoulder of Swarn Singh accused. Those
present in the courtyard also raised alarm whereupon the nine accused
ran away.
Some water was then poured into the mouth of Labh Singh but
he succumbed to the injuries received by him. Mohinder Singh' and
Harhans Singh PWs then brought a cart from the house of· Chanan
Singh (PW 8). Lakha Singh and Joginder Singh deceased were laid
on that c;art.
c_hanan Singh (PW 8), Harbans Singh, Sarjan Singh
and Mohmder Smgh then took that cart to Batala hospital.
When
they arrived near the hospital, Chanan Singh (PW 8) went to police
station Sadar Batala and !Of)ged there report P.A. at 11.15 p.m.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
I ,.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
PUNJAB v. JAGIR SINGH (Khanna, J.)
331
Sub Inspector Kehar Singh (PW 30) then went to the hospital.
Before doing so, the Sub Inspector deputed two Assistant Sub Inspectors
3nd four constables to proceed to the place of occurrence. Sub
Inspector Kchar Singh found Lakha Singh and Joginder Singh present
in the hospital. Their injuries were being examined by Dr. N. S.
Dhillon when the Sub Inspector arrived there.
On the applications of
the Sub Inspector, Dr. Dhillon made an endorsement that Joginder
Singh and Lakha Singh were in tit condition to make statements. The
Sub Inspector then deputed a head constable to call' the magistrate
having jurisdiction in the· area. It was raining heavily at that time and
as the magistrate did not arrive, the Sub Inspector recurded the dying
declarations of Lakha Singh and Joginder Singb. in !he presence of
Dr. Dhillon. The c.ondition of Lakha Singh and Joginder Singh was
found to be &erious and so they were sent to V. J. Hospital Amritsar.
Sulr Inspector Kehar Singh then went from Batala hospital to the
place of occurrence and reached there at 5 a.m.
The Sub Inspector
found the dead body of Labh Singh lying on a cot.
The Sub Inspector
prepared inquest report relating to the dead body of Labh Singh.
Blood-stained earth was taken into possession from three places in the
courtyard of Labh Singh's house. The Sub Inspector also took into
possession lever Pl, percussion cap P2 and four pieces of exploded
hand.grenade from the place of occurrence and put them into a sealed
parcel.
Injuries of Harbans Singh, Ajit Singh and Jarnail .Singh were examined by Dr. N. S. Dhillon on July 9. Harbans Singh was found
to have two lacerated wounds, one on his right index finger and the
other on the bridge of his nose.
Both the injuries were
grievous.
Ajit Singh was found to have one punctured wound with everted lacerated margins on his right thigh, while Jarnail &ingb had one lacerated
wound on the right side of his neck.
The injuries of Ajit Singh and
Jarnail Singh were found to be simple. Mohinder Singh was examined
by Dr. S. P. Mago on July 10, 1968 and was found to have four simple
injuries on his person.
Lakha Singh and Joginder Singh who were sent to V. J. Hospital
Amritsar succumbed to their injuries on July 10 and 11, 1968 respectively.
Post mortem examination on the dead bodies of Lakha
Singh and Joginder Singh was performed by Dr. Narinder Mohan on
July 11, 1968.
•
The lever, precussion cap and the other parts of the hand-grenades
which had been recovered from the place of· occurrence were sent to
PW 20 Shri J. M. John, Senior Inspector of Explosives.
Shri John
expressed the opinion that the above articles were the remnants of
an exploded hand-grenade.
At the trial the plea of the nine aclcused was denial simpliciter.
Chanan Smgh and Swarn Singh accused, in the course of their statcm~nts. also added that they had heard changars cm the night of occur1ence at about 10 p.m. from the direction of gurudwara. The explosion of a bomb was also heard at that time but these two accused
did not stir out of their houses.
Defence evidence was led on behalt
of the accused. The purport of :the defence evidence was that one
:i 3 2
.5UPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1974 j 1 S.C.R.
Bachan Singh had been admitted into Batala Hospital with ~ultiple
injuries on the night between July 8 and 9, 1968.
A metalhc substance was thereafter recovered from the body of Bachan Smgh 011
July 20, 1968.
Defence evidence was also led to show that Labh
Sim•l1 deceased who was a bus driver of the Punjab Roadways, was
0
'
away to Pathankot at about 7 p.m. on the day of occurrence.
Learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution case against
Joginder Singh, Baljit Singh and Karam Singh accused had ~n proved
beyond any shadow of doubt.
He, accepted the ocular evidence produced in the case. Reliance Wl!S, however,
not placed upon the
dying declarations of La~ha· Singh and Joginder Singh.
Th~ remaining six accused were given the benefit of d_oubt and w~re acqmt~ed .. The
High Court on appeal and reference acquitted Jaglr Smgh, Bal11t Smgh
and Karam Singh also by giving them the benefit of doubt for reasons
which would be dealt with hereafter.
In appeal before us Mr. Mulla on behalf of the appellant-State
has argued that the High Court was in error in setting aside the conviction of the three accused-respondents and the view taken by the High
Court was manifestly unreasonable.
As against that Mr. Nuruddin
on behalf of the respondents has canvassed for the .:orrectness of the
view taken by the High Court. There is, in our opinion, considerable
force in the stand taken on behalf of the appellant.
The evidence of
Dr. Dhillon, who performed post-mortem examination on the body of
Labh Singh, shows that .there were five injuries on the body of the
deceased.
Out of them, three could be caused with a hand-grenade,
while two had been caused with a sharp pointed weapon.
One of the
last two mentioned injuries was a punctured incised wound on the
back of the right forearm, while the other injury was as under :
"Punctured
incised
wound l''X t" with clean
cut
margins, over 5th rib and 5th left intercostal space in mid
axillary line with fraoture of 5th rib, puncture of left lung
near the fissure, went through the entire lung, cross punc·
lured the walls of left auricle, haematoma over the lung and
pleural cavity pleura
punctured
left
side,
pericardium
puncture."
The above mentioned injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature
to cause death, The evidence of Dr. Narinder Mohan, who performed
P?St-mortem examinati_on on !he bodies of Joginder Singh and Lakha
Srngh, shows that Joginder Smgh had three lacerated wounds wliich
could be caused with a hand-grenade. Likewise Lakha Singh had
two injuries which could be caused with a hand·gr~nade. The following injury of Joginder Singh was sufficient in ordinary course of nature
to cause death :
"A penetrating wound 1 t" · rou.ndish, with lacerated
margins 1" to the left of tJ:ie.inid-epigastrio line 3" above
the umbilicus with omentum seen out of the wound. There
was no charring of the margins."
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
PUNJAB v. JAGIR SINGH (Khanna, /.)
333'
In the case of Lakha Singh, the fatal injury was in the ahdommal
cavity. Operation had been performed at the site of the injury in an
attempt to ;ave Lakha Singh.
According to the prosecution case, the hand-grenade injuries ta the
three deceased persons and injured prosecution witnesses were caused
by J agir Singh and Baljit Singh accused when they threw the handgrenades in the courtyard of Labh Singh's house. It is further the
case of the prosecution that the fatal punctured incised wound in mid
axillary line of Labh Singh deceased was caused by Karam Singh accused when he gave the spear blow to Labh Singh deceased.
The prosecution in support of the above allegations has examined Chanan
Singh (PW 8), Ajit Singh (PW 19), Harbans Singh (PW 21), Jarnail
Singh (PW 22), Bawa Singh (PW 25), Chanan Singh s/o Sawan Singh
(PW 26) and Mohinder Singh (PW 27) as eye witnesses of the
occurrence.
There appears, in our opinion, to be no cogent ground
as to why the evidence of the above mentioned witnesses regarding the
complicity of the accused-respondents be not accepted. It is, no doubt,
true as pointed out by Mr. Nuruddin, that these witnesses be·
long to the party of the deceased but that fact, in our opinion, would
only make the court scrutinise the evidence of these witnesses more
closely. If their evidence can stand that test, as it does in the present
case, there is no reason why it should not be acted upon.
Some of the
witnesses are close relatives of the deceased persons and it is most
difficult to believe that they would spare the real assailants and faisely
mention the names of innocent persons as having caused the injuries
to the deceased persons.
Four of the eye witnesses, namely, Aiit Singh
(PW 19), Harbans Singh (PW 21), Jarnail Singh
(PW 22) and
Mohinder Singh (PW 27) received injuries during the course of the
present occurrence and there can be hardly any manner of doubt regarding their presence at the scene of occurrence. It is not possible
to accept the contention that these witnesses in spite of the attack
upon them and the three deceased persons failed to fix the identity of
the assailants.
Another fact of which note should be taken is that the first information report in this case was lodged at 11.15 p.m., wi•hin a few
hours. of the occurrence. Although Mr. Nuruddin has urged that there
was delay in lodging the first information report, we find it difficult to
accept this submission. The occurrence, according to the prosecution
case, took place at 7.15 p.m.
As a result of the occurrence, Labh
Singh died soon thereafter, while Joginder ·Singh
and Lakha Singh
received s~rious injuries. In addition to that, four prosecution witnesses
also received injuries. It is plain that the prosecution witnesses must
have got stunned because of the sudden occurrence in the course of
which three of their close relatives received in.iuries which ultimately
proved fatal and four others were also injured.
Attempt was made
to pour water into the mouth of Labh Singh deceased but Labh Singh
died soon thereafter. It must have taken some time for Chanan Singh
and others to get out of the state of shock and regain their composure.
They then arranged for a cart which was brought from Chanan Singh's
house in Longowal Kalan
Joginder Singh and Lakha Singh were then
laid in that cart and the same was taken to Batala, at a distance of
334
SUPREME f..JURT REPORTS
( 1974 j 1 S.C.R.
two-and-a-half miles.
It cannot, in the circumsrances, be said. that
the period of four hours which was taken in lodging the report at the
police station was in any way inordinately l~ng.. The fact that the
first information report was lodged at the tlme 1t. purports to have been
done can also be not disputed because the first mformatwn report was
received by the magistrate having jurisdiction in the area at 1 a.m. as
is borne out by the endorsement of the magistrate on the report. The
first information report, lodged at the police station within a few hours
of the occurrence contained all the material facts and, in our opinion,
the first information report lends considerable corroboration to
the
ocular evidence adduced at the trial.
The defence suggestion which was put in the cross examination ot
the prosecution witnesses was that a number of persons had collected
near the village gurudwara when a hand-grenade exploded there and
the three deceased persons and the prosecution witnesses received injuries.
This suggestion, in the circumstances of the case, was, in our
opinion, wholly unfounded.
The evidence of Sub Inspector Kelrnr
Singh shows that when he arrived at the scene of occurrence, he found
the different pier.es of exploded hand-grenade in the courtyard of the
house of Labh Singh deceased.
This fact would tend to show that
tl)e explosion had taken place in the courtyard and not at the gurudwara. It is alscr not clear as to what advantage the prosecution would
have derived in suppressing the actual place of occurrence and in mentioning a wrong place of occurrence. As would appear from
the
narration of facts, only members of one party received injuries as a
result of the explosion of hand-grenade. If the hand-grenade had
exploded in a large gathering near the village gurudwara, it is not likely
that the splinters from the exploded hand-grenade would
hit the
members of only one party and avoid those not belonging to that party.
Labh Singh deceased at the time of the present occurrence was wearing only a kachha besides a parna on his head. It is not likely that
Labh Singh would have gone in that state without a shirt to the gathering near the village gurudwara. On the contrary, the fact that Labh
Singh was without a shirt poi.nts to the inference that the occurrence
took place in the courtyard of his house.
The High Court while rejecting the prosecution evidence referred
to the fact that in one of the plans, height of the outer wall <'f the
courtyard of Labh Singh's house was mentioned to be 6} ft. while in
the o.ther, it was mentioned to be 4! ft.
This discrepancy has been
explained by Bal K1shan Draftsman (PW 9), whose evidence shows
that the level of the courtyard of Labh Singh's house was higher than
the ground outside.
The height of the boundary wall consequently
measured to be 6J. ft from outside and 4! ft from inside.
No ouestion
was put to the witness in cross-examination, and we can fi~d no
cogent 1eason as t.o why th~ ~vidence of ~al Ki~han be not accepted.
1:here could ?lso, m our op.1mon, be no difficulty for those present inside the cour,yard from seemg as to who were th~ persons who threw
the hand-grenades, because a 4t ft high wall could not obstruct their
view in fixing the identity of the culprits.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
PUNJAB v. JAGm SINGH (Khanna, J.)
335
Another circumstance which weighed with the High
Court in
rejecting the prosecution evidence was the nature of the injury on the
nose of Harbans Singh (PW 21). According to the evidence cl the
prosecution witnesses, the above injury had bee~ caused with ~ ~ii:pan
by Joginder Singh. The High Court took the view that the said rniury
had been caused by a hand-grenade splinter.
It wall held that a.s the
witnesses had deposed that the injury had been caused by a ~irpan
blow the evidence of the witnesses was not trustworthy.
In tlus respect ~e find that the evidence of Dr. Dhillon shows that he expressed
the opinion in answer to a police query that the injury on the nose of
Harbans Singh could have been caused with a kirpan. It is, no doubt,
true that Dr. Dhillon also expressed the opinion that the said injury
could have been caused by a missile or other object, but this fact would
not necessarily show that thei eye witnesses in this case have ~ade false
statements regarding the injury on the nose of Harbans
Smgh.
In
order to draw an inference about the falsity of the evidence of prosecution witnesses in this respect, it is not enough to show that the injury
on the nose of Harbans Singh could have been caused either with a
kirpan or with a missile, it is also necessary to rule out the possibility
of the said injury having been cansed with a kirpan. The evidence of
Dr. Dhillon plainly does not rule out such a possibility.
· The High Court also appears to have been impressed by the defence
version that Labh Singh deceased was present in Pathankot at about
7 p.m. on the day of occurrence.
Reliance in this context was placrd
upon the testimony of Radhey Sham (DW 3) who was conductor of
Bus PNl' 6972 and who has deposed about Labh Singh having driven
that bus to Pathankot on the day of odcurrence and about that bus
having reached Pathankot at 7 p.m.
We find it most difficult
to
accept this statement of Radhey Sham in the face of other evidence
brought on the tecord and the surrounding circumstances of the case.
Dalip Singh (PW 11) is a yard master of Punjab Roadways depot at
Pathankot.
The evidence of this witness was given on the basis of
the relevant records.
According to this witness, two drivers had been
allotted for the bus in question and they were Labh Singh deceased
and Piara Singh (PW 12). Dalip Singh's testimony shows that on the
day of occurrence it was Piara Singh who brought the bus in question
to Pathankot at 7 p.m. As the evidence of this witness is based upon
the records, it is difficult to discard his testimony.
The evidence of
Dalip Singh gets corroboration from the testimony of Piara Singh who
has deposed that when the said bus arrived at Batala at about 5 p.m.
on the day of occurrence on its way from Amritsar to Pathankot, the
witness relieved Labh Singh deceased.
I:abh Singh then got down
from the bus at Batala and the witness took it to Pathankot. Another
witness who has been examined on the point is Y cig Raj (DW 2), who
was the booking clerk of the Punjab Roadways office at Pathankot.
According to this witness, the advance way bill of the bus in question
showed that its driver was Labh Singh when it left Amritsar for Pothankot. The witness, however, admitted that the entry in the way bill
was made at the commencement of the journey. In the circumstances,
the evidence of the witness is quite consistent with Labh Singh having
been relieved by Piara Singh at Batala.
336
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1974] 1 s.c.R.
Labh Singh admittedly died during the course of this occur~ence.
Had he been at Batala at 7 p.m. on the day of occurrence, 1t 1s not
likely that he could have reached his village before 9.30 or 10 p.m.
on the day of occurrence. It is in evidence that a bus takes two hours
to travel from Pathankot to Batala. It is difficul~ to believe that a
report about the 9Ccurrence at Longowal Khurd could nave been lodged
at Batala Sadar police station at 11.15 p.m. if, in fact, the occurrence
had taken place after 9.30 or 10 p.m.
We are also not impressed by the reasoning that the occurrence
took place at a late holl'r when it was not J'.OSsible to fi~ the iden!ity
of the assailants.
The case of the prosecut10n, as menuoned earher,
is that the occurrence took place at 7.15 p.m. The sun set on the day
of occurrence at 7 .28 p.m. There was full moon on July 9 and the
occurrence took place a day ·earlier than that.
As the occurrence
took place before sun set there could, in our opinion, be no difficultly
in fixing the identity of the assailants.
Even if the occurrence had
taken place after the sun-set time, there could still be no difficulty in
finding out as to who the assailants were.
A number of persons were
present in the courtyard of Labh Singh's house.
There is no suggestion
that a lamp had been lighted at that time.
The fact that a large number of persons were present in the courtyard without lighting a lamp
would show that there was enough light at that time. It is also significant that the assailants gave two Barcha blows to Labh Singh deceased. If there was enough light to enable the assailants to fix the
identity of Labh Singh before they gave Barcha blows to him, it stands
to reason that the same light would be enough for others to see as to
who the assailants were.
We, therefore, have no hesitaticn in rejecting the argument that there was not enough light at the time of
occnrrence to enable the prosecution witnesses to fix identity of the
culprits.
Another factor which weighed with the High Court in discarding
the prosecution evidence was that Bachan Singh (DW 6) was admitted
in Batala hospital a few minutes before Joginder Singh and Lakha
Singh deceased were brought there. According to the testimony of
Dr. N. S. Dhillon, a metallic foreign substance was recovered from
the arm of Bachan Singh on July 20, 1968. The High Court took the
view that Bachan Singh too had been injured during the course of the
present occurrence and the fact that no reference was made to Bachan
Singh either in the first information report or in the evidence of th11
prosecution witnesses would go to show that the prosecution evidence
is not worthy of credence.
In· this respect we find that Bachan Singh
was examined as a defence witness. Bachan Singh hi the course of
his evidence denied being present at the scene of occurrence and
having been injurfd at tnat time.
According to Bachan Singh, he had
received an injury during the course of a dispute with his father. Piaro,
sister of Bachan Singh, was also examined as DW 4.
Slie too ha~
denied that Bachan Singh was present at fue time of the present occurrence. It is, in our opinion, not necessary to dilate npon the iniury
of B~chan Singh because even if it may be assumed that Bachan Singh
100 received an injury during the course of the present occurrence, that
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
PUNJAB v. JAGIR SINGH (Khanna, /.)
337
would not materially affect the substance of the prosecution evidence
regarding the guilt of the three accused-respondents.
The learned judges of the High Court in rejecting the prosecution
evidence have made observations critical about the magistrate, who received the copy of the first information report, as well as about Dr.
Dhillon, Sub Inspector Kehar Singh and. the learned Sessions Judge.
So far as the magistrate is concerned, it observed that . he was
an
irresponsible lazy officer as he could not reach tht'. hospital at ab?ut
1 a.m. on the night of occurrence in spite of heavy rain. for recordmg
the dying declarations of Joginder Singh and Lakha Smgh.
As regards Dr. Dhillon, the criticism levelled is that he expressed an opinion
in answer to the query of the investigating officer that the inju~y on
the nose of Harbans Singh could be caused with a kirpan.
It was
observed that the doctor had gone out of the way to please the investigating officer.
The doctor was also criticised for attesting the dying
declarations.
Regarding Sub Inspector Kehar s;ngh, the High Court
formed the impression that he was a domineering police officer because
he obtained opinion favourable to the prosecution from Dr. Dhillon.
It was also observed that the Sub Inspector had tried to be over clever.
There was enough material available, according to the High Court,
which could have been niade better use of by a more imaginative officer without artificially or artfully advancing the time of occurrencl!
to day time. As regards the learned Sessions Judge, the High Court
observed that the present marathon trial appeared to have strained
his capacities to the maximum limits. The criticism levelled by the
High Court against the above mentioned officers, in our opinion, was
not warranted and was couched in language which was rather harsh.
Perusal of the judgment of the High Court shows that in acquitting
the accused-respondents, the High Court approaclied the entire matter
in a spirit of distrust and suspicion of the various officers who dealt
with this case.
We further find that the judgment of the High Court
is based upon conjectures, surmises and suspiclion. Looked at in the
context of the facts of the case, we find that the view taken by the
High Court is manifestly unreasonable. It is consequently not possible
to sustain the judgment of the High Court.
A criminal trial is not like ii fairy tale wherein one in free to give
flight to one's imagination and phantasy. It concerns itself with the
question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of
the crinie. with which he is charged.
Crime is an event in real life
and is the product of interplay of different human emotions.
Jn arriving at. t~e conclusio!1 about the guilt of the accused charged with· the
comm!ss1on of a cn.°.11'.• th~ c?ur~ h:is to judge the evidence by the
yardstick of probabihlles, its mtnnsic worth and the animus of wit-
!1esses. Every case in t)te final analysis would have to depend upon
its o;vn facts.
Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should
be. given to ~he ~ccused, !he courts should not at the same time reject
evidence which ts ex fac1e trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful
or in the nature of conjectures.
The Hig~ Cou~t in the ~resent case, in our opinion, has rejected
the proseclutton evidence which was ex facie of a convincing nature
338
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1974 l ls.c.R.
on grounds which partake of the nature of conjectures and surmises.
The view taken by the High Court, as already observed, is manifestly
unreasonable and has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
We accordingly accept the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and
convict the accused-respondents for the offences for which they were
convicted by the trial court.
As regards the sentence for the offence
under section 302 Indian Penal Code, we find that a period of more
than two years has elapsed >ince the acquittal of the accused-respondents by the High Court. It would, in the circumstances, be appropriate
if the extreme penalty for the offence under section 302 Indian Penal
Code is not exacted from the accused-respondents.
We,
therefore,
sentence the accused-respondents for the offence
under section 302
Indian Penal Code to imprisonment for life.
The sentences imposed
upon the accused-respondents for the offences under section 302 read
with section 34, section 307 and section -307 read with section 34
Indian Penal Code are maintained.
The sentences of each of the
accused-respondents would run concurrently.
V.P.S.
Appeal allowed.
A
B
c
..