# RAM NARAIN SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

- **Citation:** [1976] 1 S.C.R. 27
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974-02-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeals Nos. 258 and 259 of 1974
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ram-narain-singh-v-the-state-of-punjab-6499
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

..
\) •
A
B
c
D
E
RAM NARAIN SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
luly 15, 1975
fN. L. UNTWALIA AND S. M. fAz,\L ALI, JJ.J
27
l11co11sistency betlree!l direct evidence and expert evidence -fY hen experr
el'idence prevaiis.
The first appellant was charged \Vith having shot the deceased and killed
him.
According to the prosecution case he shot at the deceased 011/y once .
The Sess:ons Judge convicted and sentenced him to death and the other appel·
!ants, who were alleged to have accompanied the first appellant to various terms
of imprisonment.
The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentences.
Allowing the appeal to this Court,
HELD : { 1) The evidence of some of the witnesses. unmistakably points tn
the conclusion that the occurrence really took place at 8 P.h-f.
when it was
dark, a·nd if that is so, then thi::re is no evid~nce on the record to show how
the appellant could have been identified by the witnesses. [35D]
( 2) A combined reading of the report of the medical
expert and
the
ballistic expert in the present case clearly established that the deceased died of
of two gun shot injuries and the prosecution has not been able to explain this
important circumstance.
The evidence of the two e)"e witnesses is wholly in·
consistent with the medical evidence as also the evidence of the ballistic expert
and must be rejected on that ground alone, apart from other inherent impro·
babilities which aopear in the evidence. Where the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses is lotally ini:onsistent with the medical evidence or the evidenee of
the ballistic expefr, tn1s ts a most fundamental defect in the prosecution case
and unless reasonably explained it is sufficient to discredit the entire case. Where
the direct evidence is not supported by expert evidence then the evidence is
wanting in the most ma"erial part of the prosecution case and it would be difficult to convict the accused on the basis of such evidence. [33C; 36H; 37C]
Mdl1inder Singh v. The State, [1950] &.C.R. 821, followed.

## Text

..
\) •
A
B
c
D
E
RAM NARAIN SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
luly 15, 1975
fN. L. UNTWALIA AND S. M. fAz,\L ALI, JJ.J
27
l11co11sistency betlree!l direct evidence and expert evidence -fY hen experr
el'idence prevaiis.
The first appellant was charged \Vith having shot the deceased and killed
him.
According to the prosecution case he shot at the deceased 011/y once .
The Sess:ons Judge convicted and sentenced him to death and the other appel·
!ants, who were alleged to have accompanied the first appellant to various terms
of imprisonment.
The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentences.
Allowing the appeal to this Court,
HELD : { 1) The evidence of some of the witnesses. unmistakably points tn
the conclusion that the occurrence really took place at 8 P.h-f.
when it was
dark, a·nd if that is so, then thi::re is no evid~nce on the record to show how
the appellant could have been identified by the witnesses. [35D]
( 2) A combined reading of the report of the medical
expert and
the
ballistic expert in the present case clearly established that the deceased died of
of two gun shot injuries and the prosecution has not been able to explain this
important circumstance.
The evidence of the two e)"e witnesses is wholly in·
consistent with the medical evidence as also the evidence of the ballistic expert
and must be rejected on that ground alone, apart from other inherent impro·
babilities which aopear in the evidence. Where the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses is lotally ini:onsistent with the medical evidence or the evidenee of
the ballistic expefr, tn1s ts a most fundamental defect in the prosecution case
and unless reasonably explained it is sufficient to discredit the entire case. Where
the direct evidence is not supported by expert evidence then the evidence is
wanting in the most ma"erial part of the prosecution case and it would be difficult to convict the accused on the basis of such evidence. [33C; 36H; 37C]
Mdl1inder Singh v. The State, [1950] &.C.R. 821, followed.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeals Nos. 258
and 259 of 1974.
F
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated the
G
19th February, 1974 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 778 of 1973 and Murder Ref. No. 41 of 1973.
A. N. Mu/la, H. S. Marwaha, K. B. Rohtagi and D. R. Gupta, for
the appellants.
(In Crl. A. No. 258/74).
0. P. Sharma and Dewan Balak Ram, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAZAL ALI, J. Crimianl Appeal No. 258 of 1974 by special leave
has been preferred by the appellant Ram Narain Singh who was tried
by the Sessions Judge, Bhatinda who convicted the appellant under
s. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to death and a fine of Rs. 2,000/· or
in default further rigorous imprisonment for two years.
Ram Narain
Singh was also convicted under s. 307 /34 and sentenced to three years
R.I. and a fine of Rs. 300/-, under s. 449 I.P.C. and sentenced to three
year; R.I. and a fine of Rs. 300/-.
There was a further conviction
_)
28
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976) 1 S.C.R.
in so far as Ram Narain Singh is concerned un!ler s. 324/34 I.P.C.
under which he was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and
under s. 323/34 I.P.C. to six months R.I.
All the sentences to nm
concurrently.
The other appellants Jaggar Singh, Habm Singh and
Mal Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 1974 were convicted under
s. 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for lifo and a fine of
Rs. 1000/- each or in default one year's R.I. each.
Jaggar Singh was
also convicted under s. 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to three years R.I.
and a fine of Rs. 300/-, under s. 449 I.P.C. to three years R.I. and
a fine of Rs. 300, and under s. 324/34 I.P.C. to one year·s R.I. Hakam
Singh and Mal Singh were also convicted under s. 307 /34 I.P.C. and
sentenced to three years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 300/- each, Hakam
Singh was also convicted under s. 324/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to one
year's R.f. and under s. 323 l.P.C. and sentenced to six months R.I.
while Mal Singh was convicted under s. 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to one
year JU. and under s. 323/34 l.P.C. and sentenced to six months R.J.
Al! the sentences to run concurrently.
The learned Sessions Judge has
also made a reference to the High Court of Punjab & Haryana for
confirmation of the death sentence passed on Ram Narain Singh.
All
the appellants had filed separate appeals before the High Court which
were ~malgamated and were heard and decided by one judgment.
The
High Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the convictions and
sentences passed by the Sessions Judge and on its refusal to grant leave
to appeal to the Supreme Court the appellants came up for special leave
to thi~ Court which granted special leave.
Jaggar Singh, Hakam Singh
and Mal Singh have filed a separate appeal to this Court, in which case
also cpecial leave was granted by this Court, and as both the appeals
nrise out of a common judgment, we propose to deal with them by one
judgment.
Put hricfiy the prosecution case is that the appellant Ram Narain
Singh was the Sarpanch of the Dram Panchayat of village Hassanpur
and is alleged to have forcibly taken possession of 10 Kilas of land
belonging to the Panchayat.
Despite several attempts by the Panchayat to dislodge the appellant Ram Narain Singh from this land nothing
of consequence happened as a result of which the members of the
Panchayat filed a complaint against Ram Narain Singh before the
Deputy Commissioner seeking ejectment of Ram Narain Singh from the
land.
The deceased Teja Singh and his brother Surjit Singh being
mcm bers of the said Panchayat took an active part in the campaign for
ousting Ram Narain Singh from the Panchayat land which he had
forcibly taken possession of.
According to the prosecution, the appellant Ram Narain Singh nursed a serious grouse against the deceased
and Suriit Singh for their action. It is also alleged that the deceased
had threatened Ram Narain Singh some time before the occurrence that
if Ram Narain Singh did not surrender the possession voluntarily he
will get Hm dispossessed.
The story of the prosecution further discloses that on the date of occurrence i.e. October 2, 1972 the deceased
along with his brothers Suriit Sfogh and Joginder Singh had 'gone to
attend a fair at village Phaphre Bhaike and after spending a day there
they were returning to their own village near about the sun-set, when
~omewhere on the way Teja Singh stayed behind to answer the call
A
B
..
' ( ·-
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
•
c
D
1:
F
•
G
H
R.AM NARAIN SINGH v. PUNJAB (Fazal Ali, J.)
29
of nature while the other two companions, namely, Surjit Singh and
Joginder Singh proceeded to their house.
Teja Singh also arrived at·
the house soon thereafter.
Within a few minutes of the arrival of Teja
Singh in the house, the accused Ram Narain Singh and Jaggar Singh
armed with single barrel guns entered the house along with Mal Singh
and Hakam Singh who were armed with Gandasas.
Mal Singh and
Hakam Singh remained at the door of the house, whereas the appellants
Ram Narain Singh and Jaggar Singh entered the house.
As soon as
they entered the house, Jaggar Singh aimed the gun at Surjit Singh P.W.
and fired at him.
Fortunately the fire missed him.
Thereafter Ram
Narain Singh fired a shot from his gun which hit Teja Singh on his
chest as a rcsul t of which he fell down and died on the 'pot. Thereafter both the accused caught the deceased from his legs and hands and
dragged him out of the house at some distance.
When Surjit Singh
P.W. tried to intervene he was hit by Mal Singh with a
Gandasa .
Hakam Singh accused also followed suit and inflicted three Gandasa
blows on his right leg, right arm and back. Meanwhile Jogindcr Singh
appeared on the scene with a Gandasa in his hand and raised alarm
whereupon all the accused ran away from the place of occurrence along
with their weapons.
The dead body of the deceased Teja Singh was
removed to the courtyard of the house and kept there.
Surjit Singh
P.W. who was one of the injured brothers left the dead body at the
spot and proceeded to the police station at Bhikhi through fields and
pastures to avoid any confrontation with the accused and lodged the
first information report Ext. P.G. at 11-50 P.M.
A.S.l. Kuldip Singh
prepared an injury statement and got Sur.iit Singh admitted into the
Civil Dispensary, Bhikhi. The A.S.I. Knldip Singh reached the place
of occt.rrcucc at 2-30 A.M. on October 3, 1972 and held inquest on
the dead body of Teja Singh.
The A.S.I. found blood-stained earth
from und,,rneath the deaJ body of the deceased as also from outsidcthc house.
He also took possession of two empty cartridges Exts. P-11
and P-12 which were lying near the entrance door .. We might also
mrntion here that the definite case of prosecution before the Sessions
Judge was that while the shot was fired at the deceased Teja Singh by
Ram Narain Singh he had kept the right hand flexed on his chest. lt
was thus stated by the eye witnesses that at the time of firing, the
deceased had put his right hand on his chest.
These two additions
or embellishments appear to us to have been necessitated in order to
bring the evidence of the eye witnesses in consonance with the evidence
of the Doctc,r as also that of the ballistic expert, and we shall deal
with this aspect of the matter a little later.
In the course of investigation, Kamai! Singh P.W. a distant relation of the deceased produced
the accused Ram Narain Singh and others before the A.S.I. along .with
the ri!lc and a Jhola containing the carhidges as also the blood-stained
gandasa. The police after usual investigations submitted charge-sheets
against all the accused persons as a result of which they were committed
for trial. before the learned Sessions Judge who convicted them as
indicated above.
The defence of the accused was that the prosecution had concocted
a false case against the accused due to enmity and with a view to
wreak vengeance on the accused Ram Narain Singh for not giving up
30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 1 S.C.R.
possession ct the Panchayat land.
It was further alleged
by
the
defence that all the witnesses examined in this case were inimicall:v
<lisposed towards the accused.
The learned Sessions Judge, after consi-
.clering the entire evidence on the record, accepted the prosecution case
and convicted the accused. The accused then filed an appeal before the
High Court which was dismiss·ed and hence these appeals by special
Jt:ave.
A
B
Mr. A. N. Mu.la counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention
~
to certain outstanding features of this case which, according to him, are
~uflicient to throw doubt on the entire prosecution case.
In this
<:onnection he has raised the following three important contentions :
Firstly, it was argued that the prosecution witnesses have concealed
the true version of the occurrence and even if their statements arc taken
C
at their face value it is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence as
also the ballistic expert's evidence.
Seconuly, it was urged that the prosecution has changed the time
and place of occurrence and it was suggested that the deceased may
haYe been assaulted by an unidentified assailant somewhere in the
fields and the appellants have been falsely implicated in the offence.
D
Thiruly. it was argued that the entire prosecution case was sought to
'be proved by the partisan evidence which ought not to have been
ac,;eptcd in this case and the dramatic production of the gun and
Dthcr wc·apons by all the accused persons at the instance of Karnail
-Singh P.W. an enemy of the accused smacks of pure concoction and
.appears to be too good to be true.
E
Before dealing with the contentions raised by the learned counsel
for the appellants we would like to indicate the nature of the evidence
kd by the prosecution in support of the case.
To begin with, there
is the central evidence consisting of two eye wir,1esses Surjit Singh and
Jogindcr Singh the brothers of the deceased who were in the house
when the deceased Teja Singh and Surjit Singh were attacked.
This
evidence is sought to be corroborated by the evidence of P.W.
IS
Buggar Singh who deposed that he had seen the accused proceeding
to the house of Teja Singh armed with a gun and gandasa.
Mohinder
·singb P.W. 16 ~nother witness for the prosecution seeks to corroborate
the evidence of the eye witnesses by stating that immediately after the
occurrence Joginder Singh came to him and informed him about the
•Occnrrencc.
Finally, there is the evidence of Koarnail s;.,gh and the
A. S. J. Balwant Singh to prove the production of the guns and the
blood·•tained gandasas by all the accused on which strong reliance ha'
'been placed by the courts below.
Coming to the evidence of Surjit Singh who has been described
'by the High Court as a stamped wit,1ess as he had been injured by the
-<iccused in the course of the occurrence, a careful perusal of his evidence would clearly show that it is replete with inherent improbabilities
;and full of serious contradictions and meaningful embellishments. After
F
G
H
•
)-
-
•
!V.M NARAIN SINGH v. PUNJAB (Fazal Ali, J.)
31
A
giving the narrative of the occurrence as detailed above, the witness
goes on to state that leaving Joginder Sh1gh at the spot he proceeded
to police station Bhiki on foot and he traversed through the fields lest
he may be way-laid by the accused and killed.
The witness doe~ not
give any explanation why he .did not call ~ny per~on !rom the villa~
and ask him to accompany him to the police stalion if he was afraid
of the accused and particularly WhC',1 he was oalso injured.
Secondly,
ll
according to the witness, although the occurrence took pface at about
6-30 P.M. he left the village for police station at 8-00 P.M. i.e. after
about H hours.
He further admits in cross-examination at P. 39 of
the High Court Paper Book that during this period he did not infor.m
any body in the village regarding the occurrence.
Although the witness says in Court that he had asked Jog!nd~r ~ingh to rilfo~m ~c
people of the village Panchayat, yet .h" ad!111ts m his cross ~xa~at10n
c
that he did not mention that fact either m the F.I.R. or m his statement before the Committing Magistmtc.
The witness further admits
that no body else came to the spot so long as he was in the village. We
fi11d it difficult to believe that although such a serious occurrence had
taken place resulting in gunshot injuries to the deceased and gandasa
injuries to Surjit Singh, yet the informant took no steps to inform any
body and no bod:y came to the scene of occurrence. Such an unnaD
tural conduct can only be consistent with the fact that the deceased
may have been assaulted at a later point of time in the night by some
unidentified assailants and then brought to the house.
The rJformant
also does .not give any explanation why he took full H hours to leave
the village for the police station.
This is yet an intrinsic circumstance
to support the theory of the accused that the occurrence must have
taken place at 8.00 P.M. and this theory is supported by the other
E
prosecution witnesses, as we shall show hereafter.
A\1other significant
fact which may be noted in his evidence is that although two empty
cartridges were lying on the spot, he did not take care to collect them
and produce tbe same before the police when he went there to lodge
the FJ.R. Finally, .he says in his evidence that after firing at the deseased, the accused t.hrew the empties and reloaded their guns but
did not fire again. It is 1.1ot a~ all understandable as to why this was
F
so.
According to his evidence, Surjit Singh himself was the
main
target of the appellant Jag~ar Singh and if the first shot missed him.
it i• not understandable why Jaggar Singh did not make an attempt to
fire for the second time after he h•ad reloaded his gun.
In fact the
story about. the reloading of the gw1s also came to light for the first
time in tbe Sessions Court and does not find place in the statement of
Ibis witness either in the F.I.R. before the Police or the Committinrr
G
Magistrate.
But the most imoortant circumstance which discredit~
the c.vidence of this witness is the manne'. in .which Ram Narap,1 Singh
JS said to have assaulted the deceased Teia Smgh. It is the consistoot
evide'ace o~ thi~ witness as also of his hr.other Joginder Singh that when
Ram Naram ~mgh. fired a .shot from his gun, Teja Singh had put his
arm on the nght side of his chest.
This particular oosture was undoubtedly a most c.onspicuous fact which could not have been missed
H
by the witness if it was really there.
In these circumstances, therefore,
~e shou)d have expected this fact to be mentioned in the F.I.R. but
JS consp1CUOusly absent from the F.I.R., nor was this fact mentioned
by either Surjit Singh or his brother Joginder Singh in their statements
32
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 1 s.c.R.
before the police or before the Committing Magistrate. It seems to us
that the theory of the deceased having placed his arm on the right side
of hi~ chest has been introduced only after the Doctor who was examined
as the second witness in the Sessions Conrt stated in his examinationin-chief that if the elbow of right arm is flexed lying in front of the
chest, then injuries Nos. l to 4 could be caused with a single fire arm
discharge. It would appear that this witness was examined before the
Sessions Court on May 14, 1973 and P.W. Surjit Singh was examined
on the same day after the evidence of the Doctor was recorded. P.Ws
Surjit Singh and J oginder Singh had to introduce the theory of the
deceased having put his. right arm on his chest to bring the occurrence
in tune and in consonance with the evid(jilce of the Doctor. This was
undoubtedly a belated idea bwause if it had been a fact there is no
reason why the eye witnesses should not have deposed to it in their
statements before the police or even before the Committing Court.
Till that time the witnesses were not aware of the i11juries said to have
been caused to the deceased Ram Namin Singh by a single fire unless
the deceased was in a particular posture.
This fad came to light for
the first time when the Doctor was examined in the Sessions Court
and the witnesses in order to corroborate their testimony with the
evidence of the Doctor introduced this embellishment i·a the story of
the assault on the deceased.
Considered against this back ground,
the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the evidence of the eye witnesses was inconsistent with the medical evidence
appears to be well founded.
In other words, the positic>.1 is that if we
discard this part of the evidence of the eye witnesses which has come to
light for the first time in the Sessions Court, then according to medical
evidence, the deceased would have got two gunshots whereas it was
never the prosecution case that Ram Narain Singh or any other accused
fired a second shot at the deceased at any time.
The medical evidence,
therefore, clearly falsifies the prosecution case regarding the manner
in which the deceased was hit.
Even the ballistic expert on a question by the Court deposed as
A
B
c
D
E
~~:
F
"In case if it is a straight fire, and if the right arm is kept
just in front of the chest, then it is possible that these injuries could be caused by one single fire."
Thus, according to the ballistic expert's evidence, unless there was
cogent material and reliable evidence to show that the deceased had
·kept his right arm i'.1 front of his chest, the deceased could not have
susVaincd less than two injuries.
The evidence of Snrjit Singll
and
Joginder Singh on this point appears to us to be clearly an afterthought
and cannot be accepted.
Thus the prosecution has not been
able
to explain how the deceased died whether by sustaining one gun-shot
injury.
Further more, the evidence of Dr. S. S. Walia shows that
there were two gunshot injuries on Teja Singll, namely, injury No. 1
which by itself was sufficient to cause his death, and injury No. 4
which was also the result of the gunshot.
The Doctor has further
opined in his cross-examination that both injuries Nos. 2 and 4 could
G
H
,
•
A
B
c
-
D
E
-
F
'
G
H
RAM NARAIN SINGH v. PUNJAB (Fazal Ali, !.)
33
have been caused from a distance of less than 4 feet and that there
was blackening both on injury Nos. 4 and 2 which were on the uncovered parts of the body.
The Doctor further deposed that there
was corresponding burning of the shirt by injuries Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
If this be the position, then injury No. 4 is not at all explained. The
blackening on injury No. 4 clearly indicates that this was also
a
.gunshot injury and the ballistic expert has also testified to the effect
at P. 60 of the High Court Paper Book that in case the blackening
which has been reported by the doctor in injury No. 2 and injury No.
4 were not the actual blackening due to tk powder gases then it is
possible that it could be from one single fire.
The doctor, however,
says nothing of this sort.
Thus a combined reading of Dr. Walia
the medical Expert and Mr. J. K. Sinha, Ballistic expert, clearly establishes that the deceased died of two gunshot injuries and the prosecution has not been able to explain this important circumstance. For
these reasons, therefore, the evidence of the two eye witnesses Surjit
Singh and Joginder Singh is wholly inconsistent with the
medical
evidence as also the evidence of ballistic expert and must be rejected
on that ground alone, apart from other inherent improbabilities which
appear in their evidence and which have already been pointed oul.
Apart from the infirmities from which the evidence of Surjit Singh
appears to suffer, J oginder Singh's evidence aim suffers from the same
defects of a vital character.
He also, like Surjit Smgh, had
never
mentioned the fact of the deceased having flexed his arm near the right
side of his chest either before the police or in his statement before the
Committing Magistrate but mentioned it for the first time before the
Sessions Court obviously to bring his evidence in line with the Doctor's
view.
This witness then says that he went to inform the village people
and thus caatra.Jicts Surjit Singh who stated that no body came to the
place of occurrence and who' had not said before the police that Joginder Singh had been sent to inform the members of the Panchayat.
Furthermore, the story of reloading of the guns and throwing the
empty C'artridges appears to be an afterthought, because it does not
find place either in the F.I.R. or in the stateme'at before the police or
even before the Committing Court. Apart from these, there is one
more important intrinsic circumstance appearing from his evidence
which establishes without any shadow of doubt that the occurrence
could not have taken place at 6-30 P.M.
While Joginder Singh was
giving his evide1ace in the Court and was narrating the story that on
their return from village Phaphre Bhaikc, Teja Singh stayed away to
answer call of nature, the observation of the Sessions Judge is that the
witness started shaking and he was given time to compose himself.
It seems to us that the story of the deceased having gone to answer the
call of nature is a faked one and it must be at that time that he may
have been attacked by unidentified assailants and killed and as the
witness was deposing falsely his conscience pricked him and he started
shaking and was given time by the Court of Session to compose himself.
Again in his evidence he makes out a new case that after tho
assault on Surjit Singh he picked up a gandasa, raised lalkara land nln
after the accused.
This is neither mentioned by Surjit Singh in his evidence nor is it mentioned in the F.l.R. nor has this witness mentioned
4-L714StlJ)CI/75
34
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 1 S.C.R.
this fact in his statement before the police.
Another important circumstance which throws serious doubt on the credibility of these two witnesses (Surjit Singh and Joginder Singh) is that although both these
witnesses stated that two gunshots had been fired one by Jaggar Singh
which missed Surjit Singh and the other by the accused Ram Narai·a
Singh which hit the deceased and ij' the medical evidence is to be believed then there is also a third fire because the dece\\sed had two gunshot injuries Nos. 2 and 4, yet no pellets were found either in
the
courtyard or in the house or embedded in the wall. What happened
to these pellets, no one knows.
This is, in our opinion, a very strong
circumstance to indicate that the occurrence did not take place in the
house at all but had taken place some where iμ the fields at about 8 P.M.
when the injured persons were not in a position to identify the assailants.
But the situs of the occurreace has been shifted to the house
in order to implicate the accused.
For these reasons, therefore, we
are satisfied that the evidence of P.Ws Surjit Singh and Joginder Singh
is not worthy Qf credence and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on
their evidence. If we disbelieve their evidence, then it follows that
the evidence of Mohi•ader Singh and other witnesses which is only of
corroborative type would not in any way improve the prosecution case.
The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the
prosecution version is inconsistent with the medical evidence must,
therefore, prevail and on this grou;id alone the prosecution case is fit
to be rejected.
This brings us to the other aspects of the case, namely, whether or
not the prosecution had tried to change the time and place of occurrence, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants.
There
is no direct evidence to show that the occurrence took place at 8-00
P.M. but there are certain strong circumstances which lead to the
irresistible inference and an inescapable conclusion that the occurrence
must have taken place at about 8 P.M.
In the first place, the informant himself has categorically stated in his evidence that he had left
for the police station at 8-00 P.M. although the occurrence had taken
place at 6-30 P.M.
He has not given a•ay explanation why he waited
in the village for 1; hours if he eventually decided to go to the police
station alone without taking any escort.
This clearly shows that the
occurrence must have taken place at about 8-00 P .M. and the time
has been shifted to 6-30 P.M. only with a view to make it appear that
the occurrence took place in the house where the accused could be
properly identified.
Another important circumstance whJch supports
this raference is that according to the evidence of Suriit Singh who
stated at P. 41 of the High Court Paper Book that they had taken their
food at village Phaphre Bhaike about an hour before the occurrence.
Here he is completely belied by the medical evidence of Dr. Walia
which shows that undigested food was found in the stomach of the
deceased and according to him the deceased must have taken
his
food only five minutes before his death or at the most within half an
hour of his death. Doctor's evidence, therefore clearly shows that he
must have taken his food at 8-00 P .M. which is also the usual time
when the villagers take their food.
Another important circumstance
which shows that the occurrence must have taken place at 8-00 P.M.
is the evidence of P .W. 15 Baggar Singh that after bearing about the
A
•
B
c
D
E
F
•
G
H
.,
I •
,
A
B
c
D
RAM NARAIN SINGH v. PUNJAB (Fazal Ali, !.)
35
occurrence he came out of his house after about four hours of the alleged firing and went to the spot about H hours before the police arrived.
The witness states that the police arrived at the spot about 1 t hours
after he had gone to the spot. According to the evidence of the A.S..I.
he had proceeded to the village Hassanpur at about 2-30 A.M.
on
October 3, 1972. This means that the witness must hav·~ reached the
spot at about 1-00 A.M.
This would put the occurrence at about
9-00 P.M. 0"1 October 2, 1972 as the witness stirred out of his house
four hour after the occurrence. This version also belies the version
of the two eye witnesses that the occurrence took place in their house
at about 6-30 P.M .
Finally, there is the evidonce of Mohinder Singh P.W. 16 who deposed in very clear terms that it was about 8.00 or 8-30 P.M. when
he was present in his house when Joi:inder Singh came there and informed him that Jaggar Singh had fired at Surjit Singh but the shot had n0t
hit him and thereafter Ram Narain Singh had shot dead Teja Singh and
that Mal Singh and Hakam Singh had iajured Surjit Singh.
This also
places the occurrence between 8.00 to 8-30 P.M.
The cumulative
effect of all these circumstances, unmistakably point out to the con..:lusion that the occurrence really took place at 8-00 P.M. and if that is so,
then there is no evidence on the record to show how the appellants
could have been identified by the witnesses.
On the day of the occurrence i.e. October 2, 1972, it would be
quite dark at 8-00 P .M. and unless there was some light burning in the
house it would be difficult for the witnesses to have identified
the
assailants and to have given such a graphic description of the occurrE
ence.
Thus if the occurrence took place at 8-00 P.M. there can be
only two possibilities-( I) that the deceased Teja Singh and the injured
Surjit Singh were assaulted near the fields in dark nii;ht and they were
not able to identify the assailants. It is possible that the appellants
may have been the real assailants but the question is one of identification; and (2) that the occurrence took place inside the house of the
deceased.
There also the accused could not be identified because
F
there is no evidence of any witness to show that any light was burning
ther·c, nor does any of the eye witnesses say that he had identified
the accused by voice.
For these reasons, therefore, we are convinced
that even accepting the prosecution case at its face value, if the occurrence took placo at 8-00 P.M. th·~ possibility of mistake in identification cannot be excluded in the pr~sent circumstances.
G
II
Another important circumstance which throws very serious doubt
on the prosecution case and which shows that the prosecution
has
overstated its case is the dramatic production by the uccused persons
of the guns and the blood-stained gandasa at the instance of Karnail
Singh who was by no means favourably inclined towards the accused
being a distant relation of the deceased.
Karnail Singh states that on
October 4, 1972 he produced all the four accused persons before the
Investigating Officer in the school premises.
The appellant
R>am
N arai'a Singh was carrying his gun Ext. P-13 and a !ho/a Ext. P-14
which contained four live cartridges as also his licence.
Similarly
Jaggar Singh was carrying another gun Ext. P-20 and a Jhola Ext. P-21
3G
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 1 S.C.R.
containing live cartridges.
Both the guns were sealed into a parcel
and seized by the police.
Hakam Singh was carrying a Gandasa at
that time of his arrest which was blood-stained even at the time.
In
cross examination the witness admitted that he never produced any
other accused before the police prior to the occurrence.
He further
admitted that the A.S.I. did not see the barrel of the guns in his presence
by opening it in his presence, to find out whether it was recently fired.
He further admits that some blood was sticking to the blade of the
Gandasa produced b.y the accused Hakam Singh.
The story given
out by this witness appears to be too good to be true and is full
of
inherent improbabilities.
We do not find any good reason why the
accused should have suddenly agreed to enlist the services of this
witness particularly when he was a relation of the deceased in order to
appear before the police along with the weapons only two days after
the commission of the offence.
fodeed if the accused were such desperados they could have gone to the police station direct and admitted
their guilt. It is also difficult to believe that although the weapons were
produced two days after the occurrence the accused would not take
the precaution of washing off the blood marks from the Gandasa.
It
seems to us that there was no such dramatic; production before
the
police.
Both the appellants Ram Narain Singh and Jaggar
Singh
possessed licences for holdlag guns and although the cartridges found
could have been fired from their guns there was no relia1ile evidence
to show that the guns were recently fired.
In these circumstances,
therefore, the mere possession of the guns and the live cartridges would
not connect the accused with the crime.
In fact the prod\lctio1a of the
accused by Karnail Singh clearly shows that the prosecution can go to
any extent in concocting the case against the accused, particularly in
the back ground of enmity which existed between the accused and the
deceased.
We are, however, 1aot in a position to- believe this as
a
probable story.
The learned counsel for the appellant was, therefore,
fully justified in submitting that the dramatic production of the accused
with their weapons was a meaningful embellishment by the prosecution which cannot be believed.
A
B
c
D
The High Court appears to have overlooked most of these circumsF
lances discussed by us which were extremely damaging to the prosecution case. The High Court has lightly brushed aside the inconsistency
between the medical evidence and the prosecution version.
The question of the time of occurrence having been shifted from 8-00 P.M. to
6-30 P.M. has been blindly believed as also the evidence regarding the
production of the weapons by the accused.
In view of these striking
circumstances, we should have expected the High Court to have appG
roached this case with much more care and caution than it has, particularly when a death sentence was involved.
Where the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is totally
inconsiste1,1t with the medical evidence or the evidence of the ballistic
expert, this is a most fundamental defect in the prosecution case and
unless reasonably explained it is sufticient to discredit entire case.
In
Mohinder Singh v. The State(!) this Courl observed in similar circumstances a~ follows :
(I) [1950] S. C.R. ~21.
H
•
A
B
,
c
D
E
-
' )
RAM NARAIN SINGH v. PUNJAB (Fazal Ali, J.)
"In a case where death is due to injuries or wou•ads caused
by a lethal weapon, it has always been considered to be the
duty o! the prosecution to prove by expert evidence that it
was likely or at least possible for the injuries to have been
caused with the weapon with which and in the manner in
which they are alleged to have been caused.
It is elementary that where the prosecution has a definite or positive case,
it is doubtful whether the i•ajuries which are attributed to the
appell•ant were caused by a gun or by a rifle."
37
It is obvious that where the direct evidence is not supported by the
expert evidence, then the evidence is wanting in the most material part
of the prosecution case and it would be difficult to convict the accused
on the basis of such evidence.
While appreciating the evidence of
the witnesses, the High Court.does not appear to have cmsidered this
important aspect, but readily accepted the prosecution case without
noticing that the evidence of the eye witnesses in the Court was a belated
attempt to improve their testimony and bring the same in line with
the Doctor's evidence with a view to support an incorrect case.
For the reasons given above we were satisfied that the prosecutio>a
had not been able to prove its case against any of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt and the appellants were, therefore, entitled to an
acquittal.
By our order passed on May 2, 1975, we had allowed the
appeals and set aside the convictions of and the sentences passed a.1
the appellants. They were directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
We
deliver our reasoned judgment to-day in support of the order of acquittal already passed.
P.B.R.
Appeals al/owed.