# RUPINDER SINGH SANDHU v. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2018] 6 S.C.R. 479
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2018-05-15
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2007
- **Bench:** J. Chelameswar, Sanjay Kishan Kaul
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rupinder-singh-sandhu-v-state-of-punjab-others-33234
- **Pages:** 31

## Headnote

Penal Code, 1860 - ss.299 and 304 Part-II r/w. s.34 -
Conviction under - Propriety of - PW3 & PW4 were travelling in a
Maruti Car driven by 'GS' - Dispute arose on the right of way
between the accused persons (A-1 and A-2) and 'GS' - Allegedly,
A-1 pulled 'GS' out of the vehicle and inflicted fist blows whereafter,
he died while being taken to hospital - FIR registered u/ss.304/34
against A1 and un-named second accused - Trial court acquitted
both the accused - High Court reversed the acquittal - Held: Medical
evidence is absolutely uncertain regarding the cause of death of
the deceased - The only fact established on evidence is that A-1
gave a single fist blow on the head of the deceased - No weapon
was used, nor was there any past enmity between the accused and
the deceased - There is no evidence of any concomitant brain injury
- Post-mortem report is silent in this regard - Pathologist's report is
clear about the absence of any pathology in brain, however, he
noticed a large number of abnormalities in the condition of the
heart of the deceased - Such being the evidence on record,
conclusion of High Court that death of deceased was caused by
subdural hemorrhage but not cardiac arrest is not based on any
evidence on record and is a pure conjecture - A-1 cannot be held
to be responsible for causing the death of the deceased - Further,
as far as A2 is considered, the FIR mentioned the name of only A1
and the second participant in the incident was said to be a "clean
shaven man" and it did not mention that the clean shaven man either
attacked or inflicted any injury on the body of the deceased - No
material on record to indicate the basis on which the prosecution
came to the conclusion that A-2 was that clean shaven man -
Nothing on record to prove that he attacked the deceased or that he
shared a common intention with A-1 to commit the offence of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder- It is not safe to convict A-2 on
[2018] 6 S.C.R. 479
 479
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
480
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
the basis of the evidence of PWs 3 and 4, recorded some 7 years
after the incident - Judgment of High Court insofar as A2 is
concerned, is also set aside - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
ss.173 and 319.
Evidence - Related witnesses - Appreciation of.
Allowing the appeals of the accused and dismissing that of
the complainant, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the entire judgment of the High Court, there
are only two sentences which mention the name of the second
accused. There is no discussion in the judgment of the High Court
as to at what point of time during the course of investigation,
A-2 was identified to be the other clean shaven person travelling
with A-1 on the fateful day and what was the evidence on the
basis of which the prosecution reached such conclusion except
the statements (made after 7 years after the event) of PW-3 and
PW-4 made at the time of the trial. It is unfortunate that the High
Court thought it fit to reverse the acquittal recorded by the
Sessions Court and to convict A-2 for an offence under Section
304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC on the basis of such frivolous
analysis. [Para 29] [494-D-E]
1.2 The FIR mentioned the name of only A1 and the second
participant in the incident was said to be a "clean shaven man".
The FIR does not mention that the clean shaven man either
attacked or inflicted any injury on the body of the deceased. It
only mentioned that he inflicted fist blows on PW3. The material
on record is absolutely bereft of the information regarding the
fact as to at which point of time A-2 was identified to be that
'clean shaven man' who participated in the incident along with A1 by the investigating agency. Nor is there any material on record
to indicate the basis on which the prosecution came to the
conclusion that A-2 was that clean shaven man. PW3 and PW4
were examined at the time of inquest over the dead body of the
deceased, which took place according to the prosecution at 3.30
p.m. on

## Text

_Characters 0–39,857 of 72,510. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39857 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
479
RUPINDER SINGH SANDHU
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS
(Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2007)
MAY 15, 2018
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]
 Penal Code, 1860 - ss.299 and 304 Part-II r/w. s.34 -
Conviction under - Propriety of - PW3 & PW4 were travelling in a
Maruti Car driven by 'GS' - Dispute arose on the right of way
between the accused persons (A-1 and A-2) and 'GS' - Allegedly,
A-1 pulled 'GS' out of the vehicle and inflicted fist blows whereafter,
he died while being taken to hospital - FIR registered u/ss.304/34
against A1 and un-named second accused - Trial court acquitted
both the accused - High Court reversed the acquittal - Held: Medical
evidence is absolutely uncertain regarding the cause of death of
the deceased - The only fact established on evidence is that A-1
gave a single fist blow on the head of the deceased - No weapon
was used, nor was there any past enmity between the accused and
the deceased - There is no evidence of any concomitant brain injury
- Post-mortem report is silent in this regard - Pathologist's report is
clear about the absence of any pathology in brain, however, he
noticed a large number of abnormalities in the condition of the
heart of the deceased - Such being the evidence on record,
conclusion of High Court that death of deceased was caused by
subdural hemorrhage but not cardiac arrest is not based on any
evidence on record and is a pure conjecture - A-1 cannot be held
to be responsible for causing the death of the deceased - Further,
as far as A2 is considered, the FIR mentioned the name of only A1
and the second participant in the incident was said to be a "clean
shaven man" and it did not mention that the clean shaven man either
attacked or inflicted any injury on the body of the deceased - No
material on record to indicate the basis on which the prosecution
came to the conclusion that A-2 was that clean shaven man -
Nothing on record to prove that he attacked the deceased or that he
shared a common intention with A-1 to commit the offence of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder- It is not safe to convict A-2 on
[2018] 6 S.C.R. 479
 479
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
480
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
the basis of the evidence of PWs 3 and 4, recorded some 7 years
after the incident - Judgment of High Court insofar as A2 is
concerned, is also set aside - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
ss.173 and 319.
Evidence - Related witnesses - Appreciation of.
Allowing the appeals of the accused and dismissing that of
the complainant, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the entire judgment of the High Court, there
are only two sentences which mention the name of the second
accused. There is no discussion in the judgment of the High Court
as to at what point of time during the course of investigation,
A-2 was identified to be the other clean shaven person travelling
with A-1 on the fateful day and what was the evidence on the
basis of which the prosecution reached such conclusion except
the statements (made after 7 years after the event) of PW-3 and
PW-4 made at the time of the trial. It is unfortunate that the High
Court thought it fit to reverse the acquittal recorded by the
Sessions Court and to convict A-2 for an offence under Section
304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC on the basis of such frivolous
analysis. [Para 29] [494-D-E]
1.2 The FIR mentioned the name of only A1 and the second
participant in the incident was said to be a "clean shaven man".
The FIR does not mention that the clean shaven man either
attacked or inflicted any injury on the body of the deceased. It
only mentioned that he inflicted fist blows on PW3. The material
on record is absolutely bereft of the information regarding the
fact as to at which point of time A-2 was identified to be that
'clean shaven man' who participated in the incident along with A1 by the investigating agency. Nor is there any material on record
to indicate the basis on which the prosecution came to the
conclusion that A-2 was that clean shaven man. PW3 and PW4
were examined at the time of inquest over the dead body of the
deceased, which took place according to the prosecution at 3.30
p.m. on the date of occurrence. Even those statements of PW3
and PW4 do not mention the name or identifiable description of
A-2. Admittedly, at no point of time a test identification parade
was held to establish the identity of the clean shaven man to be
A-2. [Para 30] [495-B-D]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
481
1.3 From the analysis of the above material, the following
conclusions emerge:
(i) Neither PW3 nor PW4 knew the second accused prior
to the date of the offence;
(ii) Even on the date of the offence they did not know his
name or other particulars which could lead to his
identification;
(iii) The prosecution did not bring on record any material to
establish as to how they came to the conclusion that the
person accompanying the first accused is (A-2);
(iv) The only evidence to connect A-2 with the crime is the
statements of PWs 3 and 4 made at the time of the trial
(some 7 years after the incident) that A-1 was the other
person accompanying A-1 on the fateful day;
(v) There is nothing either in the deposition of PW3 or
PW4 that A2 ever attacked the deceased; and
(vi) There is no other evidence on record to show that A-2
attacked the deceased.
In the impugned judgment of the High Court, there is no
discussion regarding the identity of A-2 or the role played by him
in the incident. Without any discussion whatsoever regarding the
evidence either to prove the presence of A-2 along with A-1 at
the time of the occurrence or the role played by A-2 in the incident
insofar as it pertained to the death of the deceased, the High
Court chose to record a finding of guilt against A-2 under Section
304 Part-II read with Section 34 IPC. [Para 31] [496-B-H;
497-A-C]
1.4 The High Court abruptly recorded a conclusion that
A-2 is guilty of an offence of Section 304 Part-II read with Section
34 IPC. Such a conclusion is wholly unsustainable. The conclusion
of the High Court that A-2 is also guilty of the offence under
Section 323 IPC is equally unsustainable in view of the discussion
above, especially in view of the fact that there is no trustworthy
evidence regarding his presence along with A-1 at the time of
the offence. It is not safe to convict A-2 on the basis of the evidence
of PWs 3 and 4. Therefore, the Judgment of the High Court
insofar as A2 is concerned is set aside. [Para 32] [497-E, G]
RUPINDER SINGH SANDHU v. STATE OF PUNJAB
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
482
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
2.1 To hold A-1 guilty of causing the death of the deceased,
it must be proved that (i) he inflicted fist blows on the deceased
as alleged by the prosecution; and (ii) the injuries resulting from
the fist blows caused the death of the deceased. [Para 34]
[498-C]
2.2 In order to establish the fact that A-1 inflicted fist blows
on the deceased, prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs 3
and 4 who claimed that they were travelling along with the
deceased at the time of the occurrence in the car driven by the
deceased and, therefore, witnessed the occurrence. The Sessions
Court disbelieved the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 principally on
two grounds, firstly that the evidence of PW3 and PW4 was not
consistent and kept varying from time to time and secondly, the
medical evidence does not corroborate the testimonies of PWs 3
and 4. On the other hand, the High Court disagreed with the
conclusion of the Sessions Court regarding the trustworthiness
of the evidence of PWs 3 and 4. [Para 35] [498-D-E]
2.3 The fact that PWs 3 and 4 are related to the deceased
the deceased is not in dispute. The existence of such relationship
by itself does not render the evidence of PWs 3 and 4
untrustworthy. Supreme Court has repeatedly held so and also
held that the related witnesses are less likely to implicate innocent
persons exonerating the real culprits. [Para 38] [499-D]
2.4 PWs 3 and 4 in their evidence before the Sessions
Court stated that they travelled with the deceased on the fateful
day in a Maruti car driven by the deceased. Both of them stated
that there was an altercation between A-1 and the deceased
regarding the right of way which resulted in the 1st accused giving
fist blows to the deceased. They did not make any allegation in
their evidence that A-2 attacked the deceased. Their version is
that when they tried to intervene to rescue the deceased, the 2nd
accused attacked PW-3 by giving fist blows. Though, it is the
evidence of PWs 3 and 4 that A-1 inflicted fist blows onthe
deceased, the post-mortem report indicates only two external
injuries- one on the temporal region and another on the left knee
of the deceased - both are abrasions. The 2nd injury, i.e. abrasion
on the knee, according to PW-2 could be the result of the fall.
Notwithstanding the narration of PWs 3 and 4 that A-1 inflicted
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
483
fist blows (multiple blows), it is most unlikely that a person would
simultaneously aim at the head and also the knees of the victim
while giving fist blows. Of course, it is possible that A-1 delivered
more than one fist blow but only one of them landed on the head
of the deceased and the others missed the target. Thus, A-1
inflicted a single injury on the head of the deceased and one can
safely conclude that the 2nd injury on the knee of the deceased
occurred due to a fall at any road. It is not the suggestion of the
prosecution that the deceased died of the injury on his knee.
The injury on the head of the deceased is an abrasion admeasuring
0.75 cm x 0.5 cm over the left temporal region at the junction of
upper part of pinna. There is a corresponding subdural
hemorrhage present over the left temporal region of the deceased.
[Paras 44, 45] [502-F-H; 503-A-C]
2.5 PW-2 (the Doctor) in the post-mortem report did not
give any opinion regarding the cause of the death of the deceased.
It is significant to note that PW2 was of the opinion that the injuries
were ante-mortem in nature and caused by a blunt weapon. The
pathologist gave a report wherein noticed a large number of
abnormalities in the condition of the heart of the deceased. Insofar
as the brain is concerned, the pathologist did not notice any
pathology either on the gross or microscopic examination. On
receipt of the pathology report, PW-2 opined that it is necessary
to obtain a further opinion of forensic expert. He, therefore,
wrote to the Civil Surgeon, Patiala requesting that the case be
referred to forensic expert, Government Medical College, Patiala.
The Principal, Government Medical College, Patiala constituted
a Board consisting of 6 members of whom two were examined as
PWs 1 and 2 in the trial of the case. PW-1 was designated as the
Convener of the said Medical Board. PW-1 gave a very cryptic
opinion (Ex.PA). [Paras 46-48] [503-D, E-F; 504-A-D]
2.6 PW2, who conducted the post-mortem, did not identify
the cause of death of the deceased. He only forwarded the opinion
of the Medical Board to the Police. On the face of the above
evidence, the High Court came to the conclusion that it is the
subdural hemorrhage which caused the death of the deceased
and not cardiac arrest. As rightly pointed out by the accused,
there is no basis in the evidence on record for such a conclusion.
RUPINDER SINGH SANDHU v. STATE OF PUNJAB
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
484
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
When Exhibit PA says that death in the case is "attributed to the
effects of head injury and cardiac condition", to conclude that the
cause of death is only hemorrhage and not cardiac arrest is
contrary to the evidence on record. On the other hand it must be
remembered the pathologist reported that he did not notice any
pathology on the brain either on "gross or microscopic
examination". PW-2, who conducted the post-mortem
examination, did not give any description of the hemorrhage
except to state that subdural hemorrhage existed in the parietal
region. He admitted in the cross examination that he did not
mention the magnitude or size of the hemorrhage. [Paras 53, 54]
[506-B, D, E-F]
2.7 PW-1 is also the author of a textbook on Forensic
Medicine and Toxicology. From the statement in the book, it can
be noticed from the above statement - (i) subdural hemorrhage
by itself does not cause death but it is the compression of brain
caused by a large subdural hemorrhage which causes the death;
and (ii) about 100-150 ml of hemorrhage is usually the minimum
associated with fatalities. The statements made in (Ex PA) and
the evidence of PW1 that the head injury itself could be sufficient
to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature are mere ipse
dixit. Neither any specific details regarding the volume of the
subdural hemorrhage are available on record, nor any medical
opinion that the subdural hemorrhage caused the compression
of the brain that caused the death of the deceased. There is no
evidence of any concomitant brain injury. The post-mortem report
and the evidence of PW2 are silent in this regard. The
pathologist's report is clear about the absence of any pathology
in brain. Such being the evidence on record, the conclusion of
the High Court that the deceased's death is caused by subdural
hemorrhage but not cardiac arrest is not based on any evidence
on record and is a pure conjecture. It difficult to sustain the
conviction of the first accused and the same is set-aside. Because
to find a man guilty of culpable homicide, the basic fact required
to be established is that the accused caused the death. But, as
noticed above, the medical evidence is absolutely uncertain
regarding the cause of death of the deceased. [Paras 55, 56]
[507-A-G]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
485
2.8 The only fact established on evidence is that A-1 gave
a single fist blow on the head of the deceased the deceased. No
weapon was used, nor was there any past enmity between the
accused and the deceased. It all started with a dispute regarding
the right of way resulting in a brawl between them, a very common
sight in this country. Apparently, some verbal exchange took
place between the accused and the deceased. It is not clear from
the record as to what exactly are the words spoken by them except
a vague indication that some intemperate language was employed
by both of them, nor is it clear who initiated the exchange.
[Paras 57, 58] [508-A-B]
2.9 The first accused cannot be held to be responsible for
causing the death of the deceased. Therefore, the judgment under
appeal is required to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.
The material on record leads to the only possible conclusion that
the first accused voluntarily caused hurt to the deceased
punishable under Section 323 IPC. [Para 63] [509-D-E]
2.10 Section 323 IPC stipulates a punishment of
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to one year or with fine which may extend to Rs.1000/- or with
both. In the circumstances of the case having regard to the facts
that (i) the incident is 30 years old; (ii) there is no past enmity
between the accused and the deceased; (iii) no weapon was used
by the accused; and (iv) the background in which it happened, a
punishment of imposition of fine of Rs.1000/- would meet the
ends of justice in this case. [Para 64] [509-F]
Mohan Singh and Another v. State of Punjab
AIR 1963 SC 174 : [1962] Suppl. SCR 848 ; Rizan v.
State of Chhattisgarh (2003) 2 SCC 661 : [2003] 1 SCR
457 ; Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC
364 : [1954] SCR 145 - referred to.
Textbook of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology -
Principles & Practice, 6th Edition, Krishan Vij,
Elsevier; Smith J.C. & Hogan Brian, The Elements of
a Crime in Criminal Law 5th Edition, ELBS 1983 -
referred to.
RUPINDER SINGH SANDHU v. STATE OF PUNJAB
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
486
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[1962] Suppl. SCR 848
 referred to
Para 21
[2003] 1 SCR 457
 referred to
Para 38
[1954] SCR 145
 referred to
Para 38
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 58 of 2007.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 01.12.2006 and 06.12.2006
of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal
No. 645-DBA of 2000 and Crl. Misc. No. 185-MA of 2000
 WITH
Criminal Appeal Nos. 60 and 59 of 2007.
R. Basant, R. S. Cheema, Rajnit Kumar, Siddharth Luthra, Nidhesh
Gupta, Sr. Advs., Ms. Tarannum Cheema, A. Karthik, Sudarshan Singh
Rawat, Ms. Hiral Gupta, Ms. Smrithi Suresh, Ms. Pooja Tiwari, Sudarshan
Singh Rawat, Sudhir Walia Ms. Niharika Alhuwalia, Nitin Saluja, Abhishek
Atrey, Kumar Vaibhav, Ms. Ananttika Singh, Sudhir Walia, Sangram S.
Saron, Benant Noor Singh, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Vriti Gujral, Puneet
Varshney, Ms. Roopam Rai, Shubham Bhalla, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Advs.
for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHELAMESWAR, J. 1. Around 1.45 pm on 27.12.1988, First
Information Report No.244 came to be registered by Sub-Inspector Kaka
Singh (PW5) of Police Station "Kotwali" of Patiala District of the State
of Punjab on the basis of information given by one Shri Jaswinder Singh
(PW3). From the narration in the FIR, it appears that the incident which
eventually culminated in the death of Gurnam Singh could have simply
passed off as yet another incident of road rage but for the death of
Gurnam Singh. According to the FIR, around 12.30 p.m., an incident
occurred at the traffic light of Battian Wala Chowk in front of the State
Bank of Patiala, Patiala City. Jaswinder Singh (PW3), Avtar Singh (PW4)
and the deceased Gurnam Singh were travelling in Maruti Car No.CH I
8422 driven by the deceased. Both the accused herein were travelling
by vehicle No.PAD 6030. A dispute arose on the right of way between
the accused and the deceased. In the process the first accused who is
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
487
a cricketer of some fame got out of his vehicle, pulled the deceased out
of his vehicle and inflicted fist blows. When PW3 tried to intervene, the
second1 accused herein got out of the vehicle and gave fist blows to
PW3. Thereafter, they removed the keys of the car of the deceased
and fled away from the scene of occurrence. PW3 and PW4 took
Gurnam Singh who was "in a state of unconsciousness" by a rickshaw
to a hospital, known as Rajendra Hospital where the doctors announced
that Gurnam Singh was dead.
2. Thereafter, PW3 went to the police station (leaving PW4 in the
hospital) and lodged the FIR.
3. Case was registered under Sections 304/34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC") against the first accused
and un-named second accused.
4. Around 3'O Clock, PW5 reached Rajendra Hospital along with
PW3. PW5 prepared the inquest report, which was attested by PW3
and PW4. The dead body of Gurnam Singh was sent for post-mortem
examination. At about 3.30 p.m., PW3 to PW5 went to the scene of
occurrence where PW5 prepared rough site plan. At 4.30 p.m., postmortem examination over the dead body was conducted by PW2. A
copy of the FIR was received by the concerned Magistrate admittedly
around 5.30 p.m.
5. PW2 Dr. Jatinder Kumar Sadana, who conducted the postmortem examination, recorded two external and one internal injuries:
1) 0.75 cm x 0.5 cm abrasion present over left temporal region at
the injunction of upper part of pinna.
2) 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm abrasion over the front of left knee, and
 Subdural hemorrhage present over the left temporal region.
PW2 recorded that the injuries are ante-mortem in nature and
caused by 'blunt weapon'. He opined that the cause of death of Gurnam
Singh could be given only after receiving the report of the pathologist.
The pathologist's report dated 09.01.1989 was received in due course
by PW2. Inspite of the pathologist's report, PW2 was not able to give
any definite opinion regarding the cause of death of Gurnam Singh. He,
 1It must be mentioned here that though the FIR clearly mentioned the name of first
accused, the name of second accused was not mentioned. He was only described as a
clean shaven man.
RUPINDER SINGH SANDHU v. STATE OF PUNJAB
[CHELAMESWAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
488
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
therefore, addressed a letter dated 11.1.1989 to the Civil Surgeon, Patiala
requesting him to refer the case to the Forensic Expert of Government
Medical College, Patiala. In response to the said request, a Medical
Board comprising six members, which included PW1 Dr. Krishan Vij
and PW2, came to be constituted by an office order dated 13.01.1989 of
Principal, Government Medical College, Patiala. PW1 was described
therein to be Convener of the Board.
6. Thereafter, some correspondence took place between SHO
Police Station "Kotwali" and PW2. The SHO made an attempt to secure
a more precise medical opinion regarding the cause of death of Gurnam
Singh. PW2 declined to give any further opinion maintaining that
"regarding the opinion whether the injury could be because of fist blow,
any such clarification would be given in the Court."
7. In the background of the abovementioned facts, a final report
(charge-sheet) under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (hereafter referred to as "CrPC") dated 06.03.1989 came to be
filed on 14.07.1989, (i.e. 4 months after its preparation) under Section
304 IPC, only against the second accused exonerating the first accused.
On 13 October 1989, the case was committed to Sessions Court, Patiala
by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala resulting in the registration
of Sessions Case No.79/89. A charge against A2 under Section 304
Part-I IPC was framed on 25.09.1990 in Sessions Case No.79. During
the course of the trial, the Sessions Court after recording the evidence
of PW3 thought it fit by its order dated 30.08.1993 to summon the first
accused also to stand trial exercising its power under Section 319 CrPC.
8. In the meanwhile, on 22.07.1989, PW3 filed a private complaint
against both the accused for commission of offences under Section
302/324/323 read with Section 34 IPC. A1 was summoned in the said
case by an order dated 03.09.1993. After repeated adjournments, [the
reasons for which are not necessary at present], both the cases were
consolidated by an order dated 20.08.1994.
9. On 20.08.1994, charges were framed against both the accused.
Charges under Section 304 Part-I IPC were framed against both the
accused in case arising out of the FIR No.244. Charges under Section
302 IPC against first accused and charges under Section 302/34 IPC
against second accused were framed respectively in complaint case for
causing the death of Gurnam Singh. Charges under Section 323/34 IPC
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
489
were framed against both the accused for causing hurt to PW3. Both
the cases were consolidated vide order dated 20.08.1994.
10. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution
examined five witnesses and exhibited various documents.2 PW3 and
PW4 are said to be eye-witnesses to the offence. PW1 and PW2 are
doctors connected with the post-mortem examination of the dead body
of Gurnam Singh. PW5 is the Sub-Inspector who registered FIR.
11. The accused examined one witness in their defence i.e. DW1
Raghbir Singh.
12. The Trial Court recorded3:
That, death of Gurnam Singh was not caused by subdural hemorrhage but it was a case of sudden cardiac death;
That, Gurnam Singh suffered sudden cardiac attack because of
which he fell to the ground and received injury on left temporal
region which caused subdural hemorrhage;
That, it is not certain at what point Gurnam Singh died, but his
death was not due to violence;
Neither Jaswinder Singh (PW3) nor Avtar Singh (PW4) are truthful
witnesses because there appears to be no corroboration of their
presence with Gurnam Singh.
and, therefore, concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish
the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted both the accused herein.
 2 Inquest Report as Ex.PH, Site Plan as Ex.PT; recovery memo of certain articles as
Ex.PU; application to collect the result of Pathologist as Ex.PV; FIR Ex.PQ; Statement
of PW3 Jaswinder Singh as Ex.DC; Statements of PW4 Avtar Singh as Ex.DG, Ex.DD,
Ex.DE; report under Section 173 CrPC as Ex.DH.
 3 See Judgment of Sessions Judge, Patiala in C.S. No.79/18.8.94/20.8.94 dated 22.9.1999
para 41
"Therefore the medical evidence provides no corroboration whatsoever, to the eyewitness account. Furthermore, the death of Gurnam Singh was not caused by the
subdural hemorrhage, but it was a case of sudden cardiac death as confirmed by the
Cardiologist. When Gurnam Singh suffered sudden cardiac attack he fell to the ground
and received abrasions on left temporal region and left knee the former injury gave rise
to subdural hemorrhage. It is not certain at what point Gurnam Singh died, but his
death was not due to violence. Neither Jaswinder Singh nor Avtar Singh are truthful
witnesses because there appears to be no corroboration of their presence with Gurnam
Singh."
RUPINDER SINGH SANDHU v. STATE OF PUNJAB
[CHELAMESWAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
490
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
13. The matter was carried in two appeals to the High Court by
the State and also by the complainant. The High Court reversed the
acquittal and found both the accused guilty under Section 304 Part-II
and 304 Part-II read with Section 34 IPC respectively for causing the
death of Gurnam Singh. Apart from the above, A-2 was also found
guilty for an offence under Section 323 IPC for causing injuries to PW3.
14. Hence, these three appeals - Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2007
filed by Rupinder Singh Sandhu (A-2); Criminal Appeal No.59 of 2007
filed by Navjot Singh Sidhu (A-1); and Criminal Appeal No.60 of 2007
filed by Shri Jaswinder Singh (PW3).
15. Shri R.S. Cheema and Shri R. Basant, learned senior counsel
appeared for A-1 and A-2 respectively. Shri Siddhartha Luthra and Shri
Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel, appeared for the de facto
complainant (PW3 Jaswinder Singh). Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior
counsel, appeared for A-1 in the appeal filed by PW3 Jaswinder Singh.
Shri Sangram S. Saron, Advocate appeared for the State.
16. Enormous submissions are made before us by each of the
learned senior counsel mentioned above.
17. Some of the submissions made by the three learned senior
counsel for the accused are common. Briefly stated they are:-
i.
the conclusion of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court is not to
be interfered with by the appellate Court unless there are
compelling reasons warranting interference;
ii. there are no such circumstances in the case on hand which
warranted interference by the High Court with the conclusion
of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court;
iii. merely because a second view is possible to be taken on the
material on record, the Appellate Court is not justified in reversing
the conclusion of acquittal and in this case that is exactly what
happened; and
iv. the conclusion of the Trial Court that PW3 and PW4 are not
truthful witnesses is based on cogent reasoning. The High Court
has not recorded any tenable reasons to demonstrate that the
conclusion of the Trial Court is manifestly illegal;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
491
18. Apart from the abovementioned submissions made in common
on behalf of both the accused it was submitted on behalf of A-1:-
i) the medical evidence on record does not corroborate the
evidence of PW3 and PW4, a factor which has been strongly
relied upon by the Trial Court to disbelieve PW3 and PW4.
The High Court did not record any cogent reasons for reversing
the Trial Court's opinion; and
ii) the medical opinion on record does not clearly establish the
exact cause of death of Gurnam Singh. In the absence of
clear medical opinion regarding the cause of death, one of the
essential elements of the offence of culpable homicide under
Section 299 IPC, it cannot be said that the bodily injury alleged
to have been caused by A-1 resulted in the death of Gurnam
Singh.
19. On behalf of the second accused, it is additionally argued that
the prosecution is required to prove by credible evidence (i) that A-2
was present along with A-1 and participated in the incident, and (ii) the
exact nature of his participation, and (iii) he shared a common intention
with A-1 to commit an offence under Section 299 IPC.
There is absolutely no credible evidence on record to establish
the above. The High Court neither examined any one of the above
mentioned questions nor gave any reason whatsoever to reverse the
conclusion of the Trial Court insofar as it relates to A-2.
20. "Before a man can be convicted of a crime, it is usually
necessary for the prosecution to prove that a certain event or a
certain state of affairs which is forbidden by the criminal law has
been caused by his conduct and that this conduct was accompanied
by a prescribed state of mind. The event or state of affairs is
usually called the actus reus and the state of mind, the mens rea
of the crime. Both these elements must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt by the prosecution."4
21. Both the accused are convicted for the offence prescribed
under Section 299 IPC while A-1 was found guilty of the offence
 4 Smith J.C. & Hogan Brian, The Elements of a Crime in CRIMINAL LAW (5th ed.
ELBS 1983) p.29
RUPINDER SINGH SANDHU v. STATE OF PUNJAB
[CHELAMESWAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
492
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
simpliciter, A-2 was found vicariously guilty5 of that offence with the aid
of Section 34 IPC. The accusation being that they caused the death of
Gurnam Singh by their conduct accompanied by the requisite mens rea
and such conduct constitutes the offence prescribed under Section 299
IPC.
22. The question is whether the High Court is right in holding that
all the requisite elements to find the accused guilty of the offences for
which they were tried are proved beyond reasonable doubt? To hold
either of the accused guilty for an offence under Section 299 IPC either
simpliciter or vicariously with the aid of Section 34 IPC, it is required to
be proved that each of the two accused was present and participated in
the incident and caused injuries which resulted in the death of Gurnam
Singh.
23. The undisputed fact is that Gurnam Singh was declared to
have been brought dead to the Rajendra Hospital around 12.45 pm on
the fateful day. According to the prosecution (FIR), Gurnam Singh
received fist blows from A-1 around 12.30 pm and became unconscious.
The FIR is conspicuously silent about any physical attack by A-2 on
Gurnam Singh.
To find either of the two accused guilty of the offence under
Section 299 IPC, it must be proved that Gurnam Singh died as a
consequence of the physical attack and the resulting injuries therefrom.
We shall defer the examination of the medical evidence regarding the
cause of death of Gurnam Singh for the time being and proceed on the
basis that the death was homicidal as a consequence of the injuries
received by him. The question is - who caused the injuries?
24. Prosecution sought to prove the presence, identity and
participation of both the accused in the crime by the evidence of PWs 3
and 4 - cited as eye-witnesses to the offence. They asserted in their
evidence that they were travelling on the fateful day along with the
deceased and witnessed the occurrence. However, the Trial Court
recorded a conclusion that neither of them is a "truthful witness" because
"there appears to be no corroboration of their presence with Gurnam
Singh". The conclusion of the Trial Court is based on the following factors:
 5 See AIR 1963 SC 174 para 13 - Mohan Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
493
i. both the witnesses (PW3 and PW4) are related to each other
and the deceased;
ii. though the incident took place at a very busy location in the
city of Patiala in broad day light, no independent witness was
examined by the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of
PW3 and PW4;
iii police did not either seize the vehicle in which the deceased
and PWs 3 & 4 were said to be travelling at the time of the
incident nor the site plan of the scene of occurrence prepared
by the police indicate the presence of the car;
iv. there were inconsistencies in the evidence of both PWs 3 &
4 regarding the number of the vehicle in which the accused
were travelling at the time of the occurrence and also
regarding the fact as to which one of the accused was driving
the said vehicle. The number and the driver's name given by
them in evidence is not the same as the number and the name
of the driver given in the FIR;
v. the version of the prosecution that PW3 was the injured
witness is not believable. It is only an attempt to create
evidence that PW3 too had been present and attacked by the
accused; and
vi. though the witnesses deposed that they accompanied the
deceased Gurnam Singh on the fateful day and were
proceeding to the bank to withdraw some cash, no
corroborating material, such as, cheque book etc. has been
placed on record to substantiate the version of the witnesses.
25. On the other hand, the High Court held - (i) both PW3 and
PW4 deposed consistently regarding the incident, (ii) that they had no
past enmity with the accused to falsely implicate the accused, not even
a suggestion of the existence of any such motive was made to PWs 3
and 4 in the cross-examination; and, (iii) the inconsistencies with regard
to the number of vehicle by which the accused were travelling and which
one of the accused was driving the vehicle are immaterial. Therefore,
the High Court opined that they are trustworthy witnesses.
26. It is argued before us on behalf of the accused that; according
to the prosecution case, Gurnam Singh was carried from the scene of
RUPINDER SINGH SANDHU v. STATE OF PUNJAB
[CHELAMESWAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
494
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
occurrence to the hospital in Rickshaw by PW3 and PW4. Neither the
Rickshaw puller was examined nor any record of the hospital is proved
to establish that PW3 and PW4 accompanied Gurnam Singh to Rajendra
Hospital. The said facts coupled with various other discrepancies noticed
by the Trial Court in assessing truthfulness of the evidence of PW3 and
PW4, make it highly unsafe to convict the accused on the basis of such
evidence.
27. Having regard to the material on record and the submissions
made, we are of the opinion that the case of each of the two accused
are to be considered separately.
28. We shall first deal with the case of the second accused Rupinder
Singh Sandhu because, in our opinion, his case can be decided without
examining any one of the common submissions made on behalf of the
accused.
29. In the entire judgment of the High Court, there are only two
sentences which mention the name of the second accused. There is no
discussion in the judgment of the High Court as to at what point of time
during the course of investigation, A-2 was identified to be the other
clean shaven person travelling with A-1 on the fateful day and what is
the evidence on the basis of which the prosecution reached such conclusion
except the statements (made after 7 years after the event) of PW-3 and
PW-4 made at the time of the trial. It is unfortunate that the High Court
thought it fit to reverse the acquittal recorded by the Sessions Court and
to convict A-2 for an offence under Section 304 Part II read with Section
34 IPC on the basis of such frivolous analysis.6
6 (a) In the meantime, Navjot Singh Sidhu accused came out from the Gypsy. Jaswinder
Singh PW-3 knew him as he was a famous player of Cricket. Navjot Singh Sidhu
started reprimanding them and used objectionable language. Jaswinder Singh PW-3 and
others asked him not to use objectionable language and thereafter Navjot Singh Sidhu
caught hold of Gurnam Singh from the collar and took him out of the Maruti car.
Thereafter he gave fist blow on the person of Gurnam Singh. One blow landed on the
temporal region above the left ear. Rupinder Singh Sandhu also came out of the
Gypsy and gave injuries to Jaswinder Singh PW-3.
 (b) We cannot overlook this fact that Navjot Singh Sidhu has conceded that he came to
the place of occurrence after hearing a commotion. Rupinder Singh Sandhu has
denied his presence and has stated that he has been falsely implicated. The best
defence witness would have been the co-employee of Navjot Singh Sidhu, but strangely
none has come forward to state that at that moment of time when the occurrence had
taken place, Navjot Singh Sidhu was in the Bank premises and after hearing a commotion,
he went out.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
495
30. For the purpose of deciding the case of A2, we presume that
PWs 3 and 4 were accompanying Gurnam Singh on the fateful day and
witnessed the incident. The interesting feature of the case is that the
FIR mentioned the name of only A1 and the second participant in the
incident is said to be a "clean shaven man". The FIR does not mention
that the clean shaven man either attacked or inflicted any injury on the
body of Gurnam Singh. It only mentions that he inflicted fist blows on
PW3. The material on record is absolutely bereft of the information
regarding the fact as to at which point of time A-2 was identified to be
that 'clean shaven man' who participated in the incident along with A-1
by the investigating agency. Nor is there any material on record to
indicate the basis on which the prosecution came to the conclusion that
A-2 is that clean shaven man.
PW3 and PW4 were examined at the time of inquest over the
dead body of Gurnam Singh, which took place according to the
prosecution at 3.30 p.m. on the date of occurrence. Even those statements
of PW3 and PW4 do not mention the name or identifiable description of
A-2.
Admittedly, at no point of time a test identification parade was
held to establish the identity of the clean shaven man to be A-2. The
only material on record to connect A-2 with the offences is the evidence
of PW3 and PW4 at the trial where they deposed that A-2 is that clean
shaven person who was present along with A-1 on the date of the incident.
The evidence of PW-3 was recorded on two occasions, initially
on 9.7.1993 in the Sessions case arising out of the police report at which
point of time only A-2 was put to trial for various offences in connection
with the incident which resulted in the death of Gurnam Singh.
PW-3 deposed at that point of time as follows:-
"The accused present in Court Rupinder Singh was not known to
me prior to the occurrence."
Again, he was examined on 16.8.1995 at the joint trial of both the
sessions cases against both the accused herein. In the chief examination,
he stated;
 "I observed that one clean shaven person whose name was
Rupinder Singh Sandhu was found sitting on the driver seat. The
RUPINDER SINGH SANDHU v. STATE OF PUNJAB
[CHELAMESWAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
496
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
witness has pointed out towards Rupinder Singh Sandhu accused
now present in the Court.
And further as follows:-
"Thereafter Rupinder Singh (Sandhu) accused came out from
the Gypsy and he started causing me injuries with fist blows.
Rupinder Singh (Sandhu) gave fist blows on the left inside of my
chest and on the left side of my forehead."
The relevant portion of the cross examination reads as follows:-
"I stated in Ex. PQ that thereafter Rupinder Singh (Sandhu) came
out from the Gypsy. Attention of the witness has been drawn to
Ex. PQ where name of Rupinder Singh (Sandhu) has not been
mentioned. The narration of that the clean shaven man came out
of the vehicle. I stated in Ex. PQ that Rupinder Singh (Sandhu)
gave fist blows on the left side of my chest and on the left
side of my forehead. Attention of the witness has been drawn
to Ex. PQ where the portion 'attacked' by Rupinder Singh
(Sandhu) have not been mentioned. Narration is that Rupinder
Singh (Sandhu) gave fist blows to him.
31.