# STATE OF HARYANA v. GURDIAL SINGH AND PARGAT SINGH March 19, 1974

- **Citation:** [1974] 3 S.C.R. 657
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974-03-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeals Nos. I & 2 of 1971
- **Bench:** H. R. Khanna, P. K. Goswami
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-haryana-v-gurdial-singh-and-pargat-singh-march-19-1974-6054
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

657
Indian Penal Cocle-Sec. 302 read with Ser. 34-Two contradictory versions
pre.r,nted by-prosecuti1Jn-Bene/it of doubt must go to 1/ie accused.
P & G were convicted u/s. 302 and· were sentenced to death, The High Court
set aside the convictions of both the accused and acquitted them. The State has
filed the present appeals against the acquittal of the 2, accused by special leave.
The prosecution case is that on account of a family feud, the deceased was mur~
dered by one P. with a double-barrel gun, in front of one A, the widow of a rich
landlord.
The trial court accepted the prosecution version of occurrence and relied upon
the evidence of A which was corroborated by the youngest son and the dau$ht~r.
that P, was hoJdina: a gun etc. and he was convicted along with G, _an associate.
On appeal 1 the High Cvurt found that the F.I.R. was recorded subsequently
after due deliberation and consultation. The High Court also fOund that the witnenes, relied on by the trial court had supported another version .of the occurrence.
It was found that an attempt had been made to improve upon the story with a
vieW to save D, tho eldest Son of the landlord. The High Court, therefore, set
aside the conviction of the accused and a~quitted them.
Dismissing the appeal,
· HELD : In the present ~ase, the prosecution witnesses hiive come out with two
iDCODSis.tent versions of the occurrence. One version of.the occurrence is contained
in the evidence of the witnesses in Court, while the other version is contained in their
statements made before the police. According to the version given before the Court,
it was P, who shot dead the deceased while according to other version, it was G of
villqe Ramana, who was responsible for the crime. Again, according to the version
given in Court, the occurrence was witne§Cd by A. As against that, the version con-·
~
in the police statement was that A had not witnessed the occurrence. Jn
· v~ of these contradictory versions, the High Court _rightly set aside the conviction
and there is no groul'!d for interference by this Court in the present appeal.
(6648-D]
.
·
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION
: Criminal Appeals
Nos. I & 2 of 1971.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated the
13th May 1970 of the Punjab arid Haryana High Court in Criminal
Appeals Nos. 170 and 201 of 1970.
·
Janarda~ Sharma and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
· Nurutldin Ahmed and U. P. Singh, for the respondents.

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
STATE OF HARYANA
v.
GURDIAL SINGH AND PARGAT SINGH
March 19, 1974.
[H. R. KHANNA AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.)
657
Indian Penal Cocle-Sec. 302 read with Ser. 34-Two contradictory versions
pre.r,nted by-prosecuti1Jn-Bene/it of doubt must go to 1/ie accused.
P & G were convicted u/s. 302 and· were sentenced to death, The High Court
set aside the convictions of both the accused and acquitted them. The State has
filed the present appeals against the acquittal of the 2, accused by special leave.
The prosecution case is that on account of a family feud, the deceased was mur~
dered by one P. with a double-barrel gun, in front of one A, the widow of a rich
landlord.
The trial court accepted the prosecution version of occurrence and relied upon
the evidence of A which was corroborated by the youngest son and the dau$ht~r.
that P, was hoJdina: a gun etc. and he was convicted along with G, _an associate.
On appeal 1 the High Cvurt found that the F.I.R. was recorded subsequently
after due deliberation and consultation. The High Court also fOund that the witnenes, relied on by the trial court had supported another version .of the occurrence.
It was found that an attempt had been made to improve upon the story with a
vieW to save D, tho eldest Son of the landlord. The High Court, therefore, set
aside the conviction of the accused and a~quitted them.
Dismissing the appeal,
· HELD : In the present ~ase, the prosecution witnesses hiive come out with two
iDCODSis.tent versions of the occurrence. One version of.the occurrence is contained
in the evidence of the witnesses in Court, while the other version is contained in their
statements made before the police. According to the version given before the Court,
it was P, who shot dead the deceased while according to other version, it was G of
villqe Ramana, who was responsible for the crime. Again, according to the version
given in Court, the occurrence was witne§Cd by A. As against that, the version con-·
~
in the police statement was that A had not witnessed the occurrence. Jn
· v~ of these contradictory versions, the High Court _rightly set aside the conviction
and there is no groul'!d for interference by this Court in the present appeal.
(6648-D]
.
·
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION
: Criminal Appeals
Nos. I & 2 of 1971.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated the
13th May 1970 of the Punjab arid Haryana High Court in Criminal
Appeals Nos. 170 and 201 of 1970.
·
Janarda~ Sharma and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
· Nurutldin Ahmed and U. P. Singh, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
'H
KHANNA; J. Pargat Singh (31) of village Taraori was convicted by
learned Sessions Judge Kamal under sl:ction 302 Indian Penal Code
.and was sentenced to death. Gurdial Singh (35) of village Ramana was
658
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
i l 974] 3 S.C.R.
also tried along with Pargat Singh and was convicted under section
302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code. He too was sentenced to
death. On appeal and reference the Punjab and Haryana High Court
set aside the conviction of both the accused and acquitted them. The
State of Haryana has filed these appeals against the acquittal of the
two accused by special leave.
The prosecution also filed charge sheet against Gurdia:t !;ingh of
village Taraori, a brother of Pargat Singh accused, but as he was found
to be insane, the committing magistrate directed. that his case be
separated and a separate challan be filed against him. The said Gurdial
Singh of village Taraori was, in the meanwhile, directed to be sent to
the hospital for his treatment.
The prosecution case is that Avtar Kaur (PW 3) was married about
33 years
ago to Gurinder Singh of village Shamgarh. 'Gurinder
Singh was one of the biggest landlords of Kamal district and
belonged
to a
family of Chiefs. About four years after the
marriage, Lal Singh, who
was aged
65 or 70 years at the
time of the present occurrence, was brought
by Gurinder Singh
to reside with him in Shamgarh. Lal Singh was previously in the
service of the mother of Avtar Kaur. Lal Singh was respected like a
Guru and was known as Dadaji.
Gurinder Singh 'used to consult
Lal Singh deceased with regard to his affairs and generally
acted upon the advice of Lal Singh. When a ceiling on lands·was
imposed, Gurinder Singh, with a view to save some land and prevent
its being declared surplus, transferred 23 acres ofland situated in village
Taraori to Pargat Singh accused and an equal area of land in that viii:
age to Gurdial Singh, brother of Pargat Singh. Parga! Singh and Gurdial
Singh were sons of Sher Singh, maternal uncle of Gurinder Singh,
and used to reside with him. After the land had been transferred by
Gurinder Singh to Pargat Singh and Gurdial Singh, they shifted to
village Taraori which is at a distance of about 4 miles from Shamgarh.
They, however, used to visit Shamgarh o.ff and on.
Gurinder Singh died a few months before the present occurrence.
He was survived by his widow Avtar Kaur and three sons Daljit
Singh, Gurjeet Singh and Sukhjeet Singh and two daughters Sukhiwan
Kaur and Harjiwan Kaur. Sukhjeet Singh and Harjiwan Kaur were
tlte only two unmarried children. Sukhjeet Singh was a student of
Doon School Debra Dun, while Harjiwan Kaur was studying in another
'school in Debra Dun. Both of them were present in their house at
Shamgarh during the days of the present occurrence having come there
during winter vacation. The h,ouse is also described during the course,
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
HARYANA V· GURDIAL SINGH (Khanna, /,)
659·
of evidence as a fort. Daljit Singh and Gurjeet Singh also used to live
in that house. Sukhjiwan Kaur too was present there on the night
of occurrence.
After the death of Gurinder Singh, Avtar Kaur used to consult
Lal Singh in every matter. Gurinder Singh at the time of his death·
was constructing a cold storage. One chamber of the cold storage had
been completed during the life time of Gurinder Singh, while the other·
chamber yet remained to be completed. Some money was required
by Avtar Kaur in that connection. Lal Singh deceased accordingly
called Pargat Singh accused about 15 days before the present occurr- ·
ence and told him that as Gurinder Singh had given to him and his
brother land worth rupees two lakhs, they should help Avtar Kaur
when she was in need of money. Pargat Singh accused then stated that
he had nothing to do with that. He also abused Lal Singh and told
him that he was nobody to demand the money. Lal Singh deceased
then threatened Pargat Singh ihat he would get a suit filed through
Sukhjeet Singh, who had recently become major in respect of the·
land which had been given to Pargat Singh and his brother Gurdia\
Singh.
Daljit Singh eldest son of Gttrinder Singh, it is st~ted, was a
spend thrift. Lal Singh deceased and Gurinder Singh used to tell
Daljit Singh not to spend too much money. After the death of Gurinder
Singh, Da\jit Singh dem.anded more land in addition to the land which
had been given to him by Gurinder Singh in his life time. Demand was
also made by Daljit Singh for more money. There used to take place
quarrels between Avtar Kaur and Daljit Singh on that account.
The case of the prosecution further is that on December, 11, 1968·
Avtar Kaur, Sukhjiwan Kaur, Harjiwan Kaur, Sukhjeet Singh and Lal
Singh took their meals in the dining room on the ground floor of the·
fort. Gurjeet Singh was on that day away to Ferozepore to attend a
marriage. After finishing the meals at 9· 15 p.m. Avtar Kaur and her
two daughters went to her bed room on the upper storey. Sukhjeet
Singh bad a room on the ground floor and he went to that room. AL.
about 1 () p.m. Avtar Kaur after finishing othe.r work went to the room
of Lal Singh. Lal Singh at that time sat on his cot, while Avtar Kaur
sat nearby on a chair. Avdr Kaur during the course of her talk asked·
Lal Singh to settle the miltter about Daljit Singh and to give to him
what was his due. When Avtar Kaur and Lal Singh deceased were·
talking, they heard the sound of a car in the outer courtyard. Daljit
Singh, Pargat Singh, Pargat Singh's brother Gurdial Singh, GurdiaU
660
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1974] 3 S.C.R.
Singh of Ramana and Rajinder Singh alighted from the car. Rajinder
Singh belongs to village Bairsal. He had borrowed Rs. 3,000 in connection with the election of Chanda Singh to the Haryana Legislative
Assembly in 1968. Earlier on that day Rajinder Singh refunded Rs.
1,500 out of the amount of Rs. 3,000 to Ram Lal, who was working as
an accountant of Gurinder Singh's estate. As Daljil Singh, Rajinder
Singh and Gurdial Singh of Ramana had earlier in the day gone for
Shikar, Sukhjeet Singh came out and enquired from Daljit Singh as
to what he had shot. Sukhjeet Singh was then told by Daljit Singh that
,he had been able to shoot four partridges. Daljit SiTigh then went
upstairs to his own room taking his gun with him. Sukhjeet Singh
.also went to his own room. About 5 or 10 minutes thereafter Sukhjeet
·Singh and Avtar Kaur heard some footsteps going up the staircase.
Parga! Singh, his brother Gurdial Singh and Gurdial Singh ofRamana
then came inside the room wherein Avtar Kaur was talking to Lal
Singh deceased. Pargat Singh was holding a double barrel gun P2 in
his hand. The said gun belonged to Rajinder Singh. Avtar Kaur en·
quired from Pargat Singh and others as to why they had come at such
.fate hour. Pargat Singh replied that they had come back after Shikar.
Lal Singh then asked them as to whether all three of them had become
Shikaris. Parga! Singh replied in the affirmative and said that they would
make a shikar of Lal Singh. Parga! Singh at the same time fired at Lal
Singh. Before the shot was fired at Lal Singh, Pargat Singh and his
two companions made some signs to each other. Lal Singh on receipt
of the shot fell down on the spot and died soon thereafter. Avtar Kaur
was stunned because of the incident. Pargat Singh and his two coml'anions then left. Harjiwan Kaur, Sukhjiwan Kaur and Sukhjeet
Singh on hearing the gun shot came to the room where Avtar Kaur
·was present and were told about the occurrence by her. Avtar Kaur
was then taken to her room. Sukhjeet Singh was directed by her to call
caccountant Ram Lal. When Ram Lal came there he was told by Avtar
Kaur that Parga! Singh bad killed Lal Singh by firing a shot with a
··doul)le barrel gun. Ram Lal was told to go to the police station and
110 bring the police. Ram Lal then woke up the car driver and went in
'the car towards the police station. When the car reached near the bus.
stop of village Shamgarh on the Grand Trunk Road, Ram La\ saw a
·police party which included Sub Inspector Ram Rikh. Ram Lal then
told the Sub Inspector that Lal Singh had been murdered in the
·fort and that Ram Lal bad been deputed by Avtar Kaur to call t)le Sub
Inspector. Sub Inspector Ram Rikh then went to the fort where Avtar
Kaur made statement PD at 3 a.m. to him. The said statement was sent
"to· police station Butana at a distance of 61 miles from the place of
occurrence and formal first information report PJ was prepared on the
basis of statement PD at 3 · 45 p.m. Inquest report relating to the dead
body was thereafter prepared by the Sub Inspector. The dead body
. ·was sent to the mortuary in Karna!. Post mortem.examination on the
·dead body was performed by Dr. Jagdeep Singh at 4· 30 p.m. on
~mber 12.
On the morning following the occurrence, i.e. on December 12,
1968, a number. of persons including Daljit Singh, Rajinder Singh,
· 1'argat Singh and the latter's brother Gurdial Singh assembled at the
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
HARYANA y. GURDIAL SINGH (Khanna, J.)
66!•
fort. Sub Inspector Ram Rikh did not arrest Parga! Singh or his brother
Gurdial Singh, Daljit Singh then produced gun P2 of Rajinder Singh•
along with an empty cartridge which had been fired from that gun.
These articles were taken into possession.
During the course of investigation, it is stated, a counter version·
of the occurrence came to light, Sub Inspector Ram Rikh and the
Deputy Superintendent of Police who was supervising the investigation kept Superintendent of Police Brar (OW 1) informed of the
investigation. Final report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal"
Procedure in court was filed by Sub Inspector Ram Rikh. In that
report only Gurdial Sin~h of village Ramana was shown as the culprit.
The names of Parga! Smgh and his brother Gurdial Singh were mentioned in column No. 2 of the challan. The reason for that, according
to Sub Inspector Ram Rikh, was that those two persons had been·
found on investigation to be innocent." The two accused in their
statements under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
denied the prosecution allegations which appeared against them in
the prosecution evidence. In defence the accused examined Superintendent of Police S. S. Brar who deposed that in view of the fact that
there were two versions of the occurrence, he ordered-that before
any arrest was made, a thorough probe should be made in the matter
to find out the truth.
The trial court accepted. the prosecution version of the occurrence·
and, in doing so, relied upon the evidence of Avtar Kaur. It was further
held that the evidence of Avtar Kaur was corroborated by that of·
Sukhjeet Singh and Harjiwan Kaur, who had deposed that when they
looked out on hearing the gun shot, they .saw Parga! Singh holding
·a gun and two Gurdial Singhs going downstairs. Regarding the counter
version of the occurrence which appeared from the police statements·
of Avtar Kaur, Sukhjeet Singh and Harjiwan Kaur, the trial court
.held that compared to that version, the version as given in the evidence·
of the above witnesses in court was reliable. In the opinion of the
trial court, the investigauon of the case was tainted and unfair. The·
argument that there was delay in recording the report was rejected.
On appeal the learned Judges of the High Court found that the·
circumstances of the case showed that the first information report"
was recorded subsequent to the time at which it. purported to have
beell' recorded and was the result of deliberation and consultation."
The High Court also found that the witnesses, upon whose testimony·
reliance had been placed by the trial court, had supported a"nother
version of th~ occurrence. It was found that an attempt had been made
to improve up~n the story with a view to save Daljit Singh, eldesr
son of Avtar Kaur, Ocular evidence was also found t<' be not in con-"
sonance with.the medical evidence. In the result the High Court accepted the appeal, set .aside the conviction of the accused and acquitted
them.
We have heard Mr . .Janardan Sharma on behalf of the a1-pellantState and Mr. Nuruddin on behalf of the accused,respondents and
662
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1974] 3 s.c.R.
·are of the opinion that the judgm,nt of the High Court calls for no
1nterference.
·
It is not disputed that, Lal Singh deceased died as a result of gun
·shot wound, Dr. Jagdeep Singh who p.rformed p)st mortem examination on the dead body found "a single oval wound of entry with
"irrc~ular _inverted margins, 11
11
~n tr~nsverse diameter and 11 .. in·
·vertical diameter, placed on the right side of the neck, just above the
·calvicle about half inch from the mid-line. The margins of the wound
showod blackening and scorching. Hair of beard were not singed. The
wound was directed backwards and downwards and towards the mid1ine producing extensive laceration of.underlying tissues and fracture
•of calvicle bone of right side. Right pleura was ruptured on the top
-and the pleural cavity contained large amount of blood. Upper lobe
of right lung was lac.rated completely, Middle and lower lobes were
10ontused, showing bleeding on the surface. A pirt of the projectile,
lying on the right side of the thoracic cavity, was recovered from mediastinum and two from the left lung, which was also showing haemor-
,rhages at various parts. In the n\ediastinum big vassels were ruptured
'at many places and mediastinum was found containing large amount
·of clotted blood." The injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course
•Of nature to cause death.
The case of the prosecution is that it was Parga! Singh accused who
fired shot at Lal Singh and thus killed him, The prosecution for this
·purp)se relied upon tho ocular evidence of Avtar Kaur (PW 3), who
"in thi: course of her dcp:>sition supp:>rted the prosecution case as given
·above, The High Court did not place reliance upon the testimony of
·this witness, and we find no sufficient ground to take a different view,
Avtar Kaur was confronted with her statement made before the police.
Jn that statemont Avtar Kaur stated that after taking her meals, she
went to her daughter's room and slept there, It was further stated by
Avtar Kaur that on the night of occurrence at about 10 or II p,m.
Rupinder Kaur, wife of Daljit Singh, came to Avtar Kaur and woke
her up. Rupinder Kaur also told Avtar Kaur that Daljit Singh was
-calling her below in the drawing room, Avtar Kaur further state.d before the police that she had been told by Gurdial Singh of Ramano
that in a drunken state he had shot dead Lal Singh deceased and he
h> pardoned. Acc>rding to that statemont of Avtar Kaur, she imme-
.diately directed that police b> called and thoreupon Gurdial Singh of
<village Ramana tried to run away, but he was secured by Pargat Singh
.and Daljit Singh. Daljit Singh also snatched the gun from, his hand,
[tis thus plain that the version given by Avtar Kaur in her statement
l>>fore the p )]ice was materially different. In view of that fact not
much reliance can obviously b: placed upon the testimony of Avtar
Kaur in court.
Anothor fact of which note may, bo taken is that, according to
Avtar Kaur, she was sitting on a chair in the room of Lal Singh and
it was while sitting on that chair that she saw the occurrence.
No such chair was found in that room when /iub Inspector Ram
Rikh arrived there on the night of occurrence. It is also nobody's
-case that any chair wa• remJved from that room after the occurrence.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
B
c
D
E
F
G
HAllYANA V· GURDIAL SINGH {Khanna, J.)
663
Th' .ab1cace of the chair in th1t ro'm creates considerable doubt
ab,ut lhe correctness of the evidence of Avtar Kaur .
._, The prosecution has sought corroboration of the evidence of Avtar
.IUlur from the testimony of Sukhjeet Singh(PW .4) and Harjiwan Katir,
(PW S), accl'rding tq whom they saw Parga! Singh holding a gun and
two Uurdial Singhs 'going down the stairs after the occurrence. The
. vcmon of these witnesses in their statements before the police was,
however, materially different. Sukhject Singh stated before the P'lice
tliatllll ~bing the drawing room he enquired from Daljit Singh as
to~ was the matter and that Daljit Singh then replied that Gurdial
· Sil!Jh :had shot dead Lal Singh. The witness also stated before the
·police that Gurdial Singh of village Ramana was lying at the foot
ofAvtar Kaur and was saying that under intoxication he had fired
the shot and he be plrdoned. Harjiwan Kaur in her statement made
before the police stated that she had not seen anybody going or
coming. She had also not heard the sound of any gun shot. According
to that statement, she, her mother and sister were sleeping in her
room on the night of occurrence when Rupinder Kaur came and woke
them up.
. The High Court also gave cogent reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the first information report appeared to have been reeorded
much later and not at the time it purp,rted to have been done. Police
station Butana is at a distance of about I 3 miles from Kamal. Tho two
places are connected by metalled road on which buses ply frequently.
Copy of the first information report was received by the Ilaka magistrate at Kamal at 2 p.m. If the formal first information report had,
in fact, been preplred at 3 ·45 a.m. it is not explained as to why the
copy of the same was not delivered to the magistrate on the morning
of December 12, 1968. Likewise, if the inquest report was prepared
by Sub Inspector Ram Rikli shortly after recording report PD at 3
a.m., there is no sufficient reason as to why the dead body which was
sent in th• trQ!ly of a tractor to Karna! should be brought to the
doctor not before 3·55 p.m. The evidence that it took time to get the
tractor ready has not b'en accepted by the High Court and we are not
inclined to take a different view.
There is another fact which also indicates that on the morning of
December 12, 1968 the P'lice had no material with it about the complicity of Parga! Singh for the murder of Lal Singh deceased. Pargat
Singh was admitiedly amongst those persons who assemblea at the
house of Avtar Kaur on the morning of D.:cember 12, 1968. Although
Sub Imp:ctor Ram Rikh noticed his presence, he did not arrest Parga!
Singh. It seems rather difficult to believe that if the first information
repart had. been recorded before the assemblage of different persons
including Parga! ~ingh on the momi'!g of J?ccember 12, 1968 and th.e
name of Pargat Singh had been menlloned ID that report as the assailant of Lal Singh, the p~lice Sub Inspector would not take him into
custody.
664
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1974] 3 S.C.R.
Reliance was placed by the trial court upon the statement of Pargat
Singh made before the committing magistrate that on December JI,
1968 he had gone to the room of Lal Singh to pay respects. There is,
however, nothing in that statement to show that it related to a visit
at day time or at night time. No incriminating inference can in the
circumstances be drawn from that statement against Parga! Singh.
The present is a case wherein the prosecution witnesses have come
out with two inconsistent versions of the occurrence. One version of
the occurrence is contained in the evidence of the witnesses in court,
while the other version is contained in their statements made before
the police. According to the version given in court, it was Parga! Singh
who shot dead the deceased, while according to the other version it
was Gurdial Singh of Ramana who was responsible for the crime.
Again, according to the version given in court, the occurrence was
witnessed by Avtar Kaur. As against that, the version contained in
the police statement was that Avtar Kaur had not witnessed the occurrence. In view of these contradictory versions, the High Court, in our
opinion, rightly came to the conclusion that the conviction of the
accused could not be sustained. We see no ground to interfere with the
judgment of the High Court. The appeals fail and are dismis~ed.
s.c.
Appeals dismissed.
A
B ,
c
D