# HAZARA SINGH v. PUNJAB (Grover, J,)

- **Citation:** [1971] 3 S.C.R. 674
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971-02-04
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 139 to 141of1968
- **Bench:** K. S. Hegde, A. N. Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/hazara-singh-v-punjab-grover-j-5229
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

!..dian Penal Code, ss. 307, 146, 148 and 349-Miscreants firing shots
<>n p:Jlice party in darkness-No evidence that shots ,were fired in direction
of members of police party--Offence of attempt to' murder could not be
said to be· made out-Firing of such shots is not use of force as defined in
.s. 349--0ffenders even though more than five do not commit "riot within
meaning of s. 146-Cannot be held guilty of offence under s. 148.
Evidence-Excessive similarity between evidence of two witnesses-.-
lnference of tutoring can be drawn specially when the witnesses are clearly
not independent.
The six appellants we're challenged by a police party when they were
proceeding towards Pakistan territory with contraband goods.
Two of
them, H and B, had fire-arms with which they fired shots. No member
of the police party was injured. There was darkness except for: a tempo-
'rary illumination created by the firing of two shots from a light pistol.
The police claimed to have recognised H and B, in this light even though
they lied away from the scene. The remaining f•ur persons were arrested
on the spot. H and B, were arrested later and on their pointing out, two
unlicensed arms were >ecovered. The Sessions Judge held"H and 11,_ to
be guilty under s. 307 of the Indian Penal Code as well as s. 2S of the.
Arms Act. The remaining four appellants were convicted under s. 307
read with s. 149 I.P.C. All the appellants were convicted under s. · 148.
The High Court maintained the convictions of the appellants though in the
case of those without fire arms it reduced the sentences. With special leave
the appellants filed appeals in this Court,
·
HELD : ( 1) From the evidence it wa·s quite clear that the shots which
were fired by H and B, were not fired during the few seconds there was
light as a result of the light pis!()! shcts. In other words the shots were
fired in complete darkness when it was not possible for any membe'r of
police party to see the direction in which they were fired or the aim which
was taken by H and B. It was not possible to say from this evidence that
H and B fired the shots in the direction of the police party or at them and
the possibility that the shots were fired in the air could not be excluded.
Thus the conviction under s. 307 of H and B and of the other appellants
under s. 307 read with s. 149 coulo not be maintained.[678 B-D]
(2) Rioting is defined by s. 146 which i>rovides that whenever force
or violence is used by an unlawful assembly or any memJ>er thereof in
prosecution of the common object of sucli assembly every member of such
assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting. Section 349 gives the meaning
-0f the word 'force'. Jn the present incident no force or violence was
proved to have been used by the appellants in prosecution of the common
object of the unlawful assembly of. whic~ th~y wer~ members. With the .
exception of the firing of the shots in a d1rectton which could not be determined, no attempt was made by any of the appellants to use any force or
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
HAZARA SINGH v. PUNJAB (Grover, J,)
675
A
violence on any member of the police party. Accordingly, the conviction
of the appellants under s. 148 must also be set aside. [678 F·GJ
B
( 3) The discloure statements made by H and B in respect of fire arms
recovered at their instance could not be acted upon because the two wit·
ne'8cs produced in this connection gave statement which by their similarity
appeared to be tutored and unconvincing. These witnesses were associated
with the police raids over a Jong period. The other witness was proved
to be inimical to H and B. The _High Court erred in ignoring these facts.
The conviction of H and B under s. 25 of the Arms Acf could not be
sustained; -{679 B-DJ

## Text

674
HAZARA SINGH & ORS .
...
STATE OF PUNJAB
February 4, 1971
[K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
!..dian Penal Code, ss. 307, 146, 148 and 349-Miscreants firing shots
<>n p:Jlice party in darkness-No evidence that shots ,were fired in direction
of members of police party--Offence of attempt to' murder could not be
said to be· made out-Firing of such shots is not use of force as defined in
.s. 349--0ffenders even though more than five do not commit "riot within
meaning of s. 146-Cannot be held guilty of offence under s. 148.
Evidence-Excessive similarity between evidence of two witnesses-.-
lnference of tutoring can be drawn specially when the witnesses are clearly
not independent.
The six appellants we're challenged by a police party when they were
proceeding towards Pakistan territory with contraband goods.
Two of
them, H and B, had fire-arms with which they fired shots. No member
of the police party was injured. There was darkness except for: a tempo-
'rary illumination created by the firing of two shots from a light pistol.
The police claimed to have recognised H and B, in this light even though
they lied away from the scene. The remaining f•ur persons were arrested
on the spot. H and B, were arrested later and on their pointing out, two
unlicensed arms were >ecovered. The Sessions Judge held"H and 11,_ to
be guilty under s. 307 of the Indian Penal Code as well as s. 2S of the.
Arms Act. The remaining four appellants were convicted under s. 307
read with s. 149 I.P.C. All the appellants were convicted under s. · 148.
The High Court maintained the convictions of the appellants though in the
case of those without fire arms it reduced the sentences. With special leave
the appellants filed appeals in this Court,
·
HELD : ( 1) From the evidence it wa·s quite clear that the shots which
were fired by H and B, were not fired during the few seconds there was
light as a result of the light pis!()! shcts. In other words the shots were
fired in complete darkness when it was not possible for any membe'r of
police party to see the direction in which they were fired or the aim which
was taken by H and B. It was not possible to say from this evidence that
H and B fired the shots in the direction of the police party or at them and
the possibility that the shots were fired in the air could not be excluded.
Thus the conviction under s. 307 of H and B and of the other appellants
under s. 307 read with s. 149 coulo not be maintained.[678 B-D]
(2) Rioting is defined by s. 146 which i>rovides that whenever force
or violence is used by an unlawful assembly or any memJ>er thereof in
prosecution of the common object of sucli assembly every member of such
assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting. Section 349 gives the meaning
-0f the word 'force'. Jn the present incident no force or violence was
proved to have been used by the appellants in prosecution of the common
object of the unlawful assembly of. whic~ th~y wer~ members. With the .
exception of the firing of the shots in a d1rectton which could not be determined, no attempt was made by any of the appellants to use any force or
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
HAZARA SINGH v. PUNJAB (Grover, J,)
675
A
violence on any member of the police party. Accordingly, the conviction
of the appellants under s. 148 must also be set aside. [678 F·GJ
B
( 3) The discloure statements made by H and B in respect of fire arms
recovered at their instance could not be acted upon because the two wit·
ne'8cs produced in this connection gave statement which by their similarity
appeared to be tutored and unconvincing. These witnesses were associated
with the police raids over a Jong period. The other witness was proved
to be inimical to H and B. The _High Court erred in ignoring these facts.
The conviction of H and B under s. 25 of the Arms Acf could not be
sustained; -{679 B-DJ
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos.
139 to 141of1968.
e .
Appeals by special leave from the judgments and orders dated
January 31, 1968 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 653, 655 and 654 of 1967 respectively.
D
E
F
G
H
R. L. Kohli, for the appellants (in all the appeals).
Harbans Singh, for the resondent (in all the appeals).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Grover, J.-Hazara Singh, his brothers Bachan Singh and
Jarnail Singh and three others Bhajan Singh, Baj Singh and
Balwant Singh were tried under s. 148 of the Indian Fenal Code
for being members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution
of the common object of that assembly which was to attempt to ,
murder the police party, while these persons were armed with
deadly weapons like pistol and rifle, having committed the offence
on the midnight intervening 21st and 22nd July 1964. Hazara
Singh and Hhajan Singh were also charged under s. 307, Indian
Penal Code, while the other four were charged under s .• 307
read with s. 149 of the Code for Hazara Singh and Bhajan Singh
having fired pistol shots at the police party with such intention
and under such circumstances that if they had thereby caused
the death of any member of the police party they would have
been guilty of murder.
Hazara Singh and Bhajan Singh were forth.er tried on
a
charge under s.
25 of the Indian Arms Act. 'Qie learned
Session~ Judge found that all the six persOl)S were proceeding
towards Pakistan in order to smuggle six bags containing 40 Kg.
cardamom each.
Hazara Singh and Bhajan Singh were armed
with a rifle and a pistol respectively and when challenged by the
police party they fired shots from their weapons at the police
party in their attempt to murder them in pursuance of the common object of them all and as such they were guilty of an
>Offence under s. 148 of the Indian Penal Code. They were con·
676
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971)3 S.C.R.
victed and sentenced to one year's rigorous
imprisonment . on
that count.
Hazara Singh and Bhajan Singh were found gutlty
of the
offence under s. 307 of the Indian Penal Code while
their co-accused were found guilty of the offence under ss. 307
and 149, Indian Penal Code, and each one of them was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and
pa}ment of a fine of Rs. 500/. The sentences were to run concurrently.
Bhajan Singh and Ha~ara Singh were further found
guilty of the illegal possession of fireanns under s. 25 of the Arms
Act and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year
each.
On appeals to the High Court the conviction of the aforesaid
persons was upheld but the !>'W1ences of Bachan Singh, J arnail
Singh, Baj Singh and Balwant Singh were reduced to three years'
rigorous imprisonment.
All the convicted persons have filed
appeals to •this Court (Cr. As. 139-141/68) by special leave.
These shall stand disposed of by this judgment.
The prosecution story was that Inderjit Singh P.W. 1 who was
posied as Deputy Superintendent of Police P.A.P. Border, Khem
Karan, had received information on 31st July 1964 that a party
of smugglers w0uld be smuggling some goods to Pakistan during
the night.
He organised a raiding party consisting of SubInspector Ajit Singh P.W. 15, Agya Ram P.W. 12, AS.Is.
Darshan Sini:h. Nand Singh and Mula!41 Raj, Head Constables
Surjit Singh P.W. 3, and Ajai Singh P.W. 13. The entire raiding party was divided into four groups. Each group was headed by one of the officers including Inderjit Singh D.S.P.
At
about midnight the police party noticed some persons
coming
from the side of village Lakhna by the katcha path with some
mares.
The path Jed to Pakistan. It was a moonlit night but
was cloudy at that time. It is unnecessary to go into the details
which will be presently noticed of how the firing of the shots
took place by the accused persons and how they were identified
and arrested. Four of them were taken into custody at the spot
!;mt Hazara Singh and Bhajan Singh escaped on their mares.
They were arrested later and on their disclosure a rifle and a
revolver were recovered.
No one was
injured and although
some empry cartridges were found but no attempt was made to
find the bullets which are alleged to have been fired by the party
of the appellants.
The evidence of the police officers was consistent and
we
may only refer to the deposition of Inderjit Singh D.S.P. who
· appeared as P.W. I
According to him· when the culprits were
at a distance of 25 to 30 karams (One karam is equal to 5
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
n
c
D
E
F
G
H
HAZARA SINGH v. PUNJAB (Grover, J.)
677
feet) he alerted members of the police party to be
on their
~uard and direoted Sub-Inspector Ajit .Singh to challenge
the
culprits and inform them that the police party was holding its
positions and they should stop proceeding further.
Ajit Singh
accordingly challenged the culprits. Thereupon the leader of the
party fired a shot at the police party. Inderjit Singh then ordered Sub-Inspector Agya Ram to fire a light pistol so that there
might be light and it might be possible to identify the culprits.
Agya Ram fired a shot and in the light that emerg.w the leader
of the party was identified as Hazara Singh appellam: who was
riding a mare and who had a rifle in his hand. He was followed
by Bhajan Singh or Harbhajan Singh who also was riding a mare
and had a loaded bag and was armed with pistol. He was followed
by the other four on foot.
These persons then shouted to their
companions Hazara Singh and Bhajan Singh that they should
open fire on the police party.
Thereupon Hazara Singh and
Bhajan Singh started firing shots fr@m their respective weapons ..
Sub-Inspector Ajit Singh ordered the p@lice party to open fire in
defence.
Four Head Constables fired two &11,ots each from their
rifles at the culji>rits. At this stage Agya Ram fired another light
pistol shot. Hazara Singh and Bhajan Singh ran away on their
mares throwing away the bags. The other four persons were
found lying down on the ground.
There can be no manner of doubt that if Hazara Singh and
Bhajan Singh fired ~hots at the police party and even though
no one was injured the appellants would be guilty of the offences
with which they w-~re charged.
The real question is whether it
had been proved beyond doubt that the shots were fired at the
police party.
There could be two possibilities in such a situation, one could be of the shots being fired
in the direction
of the police party or taking aim at them and the other could
be of the shots being fired in the air or in some other direction
and not in the direction of the police "Party merely to create confusion for the; purpose of running away.
On the evidence of
Inderjit Singh P.W. 1 himself it was a moonlit night but owing
to the weather being. cloucly it was dark and light pistol shots
had to be fired by Sub-Inspector Agya Ram on two occasions
in order to provide sufficient light for seeing
and identifying
them.
The light provided by these pistol shots admittedly lasted only for 2 or 2t seconds. If the shots which are alleged
to have been fired by Hazara Singh and Bhajan Singh had been
fired at the time when there was light as a result of the firing
of the li.!!ht
pistol
shots
by
Sub-Inspector Agya
Ram
then it could be said to have been established that the Deputy
Superintendent of Police and the other witnesses could have seen
. in which direction the fire arms were fired by Hazara Singh and
~78
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 3 S.C.R.
Bhajan Singh and !!heir statement could have been accepted !;hat
A
the shots had been fired at them. But from the evidence of Inderjit
Singh as also of Sub-Inspector Agya Ram who actually fired the
light pistol shots which provided the light on two occas.ions it is
quite clear that the shots which were fired by Hazara Smgh and
Bhajan Singh vx:re not fired during the few. seconds there was
light as a result of the light pistol shots of Agya Ram. In other
words. the shots which are stated .to have. been fired by the aforesaid two appellan!ts were fired in complete darkness when it was
not possible for any member of the police party to see the direc•
tion in which they were fired or the aim which was taken by
Hazara Singh and Bhajan Singh. It is not possible to say from
this evidence that Hazara Singh and Bhajan Singh fired the shots
in the direction of the police party or at them, and the possibility
that the shots were fired in the air cannot be excluded. Thus the
conviction under s. 307 of Hazara Sin~h .and Bhajan Singh and
B
of the other appellants under s. 307 read\vith s. 149, Indian Penal
·Code cannot be maintained and they must be acquitted . of that
charge. It is unfortunate th.at the judgment of the High Court
is very sketchy and ithere is hardly any discussion or examination
of all the above material facts.
As regards the conviction of the appellants under s. 148
of the Indian Penal Code we find it difficult to uphold the same.
According to that section whoever is guilty of roiting being
armed with deadly weapons or with anything which used as -a
weapon of offence, is lik<>..ly to cause death, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term ''!iich may
extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Rioting is defined by s. 146 which provides that whenever force or violence
c
D
E
is used by an unlawful assembly or any member thereof in prosecution of the common object of such assembly every member
F
of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting.
Section
349 gives the meaning of the word "force". The learned counsel for the Stare has not been able to show how any force or violence is proved to have been used by the appellants in prosecution of the common ob.iect of the un!awfμl assembly of which
they were members. With the execption of the firing of the shots
in a direction which cannot be determined no attemnt was made
by any of the appellants to use any force or violence on any
member of the police party. Consequently the conviction of the
appellants under s. 148 must also be set aside.
G
As regards t}le conviction of Hazara Singh and. Bhajan Singh
H
under s. 25 of the Indian Arms Act it is most unfortunate that
the witnesses who were produced with regard to the disclosure
statements made by them and the recoveries effected at their
A
B
c
D
HAZARA SINGH v. PUNJAB (Grover, 1.)
67g.
instance are of such a type that their evidence could never have
been believed by any court. Lal Singh P.W. and Karnail Singh
P. W. admitted that 'they had been joining in the police raids and
had been appearing as witnesses for the police for the last 15
years.
Apart from that the statements made by them were so
similar particularly with regard to t)le manner in which they
happened to join the investigation that their whole
evidence
looks tutored and unconvincing. P.W.11 Hakam Singh admitted
that 1Pooran Singh was the son of his cousin Geja Singh and
that he had been convicted in a case of murder and sentenced
to life imprisonment. Charan Singh, uncle of the two ap~nts
had appeared as a witness against Pooran Singh in that case.
He was obviously an inimical witness. It is again surprising that
the High Court in its very sketchy judgment had made no mention of these salient facts and has contended itself by saying
that there was nothing on the record to indicate that the appel.
lants had been falsely implicated.
The conviction of
Hazara
Singh and Bhajan Singh, therefore, cannot be maintained under
s. 25 of the Arms Act.
In the result the appeals are allowed and the convictions and·
sentences of all the appellants are hereby set aside.
The bail
bonds of the appellants who were ordered to be released on bait
by this Court on July 15, 1968 shall stand discharged.
G.C.
Appeals allowed;