# MOHAN LAL & ANR v. AJIT SINGH AND ANR

- **Citation:** [1978] 3 S.C.R. 823
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1978-05-02
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 1975
- **Bench:** P. N. Siiinghal, D. A. Desai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mohan-lal-anr-v-ajit-singh-and-anr-7440
- **Pages:** 21

## Headnote

Evidence Act, 1872-S.114 (a)-Presumption to be
drawn
against the
accused is a niatter lvhich depends on the circumstances of each case.
Crin1inal Procedure Code, 1973, s. 313-It is permissible to accept that part
of the staten1ent which accords with the evidence on the record and ta act upon
it-Evidence-f"'inger print evidence at crime, scenes, reliability of.
Nishan Chand (deceased), son of appellant l\fohan Lal, resident of Roran-
\vali, was the Secretary of Roranwali, and Phulukhere Co-operative Societies.
Respondent Ajit Singh, Nishan Chand's friend, was the Secretary of Roranwali
Patti Sikhan Co-operative Society. He also lived in village, Roranwa.li, with his
maternal Uncle Gurdial Singh who was the viilage Chairman.
On June 17,
1974 both Nishan Chand and the respondent left for villages Lambi and Malaut
on the farmer's bicycle for depositing the moneys realised on account of the
dues of the Co-operative societies.
They did not, howev'er, return to Roranwali
that night.
On the next day, Satpal, the younger brother of Nishan Chand,
found the bicycle of his brother lying at some distance from the boundary of
the village near a culvert and his brother's body in a field at a short distance
from there anci informed his father Mohan Lal. Mohan Lal and his
brother
Dharam Chand went to the place where the dead body lay.
The dead body
had· many in1uries, and a blood stained blade of a knife (Ex. P3) was
lying near it. A black piece of cloth "fifty" was lying at some distance on the
road, and as it was worn by Ajit Singh the_ previous day, a report was lodgca
with the police.
Ajit Singh was arrested on 21st June, 1974 and on his information that be had buried a sum of 41.00/~ and a gold ring in his purse, tied
in a handkerchief, near the 'J.rater lift. and had concealed the
blood stained
clothes and a shoe inside the heap of· cotton 'sticks' in a kiln on a road, the
Police recovered those articles at his instance.
The bundle of currency .notes
which was recovered at the instance of the respondent contained one currency
note of Rs. 100/- \Vhich was suspected to have fingerprints.
Ajit Singh '\\'as
tried· ·and was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of offences under
ss. 302, 392 and 397 I.P.C. The Additional Sessions Judge sentenced him to
death for the offence under secton 302 I.P.C. a:nd to rigorous imprisonment
for flve years and seven vears respectively for the offences under sections 392
and 397 J.P.C. On appeaJ, the High Court gave him the benefit of doubt and
acquitted him.
Mohan Lal (father of the deceased) and one Surinder Kuniar
filed the present appeal, by special leave.
Allowing the appeal, the Court,
IIELD : (I) While considering the statement of the accused under section
313 Cr!. P.C .. 1973 it is permissible to reject the exculpatory part .of the statement if it is disproved. by the evidence on record, and to acts upon it. l832 BC]
:\Tishfkant Jha v. State of Bihar [1969] 2 SCR 1033~ Applied.
(2) The evidence on record \Vas sufficient to sbo'v that the staten1ent of
the respondent which led to the recovery of certain articles was not only voluntary but fell within the purview of section 27 of the Evidence Act in as much as
the ''fact discovered" was the place from which the various articles were produced by the respondent and his knowledge of it. Moreover the actual recovery
of the currency qotes. the ring
(be~ring the initials of the deceased)
~nd the
purse (containing a libi;ary card having the address of the resl?on9ent) in pursuance of the information given by the respondent, and at his instance, was
sufficient -marantee of the truth of that information and it could safely have
been relied upon by the High Court. [834 C-D]
(3) There is no gainsaying the fact that a majority ?f. fingerprints fo'!nd at
crime scenes or crime articles are partially smudged, and 1t 1s for the expenenced
and skilled fingerprint expert to say whether a mark is usable as fingerprint
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
824
SUPREME COU

## Text

_Characters 0–39,994 of 67,795. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39994 for what follows._

'
•
j
~ (
l
.;
823
MOHAN LAL & ANR.
v.
AJIT SINGH AND ANR.
May 2, 1978
[P. N. SIIINGHAL AND D. A. DESAI, JJ.]
Evidence Act, 1872-S.114 (a)-Presumption to be
drawn
against the
accused is a niatter lvhich depends on the circumstances of each case.
Crin1inal Procedure Code, 1973, s. 313-It is permissible to accept that part
of the staten1ent which accords with the evidence on the record and ta act upon
it-Evidence-f"'inger print evidence at crime, scenes, reliability of.
Nishan Chand (deceased), son of appellant l\fohan Lal, resident of Roran-
\vali, was the Secretary of Roranwali, and Phulukhere Co-operative Societies.
Respondent Ajit Singh, Nishan Chand's friend, was the Secretary of Roranwali
Patti Sikhan Co-operative Society. He also lived in village, Roranwa.li, with his
maternal Uncle Gurdial Singh who was the viilage Chairman.
On June 17,
1974 both Nishan Chand and the respondent left for villages Lambi and Malaut
on the farmer's bicycle for depositing the moneys realised on account of the
dues of the Co-operative societies.
They did not, howev'er, return to Roranwali
that night.
On the next day, Satpal, the younger brother of Nishan Chand,
found the bicycle of his brother lying at some distance from the boundary of
the village near a culvert and his brother's body in a field at a short distance
from there anci informed his father Mohan Lal. Mohan Lal and his
brother
Dharam Chand went to the place where the dead body lay.
The dead body
had· many in1uries, and a blood stained blade of a knife (Ex. P3) was
lying near it. A black piece of cloth "fifty" was lying at some distance on the
road, and as it was worn by Ajit Singh the_ previous day, a report was lodgca
with the police.
Ajit Singh was arrested on 21st June, 1974 and on his information that be had buried a sum of 41.00/~ and a gold ring in his purse, tied
in a handkerchief, near the 'J.rater lift. and had concealed the
blood stained
clothes and a shoe inside the heap of· cotton 'sticks' in a kiln on a road, the
Police recovered those articles at his instance.
The bundle of currency .notes
which was recovered at the instance of the respondent contained one currency
note of Rs. 100/- \Vhich was suspected to have fingerprints.
Ajit Singh '\\'as
tried· ·and was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of offences under
ss. 302, 392 and 397 I.P.C. The Additional Sessions Judge sentenced him to
death for the offence under secton 302 I.P.C. a:nd to rigorous imprisonment
for flve years and seven vears respectively for the offences under sections 392
and 397 J.P.C. On appeaJ, the High Court gave him the benefit of doubt and
acquitted him.
Mohan Lal (father of the deceased) and one Surinder Kuniar
filed the present appeal, by special leave.
Allowing the appeal, the Court,
IIELD : (I) While considering the statement of the accused under section
313 Cr!. P.C .. 1973 it is permissible to reject the exculpatory part .of the statement if it is disproved. by the evidence on record, and to acts upon it. l832 BC]
:\Tishfkant Jha v. State of Bihar [1969] 2 SCR 1033~ Applied.
(2) The evidence on record \Vas sufficient to sbo'v that the staten1ent of
the respondent which led to the recovery of certain articles was not only voluntary but fell within the purview of section 27 of the Evidence Act in as much as
the ''fact discovered" was the place from which the various articles were produced by the respondent and his knowledge of it. Moreover the actual recovery
of the currency qotes. the ring
(be~ring the initials of the deceased)
~nd the
purse (containing a libi;ary card having the address of the resl?on9ent) in pursuance of the information given by the respondent, and at his instance, was
sufficient -marantee of the truth of that information and it could safely have
been relied upon by the High Court. [834 C-D]
(3) There is no gainsaying the fact that a majority ?f. fingerprints fo'!nd at
crime scenes or crime articles are partially smudged, and 1t 1s for the expenenced
and skilled fingerprint expert to say whether a mark is usable as fingerprint
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
824
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 3 S.C.R.
evidence.
Similarly it is for a competent technician to examine and give his
opinion whether the identity can be established, and if so whether that can be
done on eight or even less identical characteristics in an appropriate case.
Jn
this case there was the categorical statement of the Director,
Finger Print
Bureau, Phillaur, that one particular impression on the currency note was photographically enlarged alongwith the right middle finger impression of the res~
pendent, that it was comparable, and there existed not less than eight points of
similarity i.e. mat9hing characteristic details in their identical sequence, without
any discordance, between its comparable portion and the corresponding portion
of the photographically enlarged right middle finger impression.
The Director
graphically showed the eight points of similarity i~heir same form and position
and indicated the nature, direction and sequence of each point. He clearly stated
that so many points of similarity could not be found to occur in impressions
of different thumbs and fingers and that they were identical and were of one and
the same person.
[840 F-G, 841 D-E]
( 4) The recovery of incriminating articles in pursuance of the respondent's
information is an important piece of evidence against him. The question whether
a presumption should be drawn against him under illustration (a) of section
114 of the Evidence Act is a matter with depends on the evidence and the
circumstances of each case. The nature of the recovered articles, the manner
of their acquisition by the owner, the nature of the evidence about their identification, the manner in which the articles were dealt with by the accUsed, the
place and the circumstances of their recovery, the length of the intervening period
and the ability oi; otherwise of the accused to explain the recovery, are some of
those circumstances.
All these factors were· against the respondent.
[841 G-H, 842 A]
Baiju @ Bharosa v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1978] 2 SCR 594 reiterated.
(5) The ring (Ex. Pl) was made of gold and bore the initials of the
deceased, and the goldsmith was able to establish that it belonged to
the
deceased.
It was found tied in a handkerchief
alongwith other two
highly
incriminating articles, namely, the finger marked currency note and the respon·
dent's own purse about whose identity there could possibly be no reason for any
doubt. The respondent knew that he would be suspected of the crime because
the deceased was last seen in his company, and the fact that he buried the
articles near the water lift in the. middle of the way leading from Khankanwali
to his village shows that he wanted the articles to lie there until he could feel
reassured enough to dig them out. It so happened however that he was suspected from the very beginning, was arrested within four days and gave the informa·
tion within the next two days which led to the discovery of an important fact
within the meaning of section 27 of the Evidence Act. It must therefore be
held that the incriminating articles were acquired by the respondent at one and
the same time and that it was he and no one else who had robbed the deceased
of the money and the ring and had hidden them at a place and in a manner
which was known to him. Then there is the further fact that the respondent
was unable to explain his lJOSSession.
All these facts were not only proof of
robbery but were presumptive evidence of the charge of murder as well.
[842 B·Fl
Wasim Khan v. The State of U.P. [1956] SCR 191; Tulsiram Nanu v. The
State, AIR 1954 SC 1; Sunder/al v. The State of M.P., AIR 1954 SC 28 Alisher
v. State of TJ.P. [1974] 4 SCR 254; and Baiju @ Rharosa v. State of M.P.,
[1978] 2 SCR 594 reiterated.
(6) The High Court committed serious errors in reading the evidence on
the record and very often based its findings on mere conjectures. Its finding that
the prosecution had failed to "connect the accu~ed with the. commission o! the
crime" was quite incorrect and must be set aside.
Reasoning of Hirrh Court
e.xamined with reference to the direct and circumstantial evidence on record.
[838-C-D]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. 377
of 1975.
From the Judgment and Order dt. 9th July, 1975 of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1423 of 1974.
~
I. •
~
'1.
' ' •
f
~~
-
-
I
7·
• ' r\
-
...
1
--· •
\
• •
"' .....
"'
~"
..
;
I '
l
~
..
~
~ ,.. ..
I
MOHAN LAL v. AJIT SINGH (Shinghal, J.)
825
S. C. Manchanda and N. K. Agarwal for the Appellants.
D. Mookerjee, S. K. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja and P. N. Puri for
Respondent No. 1
Hardev Singh for Respondent No. 2.
The Judgment o~ the Conrt was delivered by
SmNGHAL, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed
against
the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Conrt dated
July 9,
1975, giving beaefit of doubt to respondent Ajit Singh (hereinafter
referred to a~ the respondent) and acquitting him of offences under
sections 302, 392 and 397 I.P.C. for which he was convicted by the
Addi,tional Sessions Judge of Faridkot on Oc;:>ber 31. 1974.
The
Additiomil Sessions J udgc had sentenced the respondoat to
death
for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. and to rigorous
imprison·
ment for five years and seven years respectively for the offences under
sections 392 anc.I 397 J.P.C.
Nishan Chand (deceased); son of appellant Mohai' Lal (P. W. 5).
was a resident of Roranwali. He was Secretary of Roramval;
and
Phulu Khera Co-operative Societies.
The respondent was Nishan
Chand's friend and was Secretary of Roranwali Patti Sikhan Cp-opcrative Society.
He also used to live in village Roranwali with
his
malernal-unclc Gurdial Singh who was the village Chairman.
A
B
c
D
It is alleged that Nishan Chand and the rcsponde11t left together
E
on June l 7, 1974, for villages Lambi and Malout on Nisban Chand's
bicycle. as they had to deposit the money realised hy them.
They
did not however return to Roranwali that •night.
Mohan Lal's other
s<1n Satpal, who was studying in Class VIII in a_school at Sikhanwala,
saw Nishan Chand's bicycle lying at some distance from the boundary
of village Roranwall, near a culvert, on the "pakka" road leading to
Sikhanwala, and he also saw a man lying dead in a field at a short dis-.
F
tance
from
there.
As
the
dead
body
appeared
to
be
of Nishan Chand, Satpal went back to his house and informed his
father Mohan Lal (P. W. 5) at about 7 a. m. Mohan Lal (P. \V. 5)
and his brother Dharam Chand (P. W. 8) went to the place where the
dead body was lying.
It had many injnries and a blood stained
blade of knife ( E~. P. 3) was lying near it.
A black piece ,of cloth
("fifty") was !yin!! at some distance towards the road.
As Nishan
G
Chand used lo bring home the monev of the societies some times.
Mohan Lal rnspected that the respondent might have murdered him
for the money.
It seemed to him that the black piece of
cloth
(''fifty") belonged to the respondent which he was . wearing on the
previous morning.
Mohan Lal therefore left for police station Lambi,
which was at a distance of about 9 miles from the place of occurancc.
As he found Sub-inspector Harnek SinQh (P. W. 19) at Sikhanwnfa
H
bus stand. he reported the matter to him at about 9.30 a.m.
The
Sub-Inspector recorded. Mohan Lal's statement and sent it along with
constable Mal Singh to police station Lambi for registering a case.
2-329 SCI/78
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
826
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 3 S.C.R.
S. I. Harnek Singh went to the place of occurrence with Mohan
Lal and found Dharam Chand (P. W. 8) and Nishan Chand's mother
Smt. Agyawanti near the dead body.
He found foot-prints two of
bare foot and one with the shoe near the dead body.
The blade
of knife (Ex. P. 3) was also found lying near the dead body and a
shoe was found lying in the water channel at a distance of 7 or 8
'karams'
The small piece of black cloth ("fifty") (Ex. P. 4)
was
found lying at a distance of 25 or 30 'karams' from the dead body.
The Sub-Inspector recorded the statement of
Smt. Agyawanti.
He
lifted moulds of the foot-prints and took them in his possession.
The
blood stained blade of knife (Ex. P. 3) was also taken in possession
vide memorandum (Ex. P. K.) and was sealed. The Sub-Inspector
tonk the shoe also in his possession.
He prepared an inquest
report and sent Nishan Chand's dead body for post-mortem examination.
Dr. P. K. Narang (P. W. 1) of Civil Hospital Gidderbaha examined
the dead body and found 12 injuric~, all of which were ante-mortem.
The doctor found that Nishan Chand's death was due to the injuries
to vital organs \Of the brain as a result of injuries Nos. I and 2 which
were as follows,-
"(i) A stab wound with clean cut edges 2. 5x0.5 cm. on
the front of left side of forehead just above the eye
brow.
Blood stained brain matter was coming out
of the wound.
Bone underneath was cut, and the
wound was directed backwards and downwards .
(ii) A stab wound 3.5Xl cm. with clean cut edges on
the left temporal region of head 7 .5 cm. above the
ear, directed downwards and inwards.
Bone unde;-
neath was cut."
The medics! officer expressed the opinion that these two i·njuries were
individually sufficient to canse death in the prdinary course of nature.
It was found during the course of the investigation that Nishan
Chand had collected the dues of the co-operative societies from Atma
Singh, Avtar Singh and Balli Singh and others on June 17, 1974, and
had gone with the respondent to deposit the same in the Central Cooperative Bank, Malout.
Inspector Gurdial Singh (P. W. 14)
of
the Co-operative department had also gone there to attend a meeting
of his
department.
Nishan
Chand
and
the
respondent
met
him
after
3
p.m.
and
asked
him
to
get the
sum
of
about
Rs.
2000/-
deposited in the Bank.
He
could not however succeed in . depositing the mioney as the cash had
been closed by that time.
It i"s alleged that Nishan Chand collected
Rs. 4156/- and that he and the respondent met Darshan Lal (P. W. 6)
at Lambi at 6.30 o.m.
The prosecution has relied on the statement
of Darshan Lal (P. W. 6) for the subsequent conduct of the respondent and has Jed its evidence to show that he was searched bnt could
not be found.
He was arrested on June 21, 1974, at about 8 p.m,
ne"r vi!JaQe Fatuekhera.
He was interrogated bv the Investigatin~
Ofllcer and is alleged to have made statement Ex.P.O. on June
23,
1974, to the effect that he had buried a sum of about Rs. 41001- and
-
t
!
...
-
-.
\ •
•
,,.
'
-
;~·
?-
\
~\ •
1
.-.
) .
•
•
MOHAN LAL v. AJIT SINGH (Shinghal, J.)
827
a gold ring in his purse tied in a handkerchief uear the water litt
in the middle of the way leading from village Khankhanwali to Roranwali which he could recover, and that he had kept concealed his clothes
and one shoe under the heap of cotton "sticks" in a kiln on
the
road outside Khankhanwali village which also he could recover. The
respondent's statement to that effect was recorded in the presence
of witnesses Balbir Singh
(P. W. 7) and Avtar Singh. The respondent then went to the place near the heap of cotton "sticks" and
recovered the blood stained clo!hes Ex. P. 5 to P. 7, which were in
·jhola' Ex. P. 8, along with a shoe.
The recovered articles
were
taken in police custody vide memorandum Ex. P. Q.
'lt is fiirther
alleged. that the respondent went to the place near the water lift and
dug out a handkerchief which contained currency notes of Rs. 4142/-
gold ring Ex. P. 1 and purse Ex. P. 9.
One currency note No. AD
53007632 <.>f Rs. 100/- (Ex. P. 10), which was at the top of
the
bundle of currency notes, had some blood stained fingerprints.
The
purse (Ex. P. 9) was of plastic on which
Government College,
Mukhtsar, was written in Punjabi and English and it contained a library
card of R.S.D. College, Ferozepur, which contained the address of
the respondent written in English.
The ring was of gold and weighed about 3 grams.
The initials 'N. C.' were inscribed on it.
All
the articles were sealed and were taken in possession vide memorandum Ex. PR. Mohan Lal (P. W. 5) ha~ identified the ring to be that of
his son Nishan Chand which he was wearing when he left the house.
Kartar Singh (P. W. 17) of village Lambi has stated that he prepared
the ring for Nishan Chand 8 or 9 months before his statement and
had made the inscription as desired by him.
The Sub-Inspector made an application before Magistarte Mukhtiar Singh (P. W. 3) on JU!le 28, 1974, for taking the moulds of the
foot-prints of the responde11t.
The moulds prepared by him were
not found fit for comparison and were again taken on July 4, 1974 in
the presence of Magistrate Dina Nath (P. W. 2).
They were sent
for comparison to the Director of Forensic Laboratory who has made
his report Ex. P. FF stating that the impressions on the crime mould
were found to tally with the test moulds.
Finger impressions (Ex. PF /2) of the respondent were also taken
by Magistrate, Mukhtsar, and were sent for comparison along with the
finger impression on the currency note of Rs. 1001- (Ex. P. 10) to
the Director Fingerprint Bqreau, Phillaur.
The Director's report
Ex. P. BB is on the record.
He photographically enlarged the impressions and expressed the opinion that there were eight points of similarity in respect of the form and the position, which were graphically
shown by him in his report, and that the nature, direction and sequence
of each p0int had been indicated in its relevant circle.
According
to the expert, so many points of similarity could not be found to
occur in the impressions of different fingers and that they were "identical or are of one and the same person''.
The expert ignored the
of~er impre>sions which were sufficiently smud,ged or were partly
interfered with bv the design and the printed writing of the currency
note or were faint.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
828
SUPREME COURT REPORTS.
£1978) 3 S.C.R.
A
The respondent was ,medically examined on the wry next day
-~·
of hrs arrest and th~. medical officer's report E~. P .F has been placed
on the rcc'?rd, accoramg to which he had three simple lacerated wounds
of a durat~on of more than 48 hours on the left ring finger.
As ha·s been sfated, the Additional Sessions Jndge of Faridkot found
B
the respondent gmlty of the offences under sections 302, 392 and 397
I.P C.
As the High Court has set aside the conviction by its impugned 1udgment dated July 9, 1975, by giving the benefit of'doubt to the
-~
respondent, Mohan Lal (P. W. 5), father of Nishan Chand (deceased),
and one Surinder Kumar have filed the present appeal by special
leave.
'
·~
The High Court has examined the question of motive first of all
..
c
and has referred to the good relations between the rcsoondent and
-
the deceased.
It has also made a mention of the statement of the
re,pondent that he and the deceased left village
Roranwali on the
,.
bicycle of the deceased, for Malout, on June 17, 1974, at about 7.30
I
a.m.
The High Court has then examined the evidence of the proseI ;
cution regarding the alleged collection of Rs. 42561- by Nishan Chand
·-
from four persons on June 17. 1974. and his failure to deposit the
D
same in the Central Go-operative Bank at Malout and has taken the
view that the collection of the money by Nishan Chand had not been
proved and that the motive for the crime had not been established.
'
The first item of collection relates to the recovery of Rs. 2000 /-
from Avtar Singh (P. W. 10) at Malout on June 17, 1974. Avtar
Singh has stated that he had taken a loan from the Co-operative So·
E
ciety of his village and had been asked by the deceased to repay it.
He promised to make the repayment at Malout Mandi. 1Ie took his
•
wheat there pn June 17, 1974. and asked his commission agent
to
•
pay Rs. 20001- to the deceased.
Rs. 20001- were accordingly paid
by his commission agent to the deceased.
He has further
stated
that one Atma Singh (P. W. 12) paid Rs. 623/- in his presence to
Nishan Chand.
Avtar Singh hpwever did not obtain a receipt for
.,
F
the payment from Nishan Chand.
The High Court has disbelieved the
payment because the name of the commission agent was not disclosed
by Avtar Singh and he d.id not take any receipt or the signature of
Nishan Chand in his bahi in token of the payment. The prosecution
-..
examined Behari Lal (P. W. 26) as the commission agent who had
made the payment of Rs. 20001- on behalf of Avtar Singh to the
\
deceased. The witness produced his bahi entry Ex. P. W. 26/ A in res-
•
G
pect of the payment, but the High Court rejected the evidence because
•
the signature of Nishan Chand was not obtained by Behari Lal.
As
it was possible for the High Court to take that view, we would leave
it al that.
•
Atma Sin~h (P. W. 12) has stated that he paid Rs. li23/- to the
deceased on June 17, 1974, at 2 p.m. after obtaining the money from
'
H
the firm of
Shadi
Ram Amar Nath of Malout.
Avtar Singh
(P. W. 10) has also stated about the making of that payment hy Atma
........
Singh m his presence. but the High Court has rejected the evidence
for want of Nishan Chand's receipt for the payment, ancf tlie failure
-
•
l-.
/
,,\
\ •
..,.
1
.- ~
MOHAN LAL v. AJJT SINGH (Shinghal, J.)
829
to cxammc someone on behalf of the firm which had made the payment.
Herc again, it cannot be said that the view taken by the
High Court was not possible, and we wonld therefore not disturb i.ts
finding in this respect also.
The prosecution, however, examined Balli Singh (P. W. l 1) who
stated that he paid Rs. 856/- to the deceased on June 17, 1974, vide
:receipt Ex. PS at Malout at 2 p.m. after obtaining the money from
his commission agent. It was stated in the receipt that the payment
had been made by way of recovery of the loan from Balli Singh. It
was not disputed that the receipt was signed by Nishan Chand, and
it is not disputed before us that the name has wrongly been printed
as Nishan Singh in the paper hook.
The High Court however rejected the evidence on the ground that Balli Singh did not state who
wrote the receipt Ex. PS and that it bore the signature of Nishan
Chand.
We have gone through the statement of Balli Singh and we
have no doubt that it shows that the payment of Rs. 856/- was made
to the deceased vide receipt Ex. PS. There was as such no• justification
for insisting on the disclosure of the name of the scribe of the receipt;
or the production of other evidence to prove the signature of Nishan
Chand thereon.
There was also no justification for the High Court
to reject the evidence merely because of the failure to examine
a
witness from the shop of the commission agent who had made the
payment.
It has to be appreciated that there was in fact no crosscxamlnation worth the name regarding Balli Singh's statement about
' his liability to pay Rs. 856/- to the, Co-operative Society, and tbe
payment of that money by him to the deceased against receipt Ex. PS.
The prosecution. has, all the same, relied on the statement
of
Inspector Gurdev Singh (P.W. 14) who was Inspector of Co-operative Societies at Lambi, to prove the signature of the deceased on
receipt Ex. PS. The High Court has rejected his evidence to this effect
A
B
c
D
E
on the ground that the witness did not state that he had seen Nishan
Chand signing and writing, and could identify his signature, and also
because he did not state that "in the ordinary course of business
F
documents purported to be written by Nishan Chand had been habitually submitted to him."
We have gone through the statement of
Gurdev Singh (P.W. 14). He was the Inspector of Co-operative
Societies, Lambi, and Nishan Chand was the Secretary of two
Co-
()perative Societies within his area.
The witness was therefore in a
position to state that receipt Ex. PS was in the hand writing of Nishan
Chand and he in fact made a clear statement to that effect in the trial
G
court.
H the defence had any reason to think that he -was not a
competent witness for the purpose of expressing an opinion under
~ection 47 o[ the Evidence, Act, it was open to it to cross-examine him
on the point.
The fact however remains that this was not done.
It would thus appear that the High Court could not have rejec-
'·'-""'
ted the evidence which was furnished by the prosecution in regard
H
to the payment of Rs. 856/- by examining Balli· Singh (P.W. 11)
and Gurdev Singh (P.W. 14) and by producing the original receipt
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
830
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 3 S.C.R.
Ex. PS, and we have no hesitation in holding that the finding of the
trial court in regard to that payment was correct and must be restored.
Evidence has also been led to prove the payment of Rs. 667 /-
to the deceased by one Budh Singh on June 17, 1974, vide pass book
entry Ex. P. 11. It was stated by Gurdev Singh (P.W. 14) that the
entry in the pass book had been made in the hand writing of Nishan
Chand, but the High Court rejected that evidence for
the reason
already stated.
As there was no justification for doing so, we would
restore the finding of.the trial court regarding that item of payment as
well.
The High Court has gone to the extent of basing its finding to thC"
contrary for the further reason that Mohan Lal (P.W. 5), who was
the father of the deceased, did not state that receipt Ex. PS and the
pass book Entry Ex. P. 11 were written and signed by his son Nishan
Chand.
The High Court however forgot that Mohan Lal was an
illiterate man who had thumb-marked even the first
information
report Ex. P.G./l and was not in a position to make a statement
regarding the hand-writing or the signature of his son on t!:e two
documents.
So even if the items of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 623/- are left out,
the fact would still remain that the deceased had a sum
of abcut
Rs. 1533/- with him at the time of his murder.
The High Court
has brushed aside the prosecution evidence in this respect by observing that none of the witnesses has deposed that the respondent was
with the deceased at the time when the payments were made to him.
Here again, the High Court lost sight of the statement of Inspector
Gurdev Singh (P. W. 14) who as the Inspector of Co-operative Societies must have known the Secretaries or the societies within
his
jurisdiction. He has stated that a meeting was called by the Joint
Registrar of Co-operative Societies at Mafout on June 17, 1974, and
tha.t the deceased and the respondent met him in the
Central C!>-
operative Bank at Malout after 3 p.m.
The deceased asked him to
get the mm of more than Rs. 2,000 /- deposited in the bank and the
witness told him that as the cash had been closed by that time, the
money could not be deposited.
He has
further stated that the
deceased then told him that he would
deposit
the amount
of
Rs. 5,000/- the next day as 1w had some more recoveries to make.
No effective cross-examination was directed against the statement of
the Inspector to this effect, and no effective argument has been made
before us why he should not have been believed.
The High Court
thus failed to read the statement of Gurdev Singh
correctly even
though it had a direct bearing on the question of the respondent's
knowledge of the money in the possession of the deceased. Its finding to the contrary must be set aside and it must be held that the
prosecution has succeeded in proving its case about the respondeni's
knowledge that the deceased had collected at least Rs. 2,000/- by the
time he met Inspector Gurdev Singh some time after 3 p.m.
~
(.,
1 -
,.
I
>-
~-
'
•
•
\
¥'
' I
•
•
•
MOHAN LAL v. AJIT SINGH (Shinghal, J.)
831
The High Court has exami~d the question whether there was
A
evidence to prove that the respondent had absconded after the incident, and has found that it could not be said that he did so to conceal
his guilt.
He was arrested on June 21, 1974, and it appears that the
intervening delay would not by itself be evidence of his guilt.
While dealing with the evidence that the deceased was last seen
in the company of the respondent, the High Court has made a
reference to the statement of Mohan Lal (P,W. 5) and to the respondent's admission that he had gone with the deceased,
on
his
bicycle, to Malout, on June 17, 1974,
The prosecution has examined
Darshan Lal (P.W. 6) in regard to their movements at about 6 p.m.
in Lambi and has placed reliance on the statement of Pritam Smgh
(P.W. 9) about their movements within a short distance of village
Roranwali.
We think that the view taken by the High
Court m
regard to the evidence of the~e two witnesses is justified and does not
call for interference.
But the High Court went wrong in finding that there was no cw1dence to prove that the accused was seen with the deceased "before
or after the occurrence," There could possibly be no evidence to
prove that the respondent was seen with the deceased "after" the
occurrence i,e, after his death and the prosecution cannot be blamed
for its inability to -produce any such evidence.
The prosecution has
however led its evidence to prove that the deceased was last seen in
the company of the responden\, and it will be enough to ref~r to two
basic facts in this respectFirstly, the respondent has· adniittcd-in
his statement in the trial court that he and Nishan Chand first went
to Lambi on June 17, 1974; and he did not deny that they went
the.re on Nisl]an Chand's bicycle at about 7.30 a.m. He has also
admitted that he was with Nishan Chand at Malout upto 10 a.m.
He claimed that he went to village Ferozepur thereafter to meet his
elder brother, but that was a matter for hilll to prove, and thereby
establish a good defence.
The fact however remains that he did not
do so and his learned counsel has not thought it possible to explain
why he could not examine his own brother to establish that olea, or
to invite our attention to any other evidence that may have been led
in that behalf.
Secondly, the High Court Jost sight of the fact that
Inspector Gurdev Singh (P. W. 14) of the Co-operative Societies.
Department had clearly stated that he went to Malout OJli J unc 17,
1974 to attend the meeting which had been called by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and that
the
respondent
and
the
deceased met him there after 3 p.m. in the Central Co-operative
Bank
He has further stated that the deceased asked him to get the
sum of Rs. 2,000/- deposited in the bank, but that could not be done
as the cash had been closed.
The witness has stated that a meeting
was actually held in the Rest House that day and that he had gone
to the Bank to collect the figures of recovery for purposes of that
meeting,
The presence of. the de~eased. and , the respondent
was
therefore quite natural as 1t explams their anxiety to make as much
recovery as possible before the meeting.
As has been sho:vn, there
was no reason for disbelieving the statement of Gurdev Smgh, and
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
832
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1978] 3 S.C.R.
A
the _High Coun clearly misread the record in respect of a material
particular m holdmg that there was no evidence to prove that the respondent was last seen in the company of the deceased.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
An attempt was made to argue that if the statement of the respondent is to be considered at all. it must be taken as a whole and that
it is not permissible to act upon one portion of the statement which
shows the presence of the respondent in the company of the deceased,
and leave out those portions which arc
exculpatory. It will
be
enough to say that the matter has been examined by this Court in
Nishi Kant Iha v. State of Bihar('), and as the evidence
on
the
record disproves the exculpatory part of the respondent's statement
in the trial court, it is clearly permissible to accept that part of the
statement which accords with the evidence on the record, and to act
upon it.
Another important piece of evidence against the respondent was
his statement Ex. P-0. dated June 21, 1974, under section 27 of the
Evidence Act and the recoveries which were
made iii pursuance
thereof.
The statcincnt was recorded by Sub-Inspector Hai·nek Siiigh
(P.W. 19) in the presence of Avtar Singh and Balbir Singh (P.W.
7). The prosecution gave up Avtar Singh on the ground that he ha'J
been won over, but Balbir Singh and Harnek Singh were examined
in the trial court.
The High Court however rejected the entire evidence in that respect on the ground that the statements of these two
witnesses were contradictory and inconsistent with each
other and
held that the making of disclosure statement and the alleged recovery
were "concocted by the police."
The only contradiction which has
been pointed out by the High Court is that while according to Harnck
Singh the interrogation of the respondent started on June 23, 1974
at about 12 noon and continued for two hours, Balbir Singh
has
stated that he and Avtar Singh reached the police station at about
12.30 p.m. and the respondenj was interrogated for about 5 or 7
minutes in their orcsence and that he did not make the disclosure
statement.
The High Court has stated further that Balbir Singh has
claimed that he advised the respondent to give the articles which he
Jrnd in his possession, and then he made the disclosure
statement.
~reference to the statements of Harnck Singh (P.W. 19) and Balbir
Singh (P.W. 7) shows however that there is
no contradiction or
inconsistency between them.
Balbir Singh (P.W. 7)
has
clearly
stated that when he reached the police station at about 12.30 p.m.
the respondent was being interrogated there.
His further statement
that the respondent was interrogated for five or seven minutes in his
presence, cannot therefore belie the statement of Harnek Smgh tnat
the interrogation lasted for about two hours.
The Hi!!h Court therefore misread the evidence in this respect.
The High Court also misread the statement of Balbir Singh when it observed that he had
admitted that he did not "know" whether the disclosure statement
(Ex. P.O.) was recorded at the police station before the articles were
recovered or thereafter.
Here again a reference to Balbir Singh's
statement shows that what he stated was that he did not "remember"
(I) [1969] 2 S.C.R. 1033.
1
(.,
..,
~
("
'
t-
' .
•
•
~
(
• •
MOHAN LAL l'. AJIT SINGll (Shinghal, J.)
833
if the disclosure statement was recorded before or after the recovery.
He however proved statement Ex. P.O. and admitted that he attested
it.
He also stated that his own statement was recorded after
the
recovery. It was not found possible to point out any inconsistency in
his version in that statement and his statement in. the trial court.
The High Court, therefore, clearly fell into an error of record in
reaching the .conclusion that the statement of the Sub-Inspector was
belied by the statement of the witness.
The High Court has observed in this connection that Balbir Singh
(P.W. 7) has stated that there were certain footprints near the place
where the money was recovered, but no moulds were prepared by
the police even though it was incumbent for it to do so.
We have
gone through the statement of Balbir Singh, but he has not made any
such statement.
If however anything turned on the failure to take
the moulds of the footprints at the place where the money was recovered, the proper course for the defence was to cross-examine the
Investigating Ofiicer concerned in that respect, but that was not done.
The High Court has disbelieved the
statement
of
Balbir
Singh
(P.W. 7) for the further reason that he had been convicted on some
occosions and his explanatioa that he had gone to the police station
to inquire from the Sub-Inspector whether they should continue to
depute men to keep watch on electricity installations and the SubInspector's reply in the negative. had not been entered in the record
of the police station.
The High Court has obviously relied in this
respect on Balbir Singh's statement that no entry was made in the
daily diary about his visit and inquiry from the Sub-Inspector, but it
was not noticed by the High Court that Balbir Singh was not iii a
position to depose anything about the making er not making of an
entry in the police diary.
That was a matter which could be established by cross-examining the Sub-Inspector or by producing any
other evidence which could show that the entry had not been made in
the daily diary.
So here again the High Court cannot be
said to
have read the evidence on the record correctly.
The High Court has gone to the extent of recording a finding that
the disclosure statement Ex. P.O. was involuntary as the respondent
was "interrogated for several 11 ours after his arrest'', and was hit by
section 24 cf the Evidence Act.
The fact however remains that even
tile respondent has not stated that he was compelled to
make the
disclosure statement. and there is no other evidence to show that this
was so. The High Court has arrived at its conclusion to the contrary
on the basis of the statement of Harnek Singh
(P.W.
19).
The
relevant portion of that statement reads as follows,-
"On 21st June, 1974, I interrogated him where he was
arrested.
He was then taken to Roranwali and was interrogated there in the presence of many persons.
From there
we returned to police station at I 0-30 P.M. On 22nd June,
1974 he was again interrogated at the police station.
But
no other person was present at the time of the interrogation.
He did not give any disclosure statement that day.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
834
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 3 s.c.a.
He was interrogated regarding the handle of the knife.
On
23rd June, 1974 I started interrogating the accused at about
12 noon.
The witnesses came to the police station of their
own accord.
I interrogated him for about two hours."
Three fact~ therefor~ emerge from the statement : (i) that the total
penod of mtcrrogat10n was about two hours, (ii) the interrogation
was made m th.e presence of many persons, and (iii) the interrogation was regardmg the discovery of the handle of the knife of which
th~ blade was found lying near the dead body.
There was thus no
evidence on the reco.rd to justify the finding of the High Court that
the respondent was mterrogated for several hours and that his disclosn~e statement was involuntary so as to attract section 24 of the
Evidence Act. .As it is, the evidence on the record was sufficient to
silo"'. that the statement was not only voluntary bnt it fell within the
purview of section 27 of the Evidence Act in as much as the "fact
discovered" was the place from which the various articles were produced by the respondent and his knowledge of it.
As the information given by the respondent related to that important fact, it was
clearly admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Moreover
the actual ifecovery of the currency notes, the ring and the purse in
pursuance of the information given by the respondent, and at his
instance, was sufficient guarantee of the truth of that information and
it could safely ·have been relied upon by the High Court. The High
Court misread the evidence on the record in taking a contrary view.
The disclosure statement led to the recovery of clothes in
bag
Ex. P. 8 and a shoe underneath the cotton 'sticks' in the kiln near
the 'phirni' of village Khankhanwali vide memorandum
Ex.
P.O.
Then there was the recovery of a bundle of currency notes of the
value of Rs. 4142/- on top of which was the currency note Ex. P. 10
of Rs. 100/- which was suspected to have some fingerprints, the ring
Ex. P. 1 bearing the initials cl Nishan Chand, and the purse Ex. l>. 9
containing the library card of R.S.D. College, Ferozcpur, with the
address of the respondent.
All these were found tied in a handkerchief. which was dug out by the respondent at a place near the
water lift in the middle of the way leading from village Khankhanwali
vide memorandum Ex. P.R.
The High Court brushed aside all this
highly incriminating evidence simply on the ground that the respondent ha~ stated (in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C.) that
the purse was taken by the Sub-Inspector at the time of his arrest and
he had obtained Rs. 4000/- from his.