# DATAR SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB December 19, 1973

- **Citation:** [1974] 2 S.C.R. 808
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1973-12-19
- **Bench:** M. H. Beg, Y. V. CttANDRACHUD
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/datar-singh-v-the-state-of-punjab-december-19-1973-6193
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

J 11ditu1 Penal Code-S. 302 read with Ss. 25 and 21 of the Arms Act-Appellant conricted fol' n111rdering his own fatller--G'oncurrent
finding of facts-
·w1tetlzer can be rei•iewed wizen there is indicatio11 of a serious miscarriagr of
justh'e, ·
A
B
. The appellant was convicted u/s. 302 l.P.C. by the Sessions' Judge for murdering his father and sentenced to death. The High Court accepted the death sentence and dismissed his appeal. He was also convicted for an alleged · illegal
possession of a gun and his convictions and sentences under secs. 25 and 27·of the
C
Arms Act were upheld by the High Court. The prosecution case was that the
deceased was a wealthy landlord whose s,ister was the Maharani of Patiala.
He
h<id executed a wilt in favour of his wife and two sons on 24-8-1967. He cancelled
this will and executed another in favour of his sister, Rani Prem Kaur, on
18-4-1968 and got it registered at a place called Dburi, probably because P.W. 1,
a friend of the deceased, was the Sub Registrar there. The deceased also alienated
some property to a minor son of P.W. 1 sometime before 'the murder. The elder
son of deceased had filed u JUit to pre-empt this sale and the suit was pending
D
nt the time of the occurrence. The relation betw~en the deceased, his wife aild
children were strained and this background was said to provide the motive for
murder. It is alleged that ·the appellant, on the day of occurrence, had entered
the room, where the decea·sed was sitting with 2 of his friends,
P.W. 1 and
P.W. 2, in the blazing light of electricity and had shot his father with a gun.
Before this Court, the appellarit raised several questions of law and contended
that there has been a miscarriage of justice because the Courts below have ignored
certain basic defects in the prosecution version .and misread Ute evidence.
E
Allowing the appeal,
H·ELD : (i) It is not the practice of this Court in appeal by special leave te
disturb concurrent findings of fact unless the case discloses some exceptional features indicating 'that a serious .mis-carriage of justice has taken place. [809 G-HJ
(ii) In criminal cases, it· is often difficult for courts of law to arrive- at the
real truth.
The judicial process can only operate· on h.c firm foundations of actual
and credible evidence on record.
Mere suspicion or suspicious circumstances cannot relieve ihe prosecution' of its primary duty of proving its case against an accused person bi::yond reasonable doubt. Courts of justice cannot be swayed by senti.
ment or prejudice againSt a person accused of the very reprehensible crime of
patricide.
If the pieces of evidence on which the prosecution choses to rest its
case are so brittle that they crumble easily, the superstructure built on such
insecure foundations also collapses.
[810EJ
(iii) The super-structure of the prosecution' case rests on the testimony of
two alleged eye-witnesses whose evidence is not only of an inherently unreliable
nature because of features disclosed by evidence, but the artificial and incredible
versions of the shooting put forward by them are to0 unnatural to be accepted.
(iv) P.W. 1 gave a false explanation to accept for his presence at the hoase
of the deceased on the evening of 22-2-1970.
He admitted, at the trial that be
gave false information as to when he left for Patiala, but he pleaded that he did
so at the instance of the S.D.O. who had put pressure on him not to tive evidence
in the prosecution case against the appellant.
If, as be h~d. admitted_. be was
capable of making a false staten1ent under such pressure. 1t 1s not possible to describe this witness as thoroughly reliable. It is also difficult to believe that 8!1
S.D.0. witl put pressure upon a Naib Tehsildar workiD;g under him
tt;>
commit
perjury.
Therefore, the testimony of the wi!ness is ~nherently. unrehab.le.
He
was both a chance witness and one who admitted having committed pefJUTY·
F
G
H
A
B
c
()
E
DATA!t SINGH v. PUNJAB (Beg, 1,)
809
(v) It is also difficult

## Text

_Characters 0–39,536 of 43,495. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39536 for what follows._

808
DATAR SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
December 19, 1973.
(M. H. BEG AND Y. V. CttANDRACHUD, JJ.)
J 11ditu1 Penal Code-S. 302 read with Ss. 25 and 21 of the Arms Act-Appellant conricted fol' n111rdering his own fatller--G'oncurrent
finding of facts-
·w1tetlzer can be rei•iewed wizen there is indicatio11 of a serious miscarriagr of
justh'e, ·
A
B
. The appellant was convicted u/s. 302 l.P.C. by the Sessions' Judge for murdering his father and sentenced to death. The High Court accepted the death sentence and dismissed his appeal. He was also convicted for an alleged · illegal
possession of a gun and his convictions and sentences under secs. 25 and 27·of the
C
Arms Act were upheld by the High Court. The prosecution case was that the
deceased was a wealthy landlord whose s,ister was the Maharani of Patiala.
He
h<id executed a wilt in favour of his wife and two sons on 24-8-1967. He cancelled
this will and executed another in favour of his sister, Rani Prem Kaur, on
18-4-1968 and got it registered at a place called Dburi, probably because P.W. 1,
a friend of the deceased, was the Sub Registrar there. The deceased also alienated
some property to a minor son of P.W. 1 sometime before 'the murder. The elder
son of deceased had filed u JUit to pre-empt this sale and the suit was pending
D
nt the time of the occurrence. The relation betw~en the deceased, his wife aild
children were strained and this background was said to provide the motive for
murder. It is alleged that ·the appellant, on the day of occurrence, had entered
the room, where the decea·sed was sitting with 2 of his friends,
P.W. 1 and
P.W. 2, in the blazing light of electricity and had shot his father with a gun.
Before this Court, the appellarit raised several questions of law and contended
that there has been a miscarriage of justice because the Courts below have ignored
certain basic defects in the prosecution version .and misread Ute evidence.
E
Allowing the appeal,
H·ELD : (i) It is not the practice of this Court in appeal by special leave te
disturb concurrent findings of fact unless the case discloses some exceptional features indicating 'that a serious .mis-carriage of justice has taken place. [809 G-HJ
(ii) In criminal cases, it· is often difficult for courts of law to arrive- at the
real truth.
The judicial process can only operate· on h.c firm foundations of actual
and credible evidence on record.
Mere suspicion or suspicious circumstances cannot relieve ihe prosecution' of its primary duty of proving its case against an accused person bi::yond reasonable doubt. Courts of justice cannot be swayed by senti.
ment or prejudice againSt a person accused of the very reprehensible crime of
patricide.
If the pieces of evidence on which the prosecution choses to rest its
case are so brittle that they crumble easily, the superstructure built on such
insecure foundations also collapses.
[810EJ
(iii) The super-structure of the prosecution' case rests on the testimony of
two alleged eye-witnesses whose evidence is not only of an inherently unreliable
nature because of features disclosed by evidence, but the artificial and incredible
versions of the shooting put forward by them are to0 unnatural to be accepted.
(iv) P.W. 1 gave a false explanation to accept for his presence at the hoase
of the deceased on the evening of 22-2-1970.
He admitted, at the trial that be
gave false information as to when he left for Patiala, but he pleaded that he did
so at the instance of the S.D.O. who had put pressure on him not to tive evidence
in the prosecution case against the appellant.
If, as be h~d. admitted_. be was
capable of making a false staten1ent under such pressure. 1t 1s not possible to describe this witness as thoroughly reliable. It is also difficult to believe that 8!1
S.D.0. witl put pressure upon a Naib Tehsildar workiD;g under him
tt;>
commit
perjury.
Therefore, the testimony of the wi!ness is ~nherently. unrehab.le.
He
was both a chance witness and one who admitted having committed pefJUTY·
F
G
H
A
B
c
()
E
DATA!t SINGH v. PUNJAB (Beg, 1,)
809
(v) It is also difficult to b:lieve that P.W. 2, another eye-witness, who came ID
the house of the deceased by chance, was really present at the time ef the occnrrence. Although this witness- did not tell ~ dclitierate lie but he bad written . a..
letter, exhibit 'X', wherein lte stated that he had not witnessed the murder at all.
and that the Police was harassing him to make a false statement. The band\vriting
·on this letter and the signature below it were denied by the witness who duly··
proved to be his. There was no reason to discard the evidence of the hand-writing.
expert cin these points, U Balbir Singh, P.W. 2, had written this letter he was
shown to have done. he could not be relied upon at all when be stated that he·
witnessed the murder,
(vi) Conflicting staten1ents made about the time of the alleged. presence of the
witnesses on the scene of murder also show that they were not there at all to
witness it.
·
,
(vii) Further, from a. careful writing of the f.I.R., it seems· that the said F.I.]:t.
was written up carefully afterwards.
Under the
circumstances, the convictiorr.
and sentence cannot be &ustained.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISl.>ICTION : Criminal Appeals Nos. 4·
& 5 of 1973.
Appeals Nos. 1020 and 1021.of 1971 and Murder Reference No. 4g:
26th May 1972 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal
Appeals Nos. 1020 and 1021 of 1971 and Murder Reference No. 48:
of 1971.
Frank Anthony and Harjinder Singh, for the appellant
R. L, Kohli, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BEG, J. :-Datar Singh, appellant, was convicted under Section:.
302 Indian Penal Code by the Sessions' Judge of Patiala for murdering
his father Thakar Singh at about 9.30 p.m. on 22-2-1970 at Naru
House. in Patiala, and sentenced to death. The Punjab lligh Court
had accepted the death reference and dismissed his appeal. He was
also convicted in a connected trial, for an alleged illegal possession o'
a gun, and his convictions .and sentences of two years' rigorous
F
imprisonment and three years' rigorous imprisonment under Sections
· 25 and 27 of Arms' Act were upheld by the High. Court. The;
appellant's applications under Article 134(1)(i:) under the Constitution having been rejected by the High Court, he came to this Court
and was granted special leave to appeal in both the connected cases
G
.H
which are now before us.
·
. It is not the practice of this Court in appeal by special leave t0>
disturb concurrent findings of fact unless the case discloses some exceptional features indicating that a serious mis-cardage of justice has
taken place. It has be.en contended on behalf of the appellant that
such a mis-carriage of justice has resulted in this case because Courts
'ign.i>red certain basic def09ts in the prosecution version and misread·
·evidence. • Several questions of law were also sought to be raised
before us: These are :
·
·· (1)_ Whether the prosecution bad failed to produce material witnesses in the case. ~o that ·~ presumption against the veracity of. any
part of the prQ!!ecution version arose, due .to this non-production?
S!O
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1974] 2 S.C.R.
(2) Whether there had been a violation of Section 157 Criminal
Procedure Code, and, if so, what is its effect upon the prosecution case?
( 3) Whether there had been a violation of Section 162 of the
.Criminal Procedure Code by. inserting in the site plan information
derived from statements made by prosecution witnesses and by
annexing .their signed statements to inquest reports, and, if so, its effect
· on the prosecution case ?
( 4) Whether the prosecution case was damaged by an infringement of the best evidence rule inasmuch as•neither the ballistic expert,
who examined the cartridges and the gun in the case, supported the
prosecution case nor was the gur1 said to have been used . by the
appellant
for
the
commission
of murder examined for
the
appellant's finger prints nor was a chick alleged to be hanging outside
the door of the room in which the murder took place taken into
possession by the Investigating Officer ? .
( 5) Whether the prosecution instead of the accused had been given
the benefit of doubt on various features of the case on which two views
were possible?
(6) Whether different standards of proof had 1 been applied in
judging the credibility of the defence evidence as compared with the
prosecution evidence ?
It is often difficult for Courts of law to arrive at the real truth in
criminal cases. The judicial process can only operate on the firm
foundations of actual and credible evidence on record. Mere suspicion
or suspicious circumstances cannot relieve the prosecution of its
primary duty of proving its case against an accused person beyond
reasonable doubt. Courts of justice cannot be swayed by sentiment or
prejudice agah1st a person accused of the very reprehensible crime of
patricide.
They cannot even act on some conviction that an accused
person has committed a crime unless his offence is proved by satisfactory evidenre of it on record. If the pieces of evidence on which
the prosecution choses to ~est its case are so brittle that they crwnble
when subjected to close and critical examination so that the whole
super-structure built on such insecure foundations collapses, proof of
some incriminating circumstances, which might have given support to
merely defective evidence cannot avert a failure of the prosecution
case.
After having been taken through the evidence on record we have
come to the conclusion that the superstructure of the prosecution case
is based on thl testimony of two alleged eye-witnesses whose evidence
is not only oi an inherently unreliable nature but the artificial and in-
<:redible versions of the shooting put forward by them are too unnatural
to be accepted. It seems to us to' be quite unsafe to convict the
appellant on their testimony despite some circumstances which raise
grave suspicion against the appellant. Suspicion, however, grave, cannot be a satisfactory basis for convicting an accused person. We will,
therefore, examine the evidence of these two witnesses and set out our
reasons for finding them quite unreliable and deal with other questions
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
DATAR SINGH v. PUNJAB (Beg, I.)
8 JI
A
mentioned above in the course of an examination of evidence the
credibility of which is assailed.
Tbakar Singh, deceased was a wealthy landlord whose sister was
the Maharani of Patiala. He had executed a will in fa vow: of his.
wife and two sons A vtar Singh, and Datar Singh on 24-8-196 7.
He
cancelled this will and executed another in favour of his sister Rani
Prem Kaur on 18-4-1968 and got it registered at Dhuri ·probably
B
because Joginder Singh, P.W.I., a friend of. his, was the Sub Registrar
there. Tbe deceased Tbakar Singh had also alienated some property
in favour of Jasvinder Singh, minor, aged about 10 or 11
years, a
son of Joginder Singh, ·P. W.I, apout a year and a half before the
murder. Avtar Singh, the elder son of Thakar Singh, had filed a suit
to pre-empt this sale.
The suit was pending at the
time of the
occurrence. The relations of Thakar Singh deceased with his wife and
c
children were straine4. This background was said to provide the
motive for murder. If Balbir Singh, P .W.2, could be believed,
tlie
wife of Thakar Singh had described her husbai;d as a sweeper's son.
Apparently, there was not much love lost between Thakar Singh on
one side and his wife and children on the other. The alleged motive
for this murder was certainly too old to convincingly appe.ra as the cause
of the murder of 22-2-1970 in so melodramatic a styfe as the alleged
D
eye witnesses would have us believe. Moreover, if a former will had
been cancelled and another will executed in favour of a sister of Thakar
Singh, it could very well be urged that other persons interested in
seeing that Thakar Singh died before he could cancel his last will of
E
18-4-1968 had a stronger motive to murder him than others who might
still be able to persuade him to change his mind. And, if Thakar
Singh's strained relations with his wife and children could be a sufficient
motive for the murder it is difficult to underst.and why Datar Singh
rather than.his elder brother Avtar Singh could have a stronger animus
to kill the father. In any case, there is no evidence to show that Datar
Singh, appellant, had any special motive or reason of his own for
patricide such as a violent quarrel or dispute with his father precedini:
the murder which could have unhinged bis mind. If, as was suggested
F
repeatedly on behalf of the prosecution, the members of the family of
Thakar Singh were really influential, it was much easier for them to
hire some individual to murder Thakar Singh, assuming that
t~eir
hostility to Thakar Singh went so far as to impel them to think' of
getting rid of him like that, rather than for one of them to murder
Thakar Singh himself right in front of his two alleged close _friends in
the blazing light of electricity after rushing into the room in which they
G
were-sitting and revealing his identity to witfieS<cs as Datar Singh h
alleged to have done. On the whole, the evidence of alleged motive
and of Thakar Singh's unhappy relations with his wife ani cl1ildrcn.
all said to be living together in the Naru Houoe with Thakur Singh,
hinders rather th. n helps us in accepting the prosecution version that
it was Datar Singh who had committed the murder of his father in the
reckless ma~ner set up and not somebody else in a diffcren• and less
H
foolish way. Of course, if Joginder Singh, P.W.1 and Balbir Singh
P.W.2, could be implicitly relied upon, the mere absence of a strong
enough motive for committing such an unnatural crime ·as patricide or
the mode of its commission could be of no assistance to the appellant..
812
SUPREME COURT REPOllTS
(1974} 2 S.C.R.
The evidence of Joginder Singh, P. W. l, not only shows that he was
probably the principal adviser and
helper to Thakar Singh in
such dispositions of properties as Thakar Singh made, but, t6at he
A
was also, according to his own adm'~sions, capable of making any statements at any time to suit his own p11rposes'. This is clear from the web
of lies in which he is shown to have entangled himself in trying to
.account for his presem:e at Naru House in the company of Thakar
.Singh at the time of murder, and the contradictory and different excme;
B
.he gave on various occasions, such as when applying. for leave for
.absence from Sunam on 22-2-1970.
He stated in cross-ex&mination
that he had left Sunam, where he was posted as Naib Tehsildar, at
.2.45 or 3 p.m., reaching Patiala by 4 or 5p.m. An order of the Sub
Divisional Officer dated 26~2-1970 (ex, DC-I) shows ·that an explanation was called for from Joginder Singh for
leaving · Sunam on
election day as he had sent a wire from Patiala asking for leave. Jn
:his explanation (ex:DE), he had stated that he had received a message
.at Sunam at 4.30 p.m. on 22-2-1970 that his baby was ill so that he
proceeded to his home in Patiala by the 5.20 p.m. bus after the polling
was over at 5 p.m.
When this contradiction was put to him, he
admitted that false explanation was given by him but pleaded that thi;
was done at the instance of the Sub Divisional Officer who had put
·pressure on him that he should not give evidence in the prosecution
case against the appellant. It is difficult to see what connection tho
:alleged pressure had to do with his ·putting down that he left by bus
.at 5.20 p.m. If. as he had admitted, he was capable of making a false
statement under such pressure, so as to make a deliberately false statement to damage the prosecution case, it is not possible to describe thi_s
witness as thoroughly reliable whose testimony could be
accepted
without demur or satisfactory corroboration. It is difficult to believe
·that a sub Divisional Officer. who is a Magistrate, will put pressure
upon the Naib Tehsildar working under him to commit perjury. Hi;
statement also shows that he had no hesitation in giving different and
contradictory excuses at different timC' for leaving Sunam. He could
state either that his child was ill, or that his wife was ill, or that no
one was really ill but that he needed to go to his home in Patiala for
some other purpose on 22-2-1970 without realising that it was im-
·proper or reckless to make such contradictory statements.
We have also noticed that Joginder Singh has used his favourite
reply ''I do not remember", when cross-examined, no less than _25
times. It is significant that although he stated that he, after meeting
· Thakar Singh by chance in the course of a walk, at about ~ p.m .. so
·that he was invited to sit and after that to dine with Thakar Singh, and
·;s said to have sat there till about 9 or 9.30 p.m., when the appellant
suddenly appeared in the well lit room with a double barrel gun and
shot his father twice after ,,houting "Thakar Singh" at him, yet. ke
did not remember a single thing about the talk he had with Thakar
·Singh on that occasion during the course of the chat for an hour or
more with the murdered man.
Balbir Singh, P.W.2, could also not
·give any indication of the nature of the talk. It is difficult to believe
that this would be so if either this witness or Balbir Singh. P.W.2, who
is also said to have come to the house by chance after half an hour,
·were cea!ly present at the time of the occurence.
c
D
G
H
A
B
c
u
£
F
G
H
DATAR SANGH y, PUNJAB (Beg, J.)
813
Although, Balbir Singh, P.W.2, who had apparently, also strayed
in by chance into the room where the shooting is alleged to have taken
place at about 9 or 9.30 p.m. did not declare himself a liar on any
point in the course of his testimony in Court as Joginder Singh, P.W.1,
had been forced to do, yet, he had, we think, made an even more
serious and d1maging declaration in a letter dated 20-4-1970 (Ex. 'X').
He had stated there that he had not witnessed the murder at all and
that the police was harrassing him to make a false statement. He had
denied his handwriting and signature on this Jetter.
Therefore, an
application was made by the defence to the District Judge on 26-5-1971
to send this letter to the Director of the Government Department of
Questioned Documents so that the official handwriting expert
may
give his report on the hand-writing.
The relevant documents were,
however, sent to and examined by Shanti Sarup Jain, D.W.l, a handwriting expert who had given a detailed report for coming to the conclusion that the hand-writing on the letter (Ex. 'X') tallied with the
admitted hand-writin~ of Balbir Singh, P.W.2. We have gone through
the report and exammed the writings ourselves. We see no reason to
discard the evidence_ of the hand-writing expert.
We arc
sorry
to
observe that the High Court had mis-read the evidence in holding that
this letter was not put to Balbir Singh at all. It was put to him both in
the Committing Court and in the Trial Court.
In both the Courts he
nad denied his writing and signature on it. If Balbir Singh had written
this letter, as we think he did, whatever may be his reason for doing
so, Balbir Singh could' not be relied upon at all when he stated that ho
had wit!\essed the m9rder.
- ll was also contanded on behalf of the appellant that it was most
unlikely that Balbir Singh, P.W.2, would go to Thakar Singh as he
had written another very acrimonious letter to Thakar Singh
dated
24-11-1967 in which he had compared Thakar Singh to 'Kanjars' and
'Kalas' who also "possess money in abundance".
No doubt he had
deposed that he had made up with Thakar Singh's since then Sv much
so
_that
he
had
prepared
Thakar
Singhs'
Income.tax
and
wealth-tax returns, yet, Baibir Singh's angry letter showed that he did
not have a high opinion of Thakar Singh deceased who is said to have
disliked Balbir Singh's >tssociation with this datighter-in-!ow
called
"Bibi", for whom Balbir Singh had expressed great admiration in thLs
letter.
Balbir Siiigh _had admitted_ writing this letter but had refused
deliberately to explain some of its contents. -He admitted that he .had
been convicted under Section 409 l.P.C. but he asserted that he wac.
acquitted by the Sessions' Court. The judgment _of the Punjab High
Court dated 16th February, 1966, in Criminal Appeal No. 610 ,,f
1964 (Ex. DM} shows that the order_ of acquittal passed
by the
Scssigns' Court was set aside and that of the Trial Court convicting
him under Section 409 I.P.C. was restored. The appellant, however,
denied knowledge of what happened l-0 this case in the High Court.
Furthermore, we find that the name of this witness is not mentioned
in the substance· of the report entered in the daily diary report at the
Police Station '(Ex. PN)' although his name is mentioned in the F-1.R.
which was shown as lodged at Police Station, Civil Lines, l>atiala, on
22-2-1970, as early as 9.55 .p.m.
81 4
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1974] 2 S.C.R.
We have examined a carbon copy of the very neatly written F.I.R.
at Police Station, Civil Unes Patiala, in which the time of the
occurrence is given as 9 p.m. It was stated by Balbir Singh that the
Police came with Joginder Singh only 20 or 30 minutes after Joginder
Singh had gone to the Police Station and that it must have been 10 p.m,
by that time. It is difficult to believe that so neatly written and detailed
a F.l.R. could. have been w[itten up so soon. It is more likely that if
Joginder Singh returned so soon with the Police, the F .I.R. was drafted
and written up carefully afterwards.
The column in the form in which F.I.R. was taken down does not
mention the time and date of the despatch of the report from the Police
Station to a Magistrate. The prosecution had tried to prove, by the
evidence of Avtar Singh, P.W.15, that the special report was delivered
to the Chief Judicial Magistrate at 1 a.m. on the night between 22nd
and 23rd February, 1970. The defence had produced Surinder Singh,
P.W.5, Reader of the Judicial Magistrate, to wh.om the report was
alleged to have been sent, but we co1dd discover neither the time nor
the date of its receipt from the register brought by the Reader who
deposed that the report must have been handed to lhe Investigating
Officer Tel Ram, P.W. 19. If so, the copy handed over to the Investigating Officer should have been produced, as it would probably have
shown the time of its receipt, but it was not forthcoming for some
reason.
No one was produced by the prosecutioi. to show what happened to the copy of the report sent to the Magistrate
All we can
say is that the mystery surrounding the very quick writing up of and
copying out of the F.I.R. and the absence of any entry showmg when
it was sent to the Magistrate concerned may be due to the fact that the
First Information Report was lodged, as learned Counsel for the appellant contends, much later than 9.55 p.m. and after Joginder Singh bad
convinced the police that the murder was committed by the appellant.
We cannot conclude from facts proved, as the High Court bad done,
that the appellant must have caused the disappearance of the special
report. In any case, the appellant could not possibly be responsible for
the failure at the Police Station to .enter the date and time of despatch
of information to a magistrate in the column of the F.LR. meant for it.
This omission seems to us to be quite significant in the light of other
facts indicating that the F.LR. must have been drawn up much later
than it is actually shown to haye been.
A
B
c
D
E
F
Herc we may refer to the contradictory and irreconcilable statements made by Joginder. Singh and Balbir Singh nbout the time at
G
which shooting took place.
Jogim!cr Singh .sai•.\ that ho was passing
near the Naru House at 8 p.m. when Thr.kar Singh met him on the
r0aJ side where they stood for some time.
After that, Thakar Singh
is said to have taken him to his house and into a room called Chowbara used a.s a drawing room.
He said that Balbir Singh had joined
the two, apparently without any previous
appointment.
afterwards
after an interval of about half an hour.
Nevertheless, this witness had
H
stated. in the Commitfing Magi>.trate's Court that Datar Singh, appel11nt. came at S p.m. with a double barrelled gun with which he shot
DATAll SINGH v, PUNJAB (Beg, /,)
815
A
Thakar Singh. The statement in the Committing Magistrate's COurt
seems to. have been brought in as evidence •t'the trial under Section
•
28~ ol the Criminal Procedu1e Code. It the time given by him in the
'·
Committing Magistrate's Court was correct, it would mar the whole
'
prosecution case. . If that were true, it would be clear that Balbir Singh
could not have possibly been there when tlle shooting took place. And,
n
in that case, the whole story of a long chat between 8 p.m. & 9 p.m. or
9.30 p.m. would collap;e.
Probably, this was the reason
f.;1
the
change of time by this witness at the trial for the en.try. of the appellant
into tne Chowbara from 8 p.m. to 9 or 9.30 p.m.
Balbir Singh had
also stated in the Committing Magistrate's Court that he went to Naru
House at 8 p.m., withom giving any rea'o" why he should go 1hcre
although he gave the time at which Datar Singh came as•9 or 9.15 p.m.
(:
At the Trial, he gave the time of his own arrival at Naru House as
~.15 p.m. and said that he had sat in the company of Thakar Singh and
Joginder Singh for about one or one hour a11J a half befo;e the appel·
+
!ant entered the room suddenly wit.h a double barrelled gun. If Balbir
'
Singh could have made a correct assessment of the time which elapsed
between his arrival and tlle time of murder, as one to one hour and a
half, .the murder could have taken place between 9.1 S and 9.45 p.m.
D
it is evident that, if this was correct, it would make it very dilticu1t to
bolieve that an F'.I.R was neatly written out and then copied out at
the Police Station within a few. minutes even though the Police Station
was only one furlong away.
The most malodramatic part of the prosecution version, put for·
ward both by Joginder S111g 1 and lialbh· Srngh, consisted of the aUega-
'
uon that Datar Singh, appeUant, actually entered the room,
:snv1 .. ued
-f
E
';fhakar Singh" at his father, and then fired two shots at him, and then
escaped. Both Joginder Singh and Balbir Singh had said that Datar
Singh entered the Chowbara by lifting a "chick" hanging outside the
' .
door. No such "chick" was either mentioned in the·F.I.R. or in the
:i
iif
seizure list or in the site plan. It was not taken into his resession by
(.·
the Investigating Officer who took the gun left outside
e Cbowbara
and other objects, such as the blood stained cloth on the· sofa and the
F
sofa itself on which Thakar Singh was sitting, into his possossion.
If we assume, for the sake of argument, that there was actually a
'*
"chick" hanging outside the' rQOlll, it would be evident that only a per·
•
son driven. to the verge of insane. recklessness could think of entering
the Chowbara and shooting at Thakar Singh when he could have easily
done so by merely inserting the barrel of his gun by the side of the
G
"chick" and taken a good aim at a fairly cl05e range at Thakar Singh
sitting right· in front in bla7.lng electric light so that the assailant's face
,,,
and body arc concealed behind the wall adjoining the entrance.
Per-
'
haps that is how the shooting took place.
At .that time, the sofa 011
which Thakar Singh was said to be sititng, was quite near the door and,
'
almost facing anyone who would try to look in from the 1ide of the
chick farthest removed from the sofa.
There is nothing on the. record
H
to show that the appellant was suddenly so incensed and gripped by a
passion to shoot his father as to· have become oblivious to the · consequences of revealing his identity by rushing, intn the Chowbara to shoot
at Thakar Singh. If he did so he .would risk being caught by the two
l2-L748Su~Cl/74
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1974] 2 s.c.K.
allegedly good friends of Thakar Singh one of whom had been invited
to stay on for dinner and the other, Balbir Singh, who although it was
not certain whether he had been invited to dine or not, had, nevertheless, stayed on.
Both Joginder Singh and Balbir Singh stated that they tried to run
after the appellant and "over-power" him.
Jf they had really tried to
over-power him they could have shown some evidence of the attempt
co over-power such as the gun snatched from the applalnt or a button
wrenched from the clothing.
Perhaps they realised this, and, therefore, they proceeded to depose that they had only run after him and did
not even see him place the gun found outside the Chowbara, although
they heard a cluttering sound whe.n the gun was dropped on a bench
from which they inferred that the particular gun, the
weapon founu
there, was used for the murder.
The sofa on which Thakar Singh was· sitting was quite near the
door.
Its distance from the door was given by Balbir Singh as only
2 ft. Joginder Singh had stated that the length of the gun from end to
end was 4 ft. and that it was at a distance of 2 ft. when 'l'hakar S111gh
was !ired at. If the gun was fired from a distance of 2 ft. only from
the sofa and if that was also the distance of the sofa from the door,
A
Jl
c
the assailant would also be at the door and not inside when
Thakar
D
Singh was fired at.
Apart from the difficulties created by the medical
evidence in accepting such a picture of the shooting even from 2 ft:.
we find that the site plan also does not show that the shooting took place
from any place inside the Chowbara but gives the position taken up by
the murderer to be in the middle of a line acroos the entrance, that is ro
say, in the middle of the door-step.
That would not be evidence of
where the murderer shot from.
But, we mention it to indicate the
E
shifting of prosecution version on the pomt.
Balbir Singh had stated
that the murderer was neither inside nor outside the door.
Accordin~
to this witness, one foot of the appellant was inside and the other wa<
outside the threshold, probably because it was felt that a shooting
after entry into the Chowbara would conllict with medical cvidcw:c.
The position given by Balbir Singh destroys the whole account of a
,_.
melodramatic entry of Datar Singh nito the Chowbara itself to murder
'
Thakar Singh by shooting at a very close range.
Could this bo the
state of evidence if these were really eye-witnesses ?
Another difficulty which arises in imagining a shooting from
the
middle of the door-step with one foot of the murderer inside and the
other outside the door is that, in-- such a po•ition, the "chick", which
was said to be there, would operate as an obstacle to shooting unless it
G
was neatly thrown behind resting on the back of the murderer. The
act of arranging "chick:' in this peculiar position, so as to prevent
the "chick" from hindering the shooting, would itself take so much
time as to crt11ble the three· men inside the room easily to take some. step
to arrest or grapple with or resist the murderer.
It is inconceivable
that such a cumbersome procedure would be adopted by a murderer
out to shoot hastily and then to run way when he could have shot more
1J
easily and effectively by inserting the barrel of the gun from a side of
the "chick". The witnesses do not give anv •uch account of the
shooting which could make it appear credible.
A
ll
c
8
E
F
c
H
DATAR SINGH v. PUNJAB (84g, J.)
08!7
It is much more likely ·that the "chick" was not there at all. The
witnesses admitted that it was pitch dark outside. The assailant
could, therefore, very weli shoot at Thakar Singh from outside without
revealing his identity by being seen. It appears to us that the "chick"
was deliberately int~oduced to show that the murderer had to enter the
Cbowbara and be seen shooting as alleged by the two eye witnesses to
conceal the truth that the shooting had taken place from the dark outside in circumstances in which it was impossible or very difficult to
make out the ideptity of the actual murderer.
It may be mentioned here that the sit.e plan, relied upon by the High .
Court to give 7 feet as the distance between the door and the place on
the sofa where Thakar Singh was sitting, was prepared by a Draftsman,
Bakshi Singh, P.W. 10, on 24-2-1970, at a time when the sofa was not
there at all. He admitted that he had shown the sofa and its distance
from the door only on enquiry from the Investigation Officer. We do
not think that such a statement could be admitted in evidence. Moreover, even if we assume, for the sake of ar~ument, that this distance
was 7 feet and, also that there was a "chick' , as deposed by the witnesses, the shooting could easily take place from a distance of 6 feet by
inserting the barrel of the gun by the side of the "chick" and taking aim
while taking the cover of the wall adjacent to the door.
Dr. G. S.
Gambhir, the Medical Officer, who had perfomed the post-mortem
examination, said, after looking at the injuries of Thakar Singh :
'"These injuries were caused when the nozzle of the gun was at a distance of about 6 feet from the body". He also said : "These injuries
could not be caused if the nozzle was 4 feet away from the body.
By
nozzle I mean "muzzle' of the gut! barrel".
"When the distance is less than 4 feet or 4 feet, the
pellets enter the body-en-masse. If the distance is more
than 4 feet, then the pellets will spread and will enter the
body within a diameter of 2 inches from the main hole. In
!h~ present case there are three separate openings adjacent to
m1ury ~o: 1 and there were four small openings around the
sec?nd m1ury. I have not noted the exact distance of the·
vanous openings with regard to injuries Nos. 1 and 2. Up
~o a distance of 3 feet the pellets do not spread. My opinion
1s based on Modi's Medical Jurisprudence" ..
The following injuries were found .on the body of Thakar Singh :
"~ne circ~lar wound about 2" in diameter with lacerated
marg1~ on t~e front of the chest, slightly on the right side of
th~ middle hne. !here were three small separate openings
ad1acent to the mam wound.
~ne circular wound about 1 I" in diameter with lacerated
mar8!n ave~ the left sh~ulder joint. There were four small
operungs ad1acent to mam wound".
There injuries show that Thakar S!ngh!s back was probably turned
towards the door when he was first hit. Perhaps that is why he was
first struck on his left shoulder joint. He must have turned slightly
after the first shot. Hence, the other injury is on tlie front of the
',
818
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(197 4] 2 s.c.a.
chest on the right side.
If the assailant had actually entered tho room
and shouted 'fhakar Singh" and shot the injuries would bo right in
front: In that case, there could have been no injury on the left shoulder joint. It may be mentioned here that the F.l.R. lodged by Joginder Singh does not mention that the assailant had shouted Thakar
Singh before shooting at him.
He admitted this omission but gave no
explanation for it.
Medical evidence also revealed that there
was
no blackenin:,
tatooing, scorching, charring or synging around the main wounds. lt
was, therefore, contended before us that the shooting must have taken
place from a distance of more than 3 feet. The High Court had explained the absence of blackening and charring by observing that the cartridge inside the gun bore the word "smoke-less" and opined that the
shooting need not have been from a distance of more than 4 feet. It
seems to us that the High Court had assumed that the cartridges found
in the gun were actually of a kind which would not cause blackeninf
or charring or synging and that these were the very cartridges used by
the murderer.
The requirements of a technically proper proof were
wanting on this point.
The ballistic expe.rt, called in as a defence
witness, was not even questioned on the point.
Here, we may refer to the evidence of Ballistic expert Shri J, X.
Sinha. D.W. 10. Assistant Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory, who was not produced by the prosecution probably because he
had made a reoort showing that it was not oossible to connect the
cartridges with the gun as the impressions made by the hammer were
too indistinct.
The gun was proved, from its licence, to belong to
Mohan Singh, the son-in-law of Thakar Singh. It was not sent for
examination of any finger prints on it.
Had there been such evidence
of the appellant's finger prints on the gun, it would have furnished
strong corroborative evidence. In the circumstances of the case, we
find it difficult to link the gun with the actual weapon with which the
murder was committed. It is not inconceivable that it was left deliberately outside by someone to confuse the investigating authorities.
According to tho prosecution case, members of the family of Thaks~
Singh, strangely appeared on the scene only after the police bad
arrived. By then Joginder Singh is said to have already lodged his
F.I.R. If their alleged conduct was meant to suggest that m~mber~
of the family had conspired with. the appellant, it may also indicate
that another rtlember of the family could commit the murder.
Peareylal (D.W. 8), the domestic servant of Thakar Singh, who
a••erted that he was the first to come to the Chowbara from the
kitchen after the murder deposed that he saw nobody in the Chowbara
"here the dead body of _Thakar Singh lay.
He denied the presence
of the two alleged eye-witnesses there.
He
stated,
under
cro•sexamination, that no chick was hanging outside the door of the Ch°"-
bara.
He also stated that the name of the murderer could not be
known at night.
Furthermore, his statement showed that, althouib
Avtar Singh the brother of the appellant, as well as the mother of
the appelian°t, were in Naru House at the .time of the. !'1urder, the
appellant was not there.
This may have directed susp1c10n towards
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
DATA!\ SINGH V. PIJNJAB (Beg, ],)
819
th~ appellant. Peareylal was diabelieved by the Trial Court. illid the.
H1ab Court because he was abandoned by the prosecution on the
ground that h,e had been won. over. We do not think that his evidence
could,, for th~ reason, be s~d ~o be so completely unreliable as that
ot Jogmder Singh and Ba!bll' Smgh.
At any rate his statement that
he and Joginder, another servant, and Mohan, who kept a tall at
the back Of the house, and Joti, a shopkeeper who kept a tea stall
·B
.nearby; came to the Chowbara after the murder, appears more natural
than the evidence of Joginder Singh, (P.W. I), and Ba!bir Singh
(P.W. 2), that no one came there before the police arrived.
Th~
statement of this witness that the identity ·of the murderer was not
known during the night is supported by the circumstance that no
attempt appears to have been made to stop the flight of the appellant
C
from Patiala by the police during the nigbt between 22nd and 23rd
February, 1970.
D
E
F
G
Learned Counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the fact
that the signed statements of Joginder Singh and Balbir Singh had
been annexed to the inquest report and proved by the prOleCution.
It la rightly pointed out that this looked like a device adopted to get
round the bar of Section 162 Criminal Procedure Code. It also shows
that the police was not quite confident about the reliability of the two
alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence.
·
The appellant had given some evidence to support his plea that he
was actually at Delhi staying at the Sarai of Gurdwara Sis Ganj on
22-2-1970. He produced, Daya Singh, D.W. 7, to show that his name
was entered at serial No.