# [1981] 2 S.C.R. 615

- **Citation:** [1981] 2 S.C.R. 615
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1981
- **Bench:** R. S. Sarkaria, E. S. Venkataramiah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1981-2-s-c-r-615-8142
- **Pages:** 22

## Headnote

' .
Ctinti11al Procedure Code 1973. S. 154 & Indian
Penal
Code,
S.
302Trial fot n1urdrr-Ar.:cused convic:ted by Sessions Court-Acquitted by
High
l'ourt-lnterfercnce by Supreme Court.
F.I.R.-Pro111ptness i11 lodging-Evidentiary value of,
Eye-wit11eJ.H'.\-Uelated to d:eceascd-Antecedents of
questionable nature
ʤʥi·u1i11y of: ӣ·vi;hnc"e by Court-A1ethodology to be adopted.
lnvestjgatio11 O.fljcer--Faflure to join respectable persons of
locality
to
witr;:c.\'S recovery of i"W.0.-Value of such ·evidence.
The prosecution case 'against the six Uccused (Respondents) was that prior
to the incident in question, there was Ml altercation· between the tWo deceased
on one side and the six accused on the other ovei tTespasS of
cattle
of the
accused persons- om the land of the deceased, whith dairuiged his cotton crop.
On the day of the incident when P.¥.'. 2, P.W. 3 and· the two deceased were
going by a foot path, the six accused suddenly emerged out of a field and
fired.
The two deceased fell dead, while P.W. 2 and 3 ran and escaped unhurt.
P.W. 2 reached the bus stand, picked up his motor cycle parked at a shop and
drove to the ne<irest police station to lodge the F.I.R.
The Additional Sessidns Judge found that one of the accused. had a· strong
motiye to inutdcr on
.
e oi _the deceased because of. an. oki_ fued a_nd
that
on
;Ӣccount of this ill v.ri1J, Some of the accused had ' a strong motive in
joining
h<'lnds with thi.:: .others to, murder .the deceased, but that ..no motive could
be
established. for murdering the second deceased.
He also found that the fact
that the F.I.R. was lodged by P.W. 2 with the utmost promptitude furnished
valuable con·oboration of his evidence and also disbelieved the evideace of the
police Sub-Inspector (P.VV. 13);
fn the
result
he
convicted
all
the
six
accused under section 302 read with section 149 I.P.C. for murder of one of
the deceased „…nd sentenced them to in1prisonment.
Jn the case of first accused
however. he. was pentenced to· death' for the murder of one of the deceased.
All the necu.;;cd appealed against their conviction alld sentence to the High
Court \(·hich aliowea· ihe appeal and rejected the· relference.
It rejected
the
evidence of the eye-witnesses, P.\V. 2 and P.\V. 3 on the ground that these
\Vitnesses were closely related to the. first deceased who was the principal target
of the accuc;ed and that it had not been satisfactorily established by the prose¿
cution that the other five accused had any motive to commit the 111urders in
question .
It found that the prosecution story was highly unnatural and that
\he presence of \he two eye witnesses alongwith the deceased persong was unA
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
616
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1981] 2 S.C.R.
likely.
It further held there was material inconsistency in their testimony, as
to when the first deceased and P.\V. 2 had left the hamlet, and that the inves·
tig.ition of the Ca«e conducted by the Sub-Inspector (P.W. 13) did not inspire
confidence.
In the appeal by the State to this Court it was contended on behalf of the
State that the reasoning of the High Court was manifestly unsound, if not
wholly perverse. The fact that the F.I.R, was lodged by P.W. 2 with utmost
promptitude and aJI the material facts including the. na·mes of the accused and
of the witnesses having been mentioned therein, indicated that there was no
time to concoct a false story.
On behalf of the respondents it was submitted that the acquittal could not
be disturbed, as the reasons given by the High Court could not be called
perverse.
HELD : l(i) The acquittal of respondent Nos. I and 2 are set aside and
they are convicted under section 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code
for the murder of the first deceased and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
The bcnelit of doubt to the rest of the
accused
(responctents)
and
their
acquittal on all the counts maintained. [636 C-D]
D
(iiJ Sufficient assurance of the testimony of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 was availahie from the circumstantial

## Text

_Characters 0–39,959 of 60,193. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39959 for what follows._

..
6 1 &
STATE OF PUNJAB
v .
WASSON SINGH AND FIVE OTHERS
January 1 5, 1981
[R. S. SARKARIA AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.J
' .
Ctinti11al Procedure Code 1973. S. 154 & Indian
Penal
Code,
S.
302Trial fot n1urdrr-Ar.:cused convic:ted by Sessions Court-Acquitted by
High
l'ourt-lnterfercnce by Supreme Court.
F.I.R.-Pro111ptness i11 lodging-Evidentiary value of,
Eye-wit11eJ.H'.\-Uelated to d:eceascd-Antecedents of
questionable nature
ʤʥi·u1i11y of: ӣ·vi;hnc"e by Court-A1ethodology to be adopted.
lnvestjgatio11 O.fljcer--Faflure to join respectable persons of
locality
to
witr;:c.\'S recovery of i"W.0.-Value of such ·evidence.
The prosecution case 'against the six Uccused (Respondents) was that prior
to the incident in question, there was Ml altercation· between the tWo deceased
on one side and the six accused on the other ovei tTespasS of
cattle
of the
accused persons- om the land of the deceased, whith dairuiged his cotton crop.
On the day of the incident when P.¥.'. 2, P.W. 3 and· the two deceased were
going by a foot path, the six accused suddenly emerged out of a field and
fired.
The two deceased fell dead, while P.W. 2 and 3 ran and escaped unhurt.
P.W. 2 reached the bus stand, picked up his motor cycle parked at a shop and
drove to the ne<irest police station to lodge the F.I.R.
The Additional Sessidns Judge found that one of the accused. had a· strong
motiye to inutdcr on
.
e oi _the deceased because of. an. oki_ fued a_nd
that
on
;Ӣccount of this ill v.ri1J, Some of the accused had ' a strong motive in
joining
h<'lnds with thi.:: .others to, murder .the deceased, but that ..no motive could
be
established. for murdering the second deceased.
He also found that the fact
that the F.I.R. was lodged by P.W. 2 with the utmost promptitude furnished
valuable con·oboration of his evidence and also disbelieved the evideace of the
police Sub-Inspector (P.VV. 13);
fn the
result
he
convicted
all
the
six
accused under section 302 read with section 149 I.P.C. for murder of one of
the deceased „…nd sentenced them to in1prisonment.
Jn the case of first accused
however. he. was pentenced to· death' for the murder of one of the deceased.
All the necu.;;cd appealed against their conviction alld sentence to the High
Court \(·hich aliowea· ihe appeal and rejected the· relference.
It rejected
the
evidence of the eye-witnesses, P.\V. 2 and P.\V. 3 on the ground that these
\Vitnesses were closely related to the. first deceased who was the principal target
of the accuc;ed and that it had not been satisfactorily established by the prose¿
cution that the other five accused had any motive to commit the 111urders in
question .
It found that the prosecution story was highly unnatural and that
\he presence of \he two eye witnesses alongwith the deceased persong was unA
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
616
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1981] 2 S.C.R.
likely.
It further held there was material inconsistency in their testimony, as
to when the first deceased and P.\V. 2 had left the hamlet, and that the inves·
tig.ition of the Ca«e conducted by the Sub-Inspector (P.W. 13) did not inspire
confidence.
In the appeal by the State to this Court it was contended on behalf of the
State that the reasoning of the High Court was manifestly unsound, if not
wholly perverse. The fact that the F.I.R, was lodged by P.W. 2 with utmost
promptitude and aJI the material facts including the. na·mes of the accused and
of the witnesses having been mentioned therein, indicated that there was no
time to concoct a false story.
On behalf of the respondents it was submitted that the acquittal could not
be disturbed, as the reasons given by the High Court could not be called
perverse.
HELD : l(i) The acquittal of respondent Nos. I and 2 are set aside and
they are convicted under section 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code
for the murder of the first deceased and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
The bcnelit of doubt to the rest of the
accused
(responctents)
and
their
acquittal on all the counts maintained. [636 C-D]
D
(iiJ Sufficient assurance of the testimony of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 was availahie from the circumstantial evidence regarding the participation of respondents Wasson Singh and Mukhtar Singh in the murder of deceased
Hazara
Singh.
The evidence of the eye witnesses therefore, could safely be acted
upon for convicting these respondents for the said murder. [635 C-D]
2. The reasons given by the High Court for holding that P.W. 2 was not
'E
<'Ill eye witness of these two murders are utterly unsustainable.
The
reason
that P.W. 2 had succeeded in escaping unhurt, or that there are discrepancies
in the statcmeuts of P.\V. 2 and P.W. 3 as to whether they had gone with the
deceased on t·be very day of occurrence or a day earlier was no ground for the
conclusion that P.W. 2 was not in the company of the dece~sed or near aloout
the scene of occurrence when the two deceased were shot dead. [626 F-GJ
G
3. Discrepancies in rega.rd to collateral or subsidiary facts or matters of
detail occur even in the statements of truthful witn.sses, particularly when
they are examined to depose to events which happened long before thefr exami ..
nation. Such discrepancies are hardly a ground to reject the evidence of the
witnesses when there is general agreement and consistency in regard to the
substratum of the prosecution case. [626H-627 A]
In the instant case the occurrence took place on August 4, 1973, while
P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 were examined at the trial oni December 27,
1974
i.e.
seventeen months after the incident. The trial court has rightly observed that
P.\V. 2 wa~ nf'Vl"r cross·examined by the defence regarding his
whereabouts
and those of the deceased on the previous night. The mere fact that P.W. 2
did not IP..ake any purchase at Amarkot could hardly be a reason to hold that
his heini;: in the company of the deceased at the material time was improbable.
[626G. 627B]
4. P.W. 3 is the brother a.nd P.W. 2 relation of the deceased. All three
1,vere livin!! together in the same hamlet in the fields.
It is in the evidence of
:r
•
•
•
•
'
PUNJAB V. WASSON SINGH
617
these witnesses that the other accused are partymen of respondent No. 1. It is
A
further in evidence that sometime before the occurrence both the deceased and
P.W. 2 were arrested and handcuffed by a police Sub-Inspector on the a!legatio1\
that they were indulging in smuggling and \\'ould be liquidated. lti was, there-_
fore, not improba·ble that this trio consisting of first deceased,
P.\V. Z :ind
P.W. 3 'vere as usual moving about or carrying on their activities
together.
Moreover the deceased must have known that Respondent No. 1 who was
inin1ically disposed to\vards him was at large on bail. This was an
added
B..
reason for this troika to move about for their security, if not for anything else,
in the company of each other. [627C-F]
5. (i) The .High Court has not all dealt with the First Information lleport
or the promptitude with which it was made.
[628D]
(ii) The towering circumstance which lends assurance to the claim of P.W.
C2 that he was an eye-\vitncss of the occurrence is that the First Infonnation
Report was lcxiged by him at the Police Station so promptly that he had practi ..
cally no time to spin out a false story. The reason employed by the High Court
for disbelieving the version of P.W. 2 regarding his owning and going on a
motor cycle to the Police Station was manifestly unsound. The Sub-Inspector
P.\V. 13 \Vas not questioned in cross examination as to whether or not P.W. 2
had come to the Police Station on a motor cycle. He was, however, questioned
D ....
as to \vha-t transport he had used for going from the Police Station to the scene
of murders. The witness replied that he went on a motor cycle upto Amarkot
and fro1n there \vent on foot to the scene of occurrence. This explanation of
P.\V. 2 regarding the kacha path from Amarkot to the scene of occurrence,
being non-motorable on the day of occurrence, receives inferential support from
the fact appearing in the evidence of P.W. 13 that he had to cover the distance
trotn Adda Amarkot to the place of occurrence, on foot.
E
l627H, 629E, 628G-629AJ
6. The conduct of the Investigation Officer (P.W. 13) indicates that he was
not favourably disposed to the deceased and P.W. 2.
A suggestion was also
put to P.W. 13 by the Public Prosecutor that he had been, unf<l'ir in the investigation of the case and tried to favour the 3rd and 4th responde111.t.
The High
Court found that the note iti the zimini was a fraudulent insertion. This being
the case, Sub-Inspector (P.W. 13) would be least disposed to join hands with
P.W. 2 informant in preparing the First Information Report, after deliberation
with P.W. 2 at the spot.
[629F-HJ
7. The opinion of the medical witness P.W. 1 corroborates the version of
P.\V. 2 in as much as the latter has testified that the murders took place at
about 3.30 p.m. This means that the statement of P.W. 2 in the F.I.R.
Wll6
made \vithout undue delay, and, as such, furnished very valuable corroboration
of his testimony at the trial in all material particulars. [630B-C]
8. (i) Both P.W. 2 aad P.W. 3 are related to the deceased, and as such are
interested witnesses. Their antecedents, also, are of a questionable nature, But
their antecedents or mere interestedness was not a valid ground to reject their
evidence. All that was necessary for the Court was to scrutinise their evidence
G·
with more than ordinary care and circumspection with reference to the pa~t -'lr I\
role assigned to each of the accused. An effort should have been made to sift
the grain from the chaff; to accept what appeared to be true and to reject the
A
B
c
D
618
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1981] 2 S.C.R.
rest. The l~igh Court did not udopt this methodology in
appreciating their
evidence.
Tnstead, it took a shortcut to disposal and rejccled their
evidence
whole-sale against a!J the accused for reasons which arc maJ:1ifestly untenable.
[630E-G]
(ii) Excepting for immaterial. discrepancies the evidence of P.W. 2 and
P.W. J was consistent and their presence aot the time and place of murders was
probable. Even so, as a· matter of abundant caution it will be safe to act on
their interested evidence 10 the extent to Which son1e assurance is coming forth
from surrounding cirCumstances or other evidence.
[630H-631A]
9. The prosecution has proved that the respondent No. 2 had also a motive
to p<llrticipatc in the murder of the socond deceased.
This lends assurance to
the testimony of P.\V. 2 and P.\V. 3 and strengthens the inference of guilt against
the said accused also.
P.W. 2's con'li'ltent testimony corroborated by the F.I.R.
was sufficient to establish this fact beyond doubt. [63JH-632A]
JO. It had been clearly proved that two fired cartridges were picked up from
the scene of crime and sealed into parcels \vhich were later deposited with sea16
intact in the Police Station.
On the memo it is mentioned th.it
these
fired
cartridges were of 303 bore rifle.
[632H]
11. There was substance in the observation of the trial Judge that the investigation \VilS biased in favour of the accused.
If that was so,
the failure of
P.W. 13 to join \\'Ith hiln respectables of the locality was by itself no ground
for ruling out the evidence of the discovery of the rifle, altogether. The partiality of P.W. 13 towards the defence, rather assures the genuineness of the
discovery.
He was least disposed to 'coJlaborate' or cooperate with the relaE
tions of the deceased to procure this rifle from some other source and then foist
it on respondent Mukhtar Singh.
The omission on the part of this Investigating
Officer to join \vith him some independent persons or respectables of the locality
to witness the recovery devalues that e\'idence but does not render it inadn1issible.
F
G
[6340-F, HJ
12. The circun1stance of the recovery of the rifle (Ex. P. 7) and the opinion
of the Ballistic Expert that the empty cartiridge (CI) had been fired through the
rifle though feeble it might be-was relevant and furnished a further pointer to
the participation of Mukhtar Singh in the commission of Hazara Singh's murder
by rifle-fire.
[635BJ
13. Although the investigation betrays a tilt in favour of the accused, and
P.W. 13 made a fradulent insertion in the zamini to help
Joginder Singh
accused, it cannot be said that the version of P.W. 13, that when he went to the
scene of murders at 5.30 p.m. he found Joginder Singh irrigating Ws nearby
fields at a distance of about 100 yards therefrom and he interrogated him there
and then but did not think it necessary to arrest him-is necessarily false. The
absence of motive and the presence of Joginder Singh near the scene of crime
shortly after the 1nurders, engaged in normal agricultural acti.vities does cast a
doubt about his participation in the commission of these murders.
[635 F·GJ
H
14. P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 have stated that they started running away from the
spot, immediately after deceased Hazara Singh was shot dead. The surround·
ing circumstances, natural probabilities and the nonnal course of human conduct
•
> •
-
')..
PUNJAB v. WASSON Sll'GH (Sarkaria, J.)
619
also sugge:st the :s;u11e inference, that in1mediately on seeing Hazara Singh beina
A
!Shot down, these \\fitnesses who were follov.-ing him ran fast
for
their
lives.
llaU they tarried for a while at the scene of the murder, it ¥.roul<l have been too
late for then1 to escape unhurt.
In such ;1 situation, when
they
were
being
pursued by person.-.. nrmed with fire-arms, they \.'.ould if at alJ they turned
and
looked behind have only a fleeting glimp .... e in the distance of the a6sailants of
Resha1n Singh deceased.
That is why P.\\'. 2 is not consistent 1n his statements
as to \l.hich of lhc accused had fired at him when he was running away for his
B
life.
Moreover it has not been establishe<l that any of the :six accused had any
motive, whatever to murder Reshan1 Singh deceased.
[635H--636C]
·
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTJON : Criminal Appeal No. 499
ef 1976.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
C
22-7-1975 of the Punjab & Haryamt High Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 166175 and Murder Reference No. 10175.
0. P. Sharma and M. S. Dhillon for the Appellant.
R. K . .loin for Respondents Nos. I and 3 to 6.
R. K. Kohlt and R. C. Kohli for the complainant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SARKARIA, J.-This appeal by the State of Punjab
is
directed
against a judgment, dated July 22, 1975, of the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana, whereby the appeal Of the respondents (hereinafter
referred to as the accused) was accepted and they were acquitted of
the double-murder charge against them.
The
prosecution
story
narrated by Resham Singh (P.W. 2), who claims to be an eyewitness
of the occurrence, runs as follows.
D
E
F
Resham Singh
(P.W.2) used to live with his
brother-in-law,
Hazara Singh deceased, in a hamlet in the fields outside the habitation
of village Cheema.
One Ajit Singh of village Dhual was murdered,
~~
· and Wassan Singh accused and his party-men were tried therefor. At
•
the
trial, Hazara
Singh deceased appeared as an eyewitness
of
that murder.
The trial court convicted Wasson Singh and his companions in that case. They went in appeal to the High Court.
Pending the appeal the High Court enlarged Wasson Singh accusetl
on bail.
The occurrence now in question in the instant case
took
place when Wasson Singh was on bail.
The lands of Avtar Singh, Mukhtar Siugh and Hnrbhajan Singh
accused (respondents) adjoin the lands of Hazara Singh deceased.
G
Three or four days prior to the incident in question, the cattle of
II
these accused persons trespassed on the land of Hazara Singh
and
damaged his cotton crop.
Thereupon, a sharp altercation took place
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
620
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1981] 2 S.C.R.
between Hazara Singh and Resham Singh on one side and Harbhajan
Singh and Mukhthar Singh on the other.
Gajjan Singh son of
Gopal Singh resident of the village interceded and pacified the
parties. Joginder Singh accused respondent is the brother of Mukhtar
Singh accused respondent while Harbhajan Singh Respondent is their
first cousion. Mukhtar Singh and Harbhajan Singh accused are alleged
to be partyman of Wasson Singh.
On August 4, 1973 at about 3.30 p.m., Resham Singh (P.W.2) ..
Resham Singh (deceased) son of another Hazara Singh and Hazara
Singh deceased were proceeding by the foot-path from the Bus Stand
Amarkot to their hamlet. On the way Bachan Singh, brother of
Hazara Singh, met them and proceeded along with them. When they
reached near the fields of Jarmaj Singh Sarpanch of Mahmoodpura,
all the six accused, namely, Wasson Singh, Baj Singh,
Meja
Singh,
Joginder Singh, Mukhtar Singh and Harbhajan Singh emerged from
the sann crop and came to
the
bank
of
the watercourse.
Baj
Singh was armed with a pistol and the other five accused were armed
with rifles. Wasson Singh, Joginder Singh and Mukhtar Singh fired
their rifles at Hazara Singh. The rifle shots hit Hazara Singh on the
left side
of his
head, and
he
dropped dead.
Resham
Singh
(P.W.2), Bachan Singh and Resham Singh deceased started running
towards the ploughed fields.
Meja Singh, Harbhajan Singh
and
Baj Singh chased them.
Meja Singh and Harbhajan Singh encircled Resham Singh deceased and shot him dead with rifle-shots.
Baj
Singh chased Resham Singh (P.W. 2) and Bachan Singh (P.W. 3) and
fired at them with bis pistol.
When these two were running away,
the other two accused also fired at them.
Resham Singh and Bachan
Singh,
however, succeeded m escaping unhurt. Resbam
Singh
(P.W. 2) immediately reached the Bus Stand Amarkot, picked up his
motor-cycle which was lying there at a shop and drove fast to Police
Station Valtoha, where he lodged the
First Information Report
(Ex. PE) at 4.30 p.m. Police Sub-Inspector Bishambar Lal recorded the report of Resham Singh and sent a copy of the same as a
special report to the superior
officers,
including the
Judicial
Magistrate, Frrst Class at Patti, who received the copy of the F.I.R.
at 6.30 p.m., on the same day.
While running away from the spot
Resham Singh (P.W. 2) had left behind his shoe (Ex. P"l) near the
scene of murders.
•
Sub-Inspector Bashambar Lal reached the scene of occurrence at
,.
H
5.30 p.m. and started investigation.
He prepared the
inquest reports regarding the deaths of Hazara Singh and Resham Singh dece:ased persons. He also took into possession blood-stained earth
PUNJAB v. WASSON SINGH (Sarkaria, J.)
621
•
and other relevant articles lying near the two dead-bodies. He found
A
two empty cartridge cases at the scene of Hazara Singh's murder.
He took them into possession and sealed them into a parcel. He also
seized two pairs of shoes lying at the spot.
After his arrest, Mukhtar Singh accused was interrogated by the
Investigating Officer on August 31, 1973.
After making a statement,
B
Mukhtar Singh accused, in the presence of witnesses, fed the police to
the discovery of the riJ!e (Ex. P-7) and some live cartridges.
The
riJ!e and the empty cartridges earlier found at the scene of crime
were sent to the ballistic expert for examination and opinion. After
examination, the ballistic expert of the Forensic Science Laboratory,
')>...
Chandigarh, reported (vide Ex. P. 9) that the 303 fired cartridge,
C
marked 0, had been fired through the 303 rifle marked 'A' by
him.
But no definite opinion could be given regarding the linkage of
the fired cartridge marked C2 with the 303 rifle marked 'A' due to
lack of sufficient individual characteristic marks on C2•
Joginder Singh accused was arrested on August 24, 1973 and
D
Baj Singh accused on Decemb~r 18, 1973.
The post mortem examination of the dead-body of Resham Singh was
perfonned by
Dr.
Gursharan Kaur on August 5, 1973 at 8 a.m.
The Doctor found
five gun-shot injuries on his body. Two of these were wounds of
entry, with everted margins on the back of the left chest. No charring was present on any of these gun-shot wounds.
The death in
E
the opinion of the Doctor was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting
from gun-shot injuries on the chest which were sufficient to
cause
death in the ordinary course of nature.
On the same day, Dr. Gursharan Kaur conducted the autopsy on
the dead-body of Hazara Singh and found fonr fire-arm injuries, two of
F
which were wounds of entry and two were wounds of exit.
Al! these
injuries were on the skull.
They involved fracture of the skull and
j.,4amage to the brain. These injuries had been caused with fire-
-
arm and were sufficient to cause death instantaneously, in the ordinary
-'"
course of nature.
At the. trial, the main-stay of the prosecution was the testimony
of the two eye-witnesses, Resham Singh (P.W.2) and Bachan Singh
(P.W.3).
Examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C., Wasson Singh accused admitted that he along with others was tried for the murder of Ajit Singh
G
,
of village Dhual and Hazara Singh dec&ased had appeared against him
H
as eye-witness of that murder; and that he (Wasson Singh) was convicted by the
Court of
Sessi_on, but had been
released
on
bail
7-152 SCI/81
B
0
F
G
H
622
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1981] 2 S.C.R
pending his appeal in the High Court.
He denied the rest of the
prosecution case and stated that he had been falsely implicated by
the relation! of Aj;t Singh deceased on suspicion; and that on the day
of occurence, 1'e was working as a Conductor on a truck at Muzaffarnagar.
The plea of Baj Singh wa! one of plain denial of the prooecution
case.
He stated that his brothers Punjab Singh, Narinder Singh and
Bagicha Singh had been prosecuted for the murder of one Puran Singh
who was a relation of Bachan Singh (P.W.3); that Punjab Singh
and his companions were acquitted in that case.
Baj Singh added
that he used to look after the defence of the accused in Puran Singh's
~
murder case; and that on account of this, he had been falsely impli-
/....._
cated. He further stated that at the time of occurrence, he was resi- .- ·
ding in U. P.
Meja Singh accused, also, denied the prosecution case.
He stated
that one Balkar Singh of Village Wan had been murdered. He (Meja
Singh) used to look after the defence of Jarnail Singh (his wife's brother, who was being tried for the murder of Balkar Singh; that on
account of this, the relation of the said Balkar Singh had, in connivance
with the complainant party, falsely implicated him in the instant case.
The remaining accused, also, denied the circumstances appearing in
evidence against them.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, who tried the
case against these six accused persons, found that Wasson Singh had a
strong motive to murder Hazara Singh decea&'...d, because the latter had
appeared as an eye-witness against Wasson Singh in Ajit
Singh's
murder case.
The trial Judge further accepted the prosecution evidence in regard to the fact that a few days before this occurrence in
question, there was a : quarrel between Hazara Singh deceased and
Resham Singh (P.W. 2) on one side
and Mukhtar Singh, and
Harbhajan Singh accused on the other, when the cattle of the accused~ ..
had trespassed on the land of the deceased and damaged his cotton --
crop; and that on account of this ill-will, Joginder Singh,
Mukhtar
Singh and Harbhajan Singh accused had a sufficient motive to join
hands with Wasson Singh accused to murder Hazara Singh deceased.
The trial Judge further found that the prosecution had failed
to
establish the exact nature of the motive which might have actuated
Meja Singh and Baj Singh to murder Resham Singh deceased.
The
trial Judg;o further held that the F.I.R. which had been lodged
by
Resham Singh with great promptitude at Police Statio'n Valtoha, which
was about three miles from
the place of occnrrence,
furnished
valuable corroboration of the evidence of Resham Singh (P .W. 2).
'
PUNJAB v. WASSON SINGH (Sarkaria, /.)
G23
•
He accepted the evidence of Resham Singh and Bachan Singh.
He
further found that Snb-Inspector Bishambar Lal had tried to favour
J oginder Singh accused by fabricating a note in his zimini at some
subsequent stage.
This note is to the effect,
that Joginder
Sinch
was, in fact, present irri!ating his nearby fields and he joined the police
investigation on the very day of occurrence and had remained with
the police till the investit;ation by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police. The trial Judge disbelieved the plea of alibi set up by Meja
Singh accused. In the absence of independent evidence, the trial
Judge was unable to hold from the bare testimony of Bishamber Lal,
Sub-Inspector, that the rifle (Ex. P-7) had been recovered from
~ Mukhtar Singh accused.
He, however, criticised th~ conduct or SubInspector Bishamber Lal in not s.ending the empty cartridges found at
the spot to the ballistic expert of th~ Forensic Laboratory, Chandi1arh,
with due promptitude.
In the result, the
trial
Judge
held
that
Wasson Singh, Joginder Singh and Mukhtar Singh accused had fired
their rifles at Hazara Singh deceased, and had caused his death.
He
therefore, convicted these three accused for the substantive cffence
under Section 302, Penal Code.
He further held that the common
object of the unlawful assembly constituted by the six accused was to
murder Hazara Singh deceased. He therefore, further convicted all
•
the six accused under Section 302 read with Section 149, Penal Code,
for the murder of Hazara Singh.
The trial Judge found
that
the
murder of Resham Singh did not appear to have been caused in prosecution of the common object of the said unlawful
assembly.
He
therefore, convicted Baj Singh, Meja Singh and
Harbhajan Singh
accused only under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code, for
the mnrder of Reshilm Singh deceased and sentenced each of them to
imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/-. In respect of the
murder of Hazara Singh, Wasson Singh was sentenced to death, while
each of the other five accus·~d were sentenced to imprisonment for life
.
and a fine .
.. i.~
The trial Judge referred the case to the High Court for confir·
mation of the death sentence of Wasson Singh. All the accused, also
A
B
c
D
E
F
appealed against their conviction and sentences.
The
Hi&h
Court
G
•
allowed the appeal, declined the roference and rejected the evidence
of the eye-witnesses, Rcsham Singh (P.W. 2) and Bachan Sinjh (P.W.
3) , for these reasons :
(i) Both these witnesses are closely
related to the
deceased
Hazara Singh, who was the prfncipal target of the accused.
H
(ii) (a) Excepting in the case of Wasson Singh who
had undoubtedly a grudge against Hazara Sin~h deceased, it has not been
A
B
c
D
624
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1981] 2 S.C.R.
satisfactory established by the prosecution that the other five accused
had any motive to commit the murders in question.
(b) Gajjan Singh, who is said to have interceded
and pacified
both the parties at the time of the alleged quarrel over cattle trespass,
three or four days prior to the occurrence, between Mukhtar Singh
and Harbhajan Singh on one hand and Hazara Singh deceased and
Resham Singh (P-W. 2) on the other, has not been examined by the
prosecution.
•
(c) There was no mention about this earlier incident in the statement of Bachan Singh (P.W. 3) before the police during investigation.
(iii) Both Resham Singh and Bachan Singh, P.Ws. had earlier
been invol'."cd in cases of serious crime,
and
Bachan Singh was
admittedly registered as a bad character with the Police.
O'n account
of their antecedents, Resham Singh and Bachan Singh do not appear
to be reliable people.
(iv) The prose9ution story is highly unnatural.
The presence of
these two eye-witnesses along with the deceased persons was unlikely.
Had these witnesses been with Hazara Singh deceased, they would
have been the target of attack after Hazara Si"ngh was killed and r,ot
Resham Singh deocased against whom the accused had no grudge.
( v) Hazara Singh deceased, Bachan Singh and Resham Singh,
E P.Ws., all admittedly reside in the hamlet of Hazara Singh deceased,
and if they had to go to Amarkot for making purchases, they would
have in all probability gone together. Bachan Singh's version, that
he had gone to Amarkot to make e'nquiries regarding the availability
of diesel and on his return journey in the way, met and joined the
F
company of his brother Hazara Singh deceased, and his companions,
was not believable, becanse there was no need for Bachan Singh to
have gone to Amarkot for the purchase of diesel as he could have
asked Hazara Si'ngh to make the necessary enquiries.
(vi) There is a material inconsistency in the testimony of the two
eye-witnesses as to when Hazara Singh deceased and Resham Singh
G
(P.W. 2) had left their beliak (hamlet).
From the statement of
Resham Singh (P.W. 2), it appears that from their behck they had
gone to Amarkot that very day for purchasing cloth and on the return
journey they met Bachan Singh.
As against this, the story told by
Bachan Singh is that a day earlier Hazara Singh deceased and Resham
Singh, P.W. had left their beliak for some unknown destination and
0
that a day later they had met him at the adda, after !heir departure
from the behak the previous day.
This V'crsion completely belies the
version of Resham Singh (P.W. 2) that they had left their
behak
•
'
•
•
'
-
PUNJAB v. WASSON SINGH (Sarkaria, J.)
6 25
m order to make purchases of c:oth and other articles,
(vii) Another odd feature brought out from the evidence of
Resham Singh (P.W. 2) is the presence of motor-cycle at Amarkot
o'n that day, It is surprising that he could afford to maintain a motorcycle from the meagre income that he wonld have got from his 5 or
6 acres of land. His explanation as to why he left the motor-cycle
at Amarkot, is also not convincing.
(viii) The investigation of the case conducted by the Sub-Inspector
Bish amber Lal (P.W. 13) does not inspire confidence.
(a) The evidence relating to the recovery of
empty cartridges
(vide Ex. P.G.) and pair of shoes from the spot near the dead-body
of Hazara Singh, was not reliab'.e, because P.W. 13 did not mention
about the pre&e11cc of tbese articles in the inquest report (Ex. PDZ),
(b) Though the empty (crime) cartridges recovered from the spot
were sent to the ballistic expert earJi.er, they were returned
to the
Police Station on the plea that the test cartridges had not been sent
along with those empties,
"Even if it was so, there was no need of
sending the crime cartridgecs to the Police Station, as the test cartridges
could be sent for through a separate letter.
Jn htis situation, the
suggestion that the crime cartridge had been later on fired through
rifle (Ex. P7) when it was recovered cannot be considered improbable",
(ix) "On arrival at !hoe scene of the incident,
P.W.
13
fonnd
Joginder Singh accused at a distance of abont 100 yards irrigating his
field.
According to Bishamber Lal, he interrogated Joginder Singh
there and then, bnt did not arrest him. If Joginder Singh accused had
been found near the scene of the crime within a short time, engaged
B
c
D
E
in his normal activities, his participation in the crime would be highly
F
improbable".
J
-
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the
r'Oasoning of the High Court is manifestly unsound, if not wholly
perverse.
Great emphasis has bee'n laid on the fact that the
First
Information Report, in this case was lodged by Rcsham Singh (PW 2)
G
with utmost promptitude, and .even its copy had reacho"d the Magistrate at about 6 or 6-30 p.m. at Patti, on the same day.
In the First
Information Report, proceeds the argument, all the material facts
including the names of th•" accused and of the witnesses have been
mentioned. It is submitted that si'nce this FJ.R. was made without
delay in circumstances in which the informant had no time to concoct
H
a false story, it furnished valuable corroboration of the evidence of
Rcsham Singh (P.W. 2), and made his evidence safe enough to be
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
626
SUPJU!ME COUl!.T REPORTS
[1981] 2 s.c.R.
accepted.
It is further maintained that in the first place, the prrn;ecutio'n had established that Mukhtar Singh,
Harbhajan Singh
and
Joiinder Singh had also a motive to join hands with Wasson Singh
to murder H~zara Singh deceased, and that even if it was held that
such motive on the part of the companions of Wasson Singh accused
had not been substantiated-as the High Court has held-then P.Ws. 2
and 3 had also 'no motive or animus to falsely implicate them.
Counsel have criticised the failure of the High Court to discuss the value
and effect of the F.I.R. lodged by P.W. 2.
It is emphasis•od that the
circumstance that the FI.R. was made without delay was a circumstance of paramount importance in evaluating Resham Singh's evidence
in particular and the prosecution evidence in general.
It is
argued
that the omission on the part of the High Court to deal with and discuss the F.I.R. has caused •erious aberration in its
approach
and
viti•,ted its apprec]!;tion of the evidence of the eyo-witnesses.
On the other hand, Shri R. K. Jain, learned counsel for
the
respondents, has submitted that since the reasons given by the High
Court in •upport of the acquittal of the accused cannot be called
perverse, this Court should not, in keeping with its practice, disturb
the acquittal even if it fuels inclined to hold that the view of the evidence taken by the trial court is also reasonable. Shri Jain has further
triecl to oupport the reasonini;: of the High Court.
We have carefully considered the contentions canvassed on both
siues.
We are also not unmindful of the fact that we are dealing
with an appeal against an order of acquittal i'n a double-murder case.
Even so, we find that tho reasons given by the High Court for bo:ding
that Resham Singh (P.W. 2) was not an eye-witness of these murders,
are utterly unsustainable. The mere fact that Resham Singh (P.W. 2)
had succeeded in escaping unhurt, or that there arc discrepancies i'n
the statements of Resham Singh (P.W. 2) and Bachan Singh (P.W. ~
3), as to whether they had gone to Amarkot with
Hazara Singh'
deceased on the very day of occurrence or a day earlier, was no
ground for jumping to the conclusion that P.W. 2 was
not
in the
company of the deceased or nearabout the scene of occurrence when
Hazara Singh and Resham Singh were shot dead.
The occurrence took place on August 4, 1973, while Resham Singh
(P.W. 2) and Bachan Singh (P.W. 3) were examined at the trial on
December 27, 1974, that is to say, 17 months after
the
incident.
Such discrepancies in regard to collateral or
•ubsidiary
facts
or
H
matters of detail occur even in the statements of truthful witnesses,
particularly when they are examined to depose to events which
happened long before their examination.
Such
discrepancies
are
'
•
'
--
•
•
•
•
PUNJAB v. WASSON SINGH (Sarkaria, !.)
627
hardly a ground to reject the evidence of the witnesses when there
is general agreement and consistency in regard to the
rnbstratum
of the prosecutirn1 case.
As
rightly observed by the trial court,
Resham Singh (P.W.2) was never cross-examined by the defence
regarding his whereabouts and that of Hazara Singh deceased on
the previous night.
The mere fact that P.W. 2 did not make any
purchases at Amarkot could hardly be a reason to hold
that his
being in the company of Hazara
Singh
deceased at the
material
time, was improbable.
It is common ground that there was no love-lost between Wassan
Singh appellant and Hazara Singh deceased. Wassan Singh,
though
convicted by the trial court for the
murder of
Ajit
Singh,
was
released on bail by the High Court pending his appeal.
P.W. 3 is
the brother and P.W. 2 a relation of the deceased.
All these three
were living together in the same hamlet in the fields.
It is in the
evidence of these witnesses that the other accused are partymen of
Wasson Singh. It is further in evidence that sometime before the
occurrence both Hazara Singh and
Resham Singh (P.W. 2) were
arrested and handcuffed by Darshan Singh, Police Sub-Inspector
on the allegation that they were indulging in smuggling and
would be liquidated.
Both of them however, escaped and appeared
with handcuffs on before the Deputy Home Minister and complained against the Police Sub-Inspector. Both were prosecuted for smuggling betel leaves across the border. It was therefore, not improbable that this trio consisting of Hazara Singh deceased, P.W. 2 and
P .W. 3 was, as usual, moving about or carrying on their activities
together.
Moreover, the deceased Hazara Singh must have known
that Wasson Singh accused who was
inimically
disposed
towards
him, was at large on bail.
This was an added reason for this troika
_.1' -to move about for their security, if not for anything else,
in
the
company of each other.
Nor could P.W. Bachan Singh's presence at the scene of crime
A
B
c
D
E
F
be discounted and his evidence discarded merely on the score that
G
there was no necessity for him to go to Amarkot for enquiring about
the availability of diesel.
There is one towering circumstance which goes a long way to
lend assurance to the claim of P.W. 2 that he was an eye-witness of
the occurrence.
It is that the F.I.R. (Ex. P.E.) was lodged by him
B
a! Police Station Valtoha, so promptly that he had practically no time
to spin out a false story.
A
B
D
E
F
G
e
628
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1981] 2 S.C.R.
The learned trial Judge has accepted, and rightly so, the sworn
testimony of Resham Singh (P.W. 2) and Sub-Inspector Bishamber
Lal (P.W. 13), who was then Station House Officer, Valtoha, to
the effect, that the F.I.R. (Ex. P.E.), was recorded in the Police
Station at 4.30 p.m. Police Station Valtoha is three miles from Bus
Stand Amarkot.
According to Resham Singh, the occurrence took
place at about 3.30 p.m.
On seeing the occurrence and after eluding the pursuit, Resh am Singh,
as he says, ran to
Adda Amarkot
through the fields covering a distance
of
about
one
kilometre.
According to P.W. 2, his motor-cycle was lying at a shop in Amarkot.
He picked up his motor-cycle from there and drove
to
the
Police Station, Valtoha and without loss of time lodged the first information, there.
The endorsement on Ex. PE, bears out that the
copy of the First Information was in the hands of Shri K. K. Garg,
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patti, at 6.30 p.m.
This circumstance assures the truth of the prosecution evidence on
the
point
that the First Information Report was made by Resham Singh (P.W.
2) at the Police Station at 4.30 p.m., that is within two hours of the
occurrence, without undue delay.
The learned Judges of the High
Court have not at all dealt with the F.I.R. or the promptitude with
which it was made.
They doubted Resham Singh's
version
that
from Amarkot he went on bis own motor-cycle to Valtoha Police
Station.
The argument employed by the High Court is that Resham
Singh owned only four or five killas of land, and could not acquire
and maintain a motor-cycle from the income of his
petty holding.
However, this was not the defence case. In cross-examination, the
defence themselves, brought out and tried to establish that he was
earning by smuggling betel or other things to Pakistan. Thus,
according to the own showing of the defence, P.W. 2 had a source
of income other than his agricultural income. It was,
therefore,
nothing improbable if Resham Singh owned a motor-cycle.
Sub-Inspector Bishamber I.al (P.W. 13) was not questioned in
cross-examination as to whether or not Resham Singh bad come to
the Police Station on a motor-cycle.
He (P.W. 13) was however,
questioned as to what transport he had used for going
from
the
Police Station to the scene of murders.
The witness replied that he
went on a motor-cycle upto Amarkot and from
there went on foot
to the scene of occurrence. Resham Singh stated that since it had
recently rained, the kacha path from Amarkot to their hamlet
in
village Ban, had become muddy and unsafe for riding
a
motorcycle because of the high risk of skidding. That was why, the witness had left the motor-cycle at Adda Amarkot with a shopkeeper.
•
•
•
-~ -
PUNJAB v.