# GARIB SINGH & ORS v. STATE OF PUNJAB - **Citation:** [1972] 3 S.C.R. 978 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1972-03-22 - **Case number:** Cr:imilial Appeal No. 165 of 1969 - **Bench:** A. N. Grover A:Nd M. H. Beg - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/garib-singh-ors-v-state-of-punjab-5642 - **Pages:** 13 ## Headnote A.vrJreciation of Evidence-Prin-:iples-Reversal of judgment ~f acquittal by High Court when just(lied-Indian Penal Code. s. 34, appl1• caoiuty of. · A B Five persons including the three apj>ellants were jointly charged .and tried for rioting and offences comrn.tted m the coutse of it. The Sess16ns C Juuge acqu.lted. au tne accused oe..;au:ie he found th~ .prosecu ion st~ry to be art ficial. He also took into account the de.ay in lodg.ng the first information report and the fact tha there were no blood mar ks foo.ld where the injured peiSons were alleged to have fallen down. The· H gh Court in appeal filed by the State re-assessed the evidence and reversed the judgment of acquittal in respect of the th ·ee appellants. The appellants had been charged in respect of v:carious offences uniter .s. 149 of I> the Indian Penal Code, but the High Court, in v:ew di the acquittal of two of the five accused, convicted he. appella'lts in respect of those offences under s. 34 of the Code. In appeal by special leave this Court had to consider (i) whether the reversal of the judgment of the trial d>urt by the High Court was justified with .reference to pr.nciplcs 'di appreciation of evidence and the decisions of the Court; (ii) whether the conviction of the ~ppellants by recourse to ~. 34 was justified on the facts of the case. E HELD: (i) Perhaps there is no uniform method of arriving at correct or at least satislfactory conclusio11s upon veracity of versions placed· before the Court wh ch cart be applied to all cases. It may be possible to decide ffiany cases by detenni!ling the main or c·rucial poin~ on which the dec:sion of the case Me way or the other may tur1. In other cases, wh~re mariy disputable points are i.,vo!ved, none of which is conclusive, a more elaborate and cotnprchensive treatment of the var:ous points F involved in the whole case may be necessar)'. Courts have, hov.'ever, to attem"Jt to separate the "chaff from the grain" in every case. TI1ey ca'l· not abandon this attemp·· on the ground that the case is baffling unless the evidence is really so confus:ng or conflicting that the process cannot be reasonably carried nut. r983 H~984 Bl Chet Ram v. State, [1971] 1 S.L.J. 153, referred to. (ii) In judging the credibility of a version the Court must apply the standards of a reasonable and prudent man. r983 F] (i'i) In the present case the High Court had u"doubtedly corrected the erroneous approach of the learned Sessions Judge by poi'lting out obviouellants were jointly charged .and tried for rioting and offences comrn.tted m the coutse of it. The Sess16ns C Juuge acqu.lted. au tne accused oe..;au:ie he found th~ .prosecu ion st~ry to be art ficial. He also took into account the de.ay in lodg.ng the first information report and the fact tha there were no blood mar ks foo.ld where the injured peiSons were alleged to have fallen down. The· H gh Court in appeal filed by the State re-assessed the evidence and reversed the judgment of acquittal in respect of the th ·ee appellants. The appellants had been charged in respect of v:carious offences uniter .s. 149 of I> the Indian Penal Code, but the High Court, in v:ew di the acquittal of two of the five accused, convicted he. appella'lts in respect of those offences under s. 34 of the Code. In appeal by special leave this Court had to consider (i) whether the reversal of the judgment of the trial d>urt by the High Court was justified with .reference to pr.nciplcs 'di appreciation of evidence and the decisions of the Court; (ii) whether the conviction of the ~ppellants by recourse to ~. 34 was justified on the facts of the case. E HELD: (i) Perhaps there is no uniform method of arriving at correct or at least satislfactory conclusio11s upon veracity of versions placed· before the Court wh ch cart be applied to all cases. It may be possible to decide ffiany cases by detenni!ling the main or c·rucial poin~ on which the dec:sion of the case Me way or the other may tur1. In other cases, wh~re mariy disputable points are i.,vo!ved, none of which is conclusive, a more elaborate and cotnprchensive treatment of the var:ous points F involved in the whole case may be necessar)'. Courts have, hov.'ever, to attem"Jt to separate the "chaff from the grain" in every case. TI1ey ca'l· not abandon this attemp·· on the ground that the case is baffling unless the evidence is really so confus:ng or conflicting that the process cannot be reasonably carried nut. r983 H~984 Bl Chet Ram v. State, [1971] 1 S.L.J. 153, referred to. (ii) In judging the credibility of a version the Court must apply the standards of a reasonable and prudent man. r983 F] (i'i) In the present case the High Court had u"doubtedly corrected the erroneous approach of the learned Sessions Judge by poi'lting out obviou have given in the abdomen of Sarwan Singh (P.W. 1rWith a Barthha:, and for offences.punishable under Sections 324 and 323 Indian Penal Code With the aid of Section 149 Indian Penal Code. Mohinder Singh WaS separately charged under Sections 148 and 324 Indian Penal Code for.inflicting an incised wound on Chanan Singh (P.W. 8) with a spear, ·and, under Sections 307 and 323 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. Bhagat Siugh was separately charged under Sections·l47 and 323 Indian Penal Code for causing simple injuries with a Jathion Gurdev Singh (P.W. 9) and Ralla Singh (P.W. 10) and with the aid of section .149. Ind\an Penal Code for offences pu,.,hh• abie under Sections 307 and 324 Indian Penal Code. Ram Singh 980 SUPREME COURT REPOll.TS [1972] 3 S.C.R. and Gurdial Singh, who were also .said to have been members of A an unlawfill assembly which caused injuries to the party of the complainant Sarwan Singh at about sunset on 24-10-1965, the date on which the festival of Diwali fell, were alleged to have only instigated their companions by giving lalkaras and saying that,. Sarwan Singh should not be spared. They were, therefore, charged separately only under Section 14 7 ~ndian Penal Code and B for qffences under.Sections 323, 324, and 307. Indian Penal Code. with the help of Section 149 Indian Penal Code. None of the accused persons was, however, charged with any offence with the aid of Section 34 Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions' Judge who tried the accused persons had, C after elaborately examining the prosecution and defence versions, found the prosecution case to be "shroded in mystery as to how all the accused got together, armed variously in the house of Ram Singh and assaulted him (i.e.- Sarwan Singh) all of a sudden by darting out of the house of Ram Singh". The picture thus paint- .ed by the learned Sessions' Judge to convince himself of the mcloD dramatic artificiality of the prosecution version did not really accord . with prosecution evidence which was that, when Sarwan Singh was passing in front of the house of Ram Singh, the accused came out and surrounded him, and that Sarwan Singh thereμpon raised an alarm which brought the other injured witnesses, who had tried to save him, to the scene. It was only when Ram Singh.and Gurdlal Singh gave, 'lalkaras' or instigated the others to attack and E not to spare Sarwan Singh that the assault was alleged to have begun. It is not unlikely that even this version did not bring out the whole truth. The defence version, put forward through Kartar Singh (D.W. 2), was that, on the Diwali night of 24-10-1965, at about 8 p.m., one Gurdev Singh (P.W. 12) son of Mangal Singh, had come with Chanan Singh (P.W; 8) the injured artd Ralla Singh (P.W. 10) and:·Gurdev Singh Harijan and had a ijuarrel with Sarwan Singh (P;W. 7) injured, and with one Gurbux Singh (parentage not given) over the ownership of a tractor which was parked nearby. F It was stated by Kartar Singh that both sides were drunk and that G Gurdev Singh son of Mangal Singh had given a barchha blow to Sarwan Singh and Gurbux Singh had given a barchha blow to Chanan Singh. It was sought to be proved· by the defence,· through other witnesses, that, after this incident, there was a compromhe between the two si.des so th•t Gurdev Singh son of MangalSingh, at the instance,of Sarwan Singh, agreed to forego the unpaid price of the tractor,. amounting to Rs. 5.000/-, and to oatch uo the quarrel. It was not even attempted to be explained by the defence version how an'!igreement could emerge so suddenly not H ' • GARIB SINGH·V, PUNJAB (Be-g; J,) 9_81 only. to patch up a quarrel in which a very serious injury was sus~ tained by Sarwan Singh but also to involve accused persons in place of the actual assailants of Sarwan Singh and others. The suggestion, however, was that the prosecuti6n· case, according to · which .there was litigation between Ram Singh and Bhagat Singh accused on one side and Sarwan Singh (P.W. 7) on the other, and the intervention of Chanan Singh (P;W. 8), who had his.own scores to settle with Garib Singh, explained the implication of all .the accused persons. The learned Sessions' Judge was, we find, more mystified by certain features in the prosecution case · than impressed by the very unnatural and incredible defence version. He had, therefore, acquitted all the accused persons for what )\e considered to be .the weaknesses of!he prosecution case, ·but he had . also mentioned the defence version as though it could con• ceivably contain some truth. ·On an appeal filed by the State· of Punjab, a Division Bench of the High Court listed and then examined each of the features :n of the evidence in the case which had baffied the learned Sessions · .Judge. It then re.assessed the whole prosecution evidence itself. It came to the c0nclusion that the injured eye witnesses, namely, 'Sarwan Singh (P.W. 7), Chanan Singh (P.W. 8), Gurdev Singh son of Sadda Ram (P.W. 9), Ralla Singh·(P.W. 10) must be believed, at any rate with regard to the three accused persons, namely, Garib Singh, Mohinder Singh, and Bhagat Singh who were alleged to have actually caused injuries to them. It, therefore, convicted the three appellants before us by special leave by applying Section 34 LP .C. Garib Singh was convicted under Section 307 l.P.C. separately, for the injury caused to Sarwan Singh (P.W. 7) and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and he was also .convicted and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment under F, Section 324/34 and to three months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/34 I.P.C. Mohinder Singh was convicted separately 'imd.,.sentenced to one y~'s rigorous "imprisonment under. Section 324 LP .C., to .three years' rigorous imprisonment under ·. Section 307 /34 Indian Penal Code, and to three months' rigorous/imprisonment _under Section 323 /34 LP .C. Bhag~t Singh was ·convict- ·G ll ed separately and sentenced to three months' rigorous impri~on ment under Section 323 I.P .C., to Jive years' rigorous· imurisonment under Section 307/34 LP.C., and to one year's rigorous ·imprisonment under Section 323/34 I.P.C. All the .sentences were directed to run concurrently. The High Court had sustained the acquittal of Ram Singh and Gurdial Singh for two reasons : firstly, 'because the delay, in the making of the First Information Report, which was shown to have beenJodged on the next day i.e. to say 25-10-1965 at .11.30 a.m . 982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . (19,2 J 3 s.c.R. at Po!ice Station .Ghanaur ~ District Patiala at a distance of only 1 t m!les from Village Burki where the occurrence was shown to have taken place; and, secondly, because both Ram Singh arid Gurdial Singh "are said to have been empty handed at the time of the occurrence and to neither of whom ariy injuries are atiri· buted". It may be recalled here that these two accused persons were only sai~ to have participated by giving lalkaras- and. saying that Sa.rwai; Smgh sh?ul~ nse condition. disclosed by medical evidence; was such !Mt he could not be in a position to say .much about anything for several days let alone enter into negotiations .and compromise. We have, therefore, no doubt in our minds that the Hig~ Court was quite righ,t in completely rejecting the defence ".ersion which coul~ not even pass muster. as a possible explanatton, for whatever 1t may be worth, .as the learned Sessions Judge wrongly seemed to think that it could. We have only disposed of the defence version first because the learned Counsel for the appellants placed it in the forefront and tried to convince us that it ;was not as incredible as the High Court thought it to be. Learned Counsel for the appellants .asserted that truth is stranger than fiction. We think that, at any rate in appraising evidence Jed in Jaw Courts, suqh an assumption would be extremely hazardous oi1e to adopt. If it were. ad(lpted it would introduce an illegal criterion for appraising . evidence. Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act ·enables a Court to employ only tile standards of a pru~ent man in judging w~at is to be deemed to be proved accordmg to law. And, Sechon 114 of thy Evidence Ai::t enables Courts to presume only that wliich accords with tlie ordinary course of events and human nature and not what would be an ab\Gd in front of the house of Ram Singh was also not so B inexplicable as the learned Sessions Judge seems to have thought it to be. . Another feature on which considerable emphasis was placed, m the course of arguments. before us, was that Garib Singh appellant was alleged te have inflicted the most serious injury of all in c this case, on the abdomen of Sarwan Singh, when this accused was an important witness of the case of Sarwan Singh against Ram Singh and Bhagat Singh who had challenged the adoption of Sarwan Singh. Garib Singh was said to be a witness of the adoption deed put forward by Sarwan Singh. It was, therefore, contended .that Sarwan Singh would not have liked to displease I) Garib Singh.· It was also urged that there was no reason why . Garib Singh shoutd take it into his head to suddenly attack Sarwan Singh, whose alleged adoption deed had. been witnessed by him. This may appear to be a somewhat peculiar feature in the case. But we have no evidence before us to sh9w what Garib Singh was qoing in the company of Ram Singh and Bhagat Singh. It is not inconceivable that either these two told him something to put him I!; up against Sarwan Singh; or, Sarwan Singh, finding him in the company of his adversaries, had said something. Garib Singh, who denied participation in the occurrence, could not be expected _to say what had incensed him. We think that, the High Court had taken a correct and reasonable· view in"holding that, unless Garib Singh had actually caused the injury to Sarwan Singh, it would be I! most unnatural for Sarwan Singh, situated as he was in his litigation with Ram Singh and Bh~gat Singh, to make such an allegation against Garib Singh. This interence was far more . natural and reasonable than that Garib Sin~h was falsely implicated by all the witnesses simply to oblige Chanan Singh. . An overall consideration of all the facts and circumstances in G the case, the important features of which have been noticed by us, and' a reading of the Judgments of the Sessions Judge as well as of the H'.igh Court have led us to the conclusion that, whatever error tbere was in the apprmi£h of the learned Sessions Judge in apprais• jug the worth of the prosecution and defence versions, was rectiH ~ by the High Coun.. We are of opinion that those features of the case to wl:iich the learned Sessions.Judge bad attached q.isprop.Qrtionate importance were put in their prope; .perspectiv.e by .tli.e Uil!h Coun. We, therefore, do not .think that tbiS is a fit case for A GARIB SINGH V. PUNJAB ({leg, J.)· 987 interference by this Court in this appeal by special leave with the view of the High Court aboui the substantial truthfulness of the ·prosecution case and the utter incredibility of the defence version. There is, however, one essential aspect of the case which seems to have escaped the attention of the High Court. It is that the B whole pattern of the case indicates that there was very little likelihood of any pre-concert. The High Court haQ, itself rejected the version that Ram Singh and Gurdial Singh hall instigated and said that Satw3l)c Singh should not be spared. If this instigation was there and had been acted upon Sarwan Singh would have c E G received many more injuries. The nature of the injuries, proved by the medical evidence, indicated umnistakably that the occurrence was a short and sudden affair. Such a short and sudden occurrence could take place on the evening of Diwali at a chance meeting when Sarwan Singh found Garib Singh in the company of his adversarie~, Ram Singh and Bhagat Sipgh. It is possible that something Wns said to Garib Singh either by Sarwan Singh when he found him in the company of his adversaries. or. before that, by Ram Singh and Bhagat Singh which impelled Garib Singh to attack Sarwan Singh. These, however, are matters of pure conjecture. Nevertheless, taking the totality of facts and circumstances particularly the nature of injuries, the Diwali night, and the place. of occurrence on a public thoroughfare, into account, we are inclined to believe that the pattern of the case was not that of a pre-planned attack. There was some force in the submission, which was noticed by the Sessions Judge, that a pre-planned attack was more likely to have taken place .elsewhere and not on a public thoroughfare in front of the house of Ram Singh. The learned Couns~l for the appellant also submitted that Ram Singh and his associates were not_!ikely to know the time at which Sarwan Sin?h- would pass Rani Singh's house that evening. The prosecution evidence is that Sarwan Singh was going to untie his cattle. It is possible that it was known in the village that Sarwan Singh passed the house of Ram Singh at that time every evening, but there was no evidence led to show that this was so and that. therefore, the accused were waiting for him to come. Mere carrying of spears, which is not unusual for Sikhs, would not establish pre,planning. A consideration of the above mentioned asJ>!!ct, which was not ~pus~ by the High Court. leads us to the conclusion that thiS oti .was not a case in which Section 34 Indian Penal Code, for :which' #I.ere was not even a. charge framed against the appellants, could .~ ._ppli,ed s. o !lnbesita'jingly as the High .. _co.urt .had . done. It V/QiJJd h~e been possible to apply it ~VeQ th<>μgh no c;lillf~Cj I!'i!S SUPREME COURT 'REPORTS [1972]3 S.C.R. framer the reasons already mentioned, conceivable in the present case. As we have already indicated, the High Court, in the case before us, had corrected an error in the approach and in the reasoning of the Sessions Judge rather than upset the findings of the Sessions' Judge · c II G ·on the credibility of witnessess at the trial. The trial Court had ·not held that the injured eye witnesses could not be believed. It ·H .had not weighed evidence so much as given a catalogue of reaSori~ .for .suspecting the prosecution case without considering . what • (I) I 19711 S:C.R; .ll39 @ 840·841. . . (2) rt968f (3) s.c.R: 68S:! A B c D E F G H Gt&IB SINGH v:. PUNJAB ·(Be.a,/.) 889 . Cf))Jld be said in answer. Appraisement involves weighing of on1 set of.facts or inferences from them against the opposite one fair!: and reasonably. · . Irr Laxman K;alu Nika/je's case( 1) it was laid down by ihi Court at page 688 : . / "We may say here that it is now the settled law that the powers of the High Court in an appeal against the acquittal are. not different from the powers of the same · cour1 in hearing an appeal against a conviction. The. High Court in dealing with such an appeal can go into all questions of fact and law and reach its own conclusions on evidence provided it pays due regard to the fact that the matter had been before the Court of Sessions and the Sessions Judge had the chance and opportunity of seeing the witnesses depose to the facts. Further the High Court in reversing the judgment of the Sessions Judge must pay due regard to all the reasons given by the Sessions Judge for disbeliewing a particular witness and must attempt to dispel those reasons effectively· before taking a contrary view of the matter. It may also be pointed out that an accused starts with a presumption of innocence whe:1 he is put up for trial an