# STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. KARTAR SINGH

- **Citation:** [1971] 1 S.C.R. 56
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1970-03-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal Nos. \14 and 115 of 1969
- **Bench:** M. Hidayatullah, A. N· Ray, I. D. Dua
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-rajasthan-v-kartar-singh-5098
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Indian Evidence Act, (1 of 1872) s. 145-Entire statement nwde
before Committal Court stated to be mdde under pressure-Whole statement read and then, witness asked to explain-Whether s. 145 complied
with.
.
A
B
A father and. son were charged with committing seven murders. K,
C
·an eye witness, narrated the incident in the committal court and stated
that the two accused· armed with a pistol and sword respectively entered
the house of the deceased, the son atiacked the victims
and the father
fired when his son was caught by M.
R stated that the son made a
confession to him with regard to the· murder.
In the sessions cou!rt K
turned hostile, and the public prosecutor read to K the whole of her
·statement and asked whether it was her statement.
She admitted that
it was a true record of what she stated before the committal court, but
D
.stated that it was a false statement given under ··police plressure'.
The
same was the case with R..
Both the statements of K and R before the
committal court were brought on record of the Sessions trial as Exhibits,
and the defence did not then object to their being read.
The Sessions
Court convicted the father and son relying on the statements of K and
M before tho committal court, of another eye witness, and of S who
had heard the report of pistol shot and saw the accused armed with
their respective weapons coming out of the deceased's house.
The High
E
Court, on appeal, affirmed the conviction of the son, but rejecting the
testimony of K, R and S acquitted the father holding that he had taken
no share in the affair.
In appeals, by the State against the father's
acquittal, and by the son again•t his conviction this Court :-
HELD : The High Court was in error in not reading the statements.
The objection taken to the admissibility of the statement of K was that
F
every single passage which diffe'red from her testimony in the Court of
Session w•' not put to her with a view to affording her an opportunity
of explaining why she had made a
contrary statement.
No doubt, if
there were some passages here and there which differed from her later
version, lhat procedure would have been necessary.
Herc the witness
admitted that her statement was truly recorded in" the Committal Court.
She only denied that it was a true statement because she said that she
was made to depose that way by the police. It would have been useless
G
to point out the discrepancies between the two statements because her
explanation would have been the same.
In these circumstances, the
requirements of '· !4S of the Indian Evidence Act were fully complied
with and the earlier statement could be read as evidence in the Sessions
Trial. [61•C·E]
The same was tho case with R. These two witnesses
also made
• statement under s. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
'These
H
statements were, of co11rse, not evidence but were corroborative of what
had been stated earlier in the Committal Court.
The attention of the
witnesses was drawn to the pauages from those statements alse> and their
explanation only was that they were made under police pressure.
The
A
B
RAJASTHAN V. KARTAR (Hidayatul/ah, C.J.)
57
High Court should have accepted the evidence of S. because there was
sufficient corroboration of his evidence. There \Vas, thus, enough evidence on record to convict the father also. [61 E; 62 BJ

## Text

56
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
v.
KARTAR SINGH
March 18, 1970
{M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., A. N· RAY AND I. D. DUA, JJ.J
Indian Evidence Act, (1 of 1872) s. 145-Entire statement nwde
before Committal Court stated to be mdde under pressure-Whole statement read and then, witness asked to explain-Whether s. 145 complied
with.
.
A
B
A father and. son were charged with committing seven murders. K,
C
·an eye witness, narrated the incident in the committal court and stated
that the two accused· armed with a pistol and sword respectively entered
the house of the deceased, the son atiacked the victims
and the father
fired when his son was caught by M.
R stated that the son made a
confession to him with regard to the· murder.
In the sessions cou!rt K
turned hostile, and the public prosecutor read to K the whole of her
·statement and asked whether it was her statement.
She admitted that
it was a true record of what she stated before the committal court, but
D
.stated that it was a false statement given under ··police plressure'.
The
same was the case with R..
Both the statements of K and R before the
committal court were brought on record of the Sessions trial as Exhibits,
and the defence did not then object to their being read.
The Sessions
Court convicted the father and son relying on the statements of K and
M before tho committal court, of another eye witness, and of S who
had heard the report of pistol shot and saw the accused armed with
their respective weapons coming out of the deceased's house.
The High
E
Court, on appeal, affirmed the conviction of the son, but rejecting the
testimony of K, R and S acquitted the father holding that he had taken
no share in the affair.
In appeals, by the State against the father's
acquittal, and by the son again•t his conviction this Court :-
HELD : The High Court was in error in not reading the statements.
The objection taken to the admissibility of the statement of K was that
F
every single passage which diffe'red from her testimony in the Court of
Session w•' not put to her with a view to affording her an opportunity
of explaining why she had made a
contrary statement.
No doubt, if
there were some passages here and there which differed from her later
version, lhat procedure would have been necessary.
Herc the witness
admitted that her statement was truly recorded in" the Committal Court.
She only denied that it was a true statement because she said that she
was made to depose that way by the police. It would have been useless
G
to point out the discrepancies between the two statements because her
explanation would have been the same.
In these circumstances, the
requirements of '· !4S of the Indian Evidence Act were fully complied
with and the earlier statement could be read as evidence in the Sessions
Trial. [61•C·E]
The same was tho case with R. These two witnesses
also made
• statement under s. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
'These
H
statements were, of co11rse, not evidence but were corroborative of what
had been stated earlier in the Committal Court.
The attention of the
witnesses was drawn to the pauages from those statements alse> and their
explanation only was that they were made under police pressure.
The
A
B
RAJASTHAN V. KARTAR (Hidayatul/ah, C.J.)
57
High Court should have accepted the evidence of S. because there was
sufficient corroboration of his evidence. There \Vas, thus, enough evidence on record to convict the father also. [61 E; 62 BJ
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos.
\14 and 115 of 1969.
Appeals by special leave from the judgmejllt and order dated
May 6, 1968 of the Rajasthan High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
624 of 1967.
·
K. Baldev Mehta, for the appeJlant (in Cr. A. No. 114 of·
1969).
E. Udayarathnam, tor the appellant (in Cr. A. No. 115 of
c
1969).
D
E
F
G
H
S. P. Sinha ~nd S. K. Bisaria, for the respondent (in Cr. A. Ne.
114 of 1969).
K. Baldev Mehta, for the respondent (in Cr. A. No. 115 of
169).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
i 'dayatullah, C.J. This judgment will govern the disposal· of
Criminal Appeals Nos. 114 and 115 of 1969. They have been
filed by special leave granted by this Court .. Criminal Appeal No.
114 of 1969 has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the
1cquittal oi Kartar Singh and Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 1969
has been tiled by Gurj ant Singh son of Kartar Singh who has been
convicted under s. 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to death. Previously
the Sessions Judge, Ganganagar had convicted Kartar Singh also
under s. 302/34, I.P.C. and sentenced him to death. Both Kartar
Singh and Gurjant Singh were also convicted for some minor
offences and sentenced to diverse periods of imprisonment but we
are not concerned with them here, though the conviction and sen·
tences of Gurjant Singh on the minor 'Jffences were confirmed but
Kartar Singh was acquitted.
·
The case arises from an incident which took place on the night
between the 8th and 9th February, . 1967 at 11 p.m. at Mauza
Ramsara in District Ganganagar. It involved the murder of no
less than 7 persons and injuries to two others. The murdered per·
sons were Kartar Singh's father Dayal Singh, Kartar Singh's step·
mother Phinno and five children born to Dayal Singh from Phin110.
Two other step-brothers of Kartar Singh were grievously wounded
but escaped with their lives. The cause of this miniature mas·
sacre was the purchase of land by Dayal Sinii;h in the names of
his second wife Phinno and two of her sons. This annoyed Kartar
Singh and bis son Gurjant Singh since the step-mother and the
L1 IS·1pC1/70-S
Sl'PREME COURT REPORTS
l 1971 J l S.C.R.
step-brothers were being favoured.
The family had migrated
from the West Punjab and settled down first at Simrewab. -Later
it shifted to village Ramsara. Dayal Singh sold the land at Simrewala and purchased some other at Ramsara in the names of his
second wife Phinno and two of her sons. Kartar Singh also sold
his land in village Simrewala and went to village J asana, 2 to 2:!
miles from village Ramsara.
On the night
in question Dayal
Singh was talking to his daughter Mst. Kartar Kaur from his first
wife, who had gone to her father's house that very day.
Some
of the members of the family were asleep and some were awake.
At about 11 p.m. Gurjant Singh and his father Kartar Singh went
to the house of Dayal Singh and called Dayal Singh. Dayal Singh
went to the door, opened it and enquired why they had come at
such an odd hour. He was told that they had been attacked by
some Nayaks and had come to the house for taking sh.elter. Kartar
Singh was armed with a pistol and Gurjant Singh with a sword.
As soon as they entered the house, Gurjant Singh started striking
Dayal Singh
with his sword.
Dayal
Singh emerged into the
'Chowk',
Mohinder Singh, his udult
son, then grappled with
Gurjant Singh. Gurjant Singh u!s() wounded Mohinder Singh nnd
Knrt•1r Singh fired his pistol which made Mohinder Singh release
Gurj:uu Singh.
Mohinder Singh then mudc his cscupe with his
full ~iitcr Kurtur Knur. Meanwhile Mst. Phinno had arrived and
she wns nlso attacked by Gurjunt Singh. It is not necessnry w go
over the ground.
Suffice it to say that one nfter the other the
seven inmates of the house-six step relations of Gurjant Singh
and Kartar Singh and Dayal Singh himself were killed. One boy
-another step-brother of Kartai Singh-was seriously wounded
but survived.
Mohinder Singh then went to the house of Fazal Deen (P.W.
2) and reported the matter to him and asked for help.
Fazal
D0cn sent his son Balu Khan with Mohinder Singh and himsdf
started to get ready.
They first went to the ho:.ise of Prenrnrnm
carrcntcr and with Premaram they went to the. house of Gurdeep
Singh (P.W. I). Then they proceeded to the house ,1f Dayal Singh
and found the seven bodies and the
wounded boy lying there.
Many other persons nrrived on the scene.
BalL1 Khan was asked
to go and report the matter to the police. He went in seard1 cf
his mare but Samandar Singh (P.W. 6) .told him that he had seen
Kartar Sinj!h and Gurjant Singh going away on
the
back of a
hor>e.
Balu Khan's mare was not found; presumably they had
tnkcn his mare.
The incident was reported at Police
Station
Noher at about 2 p.m. After leaving the spot, the father and son
seem to have parted company. Gurjant Singh went to village
Patholawali in Haryana State where Mst. Kartar Kaur was married. He met Ranjeet Sin)!h son of Kartar Kaur and disclosed to him
that he had murdered Dayal Singh, Phinno and also their childA
B.
c
D·
E
F
G·
ff.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
RAJASTHAN v. KARTAR (Hidayatullah, C.J.)
59
ren. A fire was lit to warm himself and in that fire he cast the
shoe and his shirt which were blood-stained. They were burnt. It
may be pointed out that at the spot where murders took place, a
safa, an odd shoe and a live 303 cartridge were found. The shoe,
which Gurjant Singh burnt in the fire and the one found on the
spot were presumably a pair. After Gurjant Singh fell asleep,
Ranjeet Singh's father Kamai! Singh informed the Sarpanch and
the Lambardar about the murders committed by Gurjant Singh
and the Sarpanch and the Lambardar took Gurjant Singh to the
Police Station Raina and handed him over to the police.
His
jersy was found
to be stained with blood and seized.
Later
Gurjant Singh made a statement that he had thrown the sword
in a cotion held in village Ledesar and that he would point out
the place.
As a result of this information a sword was found in
the field pointed out by Gurjant Singh and later both the jersy
and the sword wer.e found to be stained with human blood.
Karlar Singh wa; not arrested immediately.
He remained
absconding till Febru~ry 26, 1967 when he was arrested near the
bus-stand at Dekha, District Ludhiana. He made a statement that
he had buried a pistol and some cartridges near a bush about one
furlong from the village Ladcsar and that he would point out the
place.
On his pointing out the place a pistol and 18 Jive cartridges of 303 bore were dug out from the ground and they were
also seized.
After investigation the police presented a charge-sheet against
Kartar Singh and his son Gurjant Singh.
The Sessions Judge
Ganganagar convicted both of them bunhe High Court has since
acquitted Kartar Singh while maintaining the conviction and sentences of Gurjant Singh and hence the two appeals before us.
There were two eye-witnesses to the occurrence, namely,
Mohinder Singh (P.W. 4) and Kartar Kaur (P.W. 2). Kartar Kaur
turned hostile in the Court of Sessions and the statement made by
her before the committal court was br6ught on the record of the
trial court under s. 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mst.
Kartar Kaur admitted that thut was correctly recorded but denied
the truth of it saying that it was given under police pressure. The
learned Sessions Judge relied upon the statements of Mohinder
Singh and that of Kartar Kaur before the committal court and
convicted both the father and the son. The High Court did not
accept th~ earlier statement of Kartar Kaur, for the reasons which
will soon appear, and therefore acquitted Kartar Singh because
he had taken no share in the affair. Kartar Kaur had earlier stated
that he had fired the pistol but later resiled from that statement.
As no other part was attributed to Kartar Singh the High Court
felt that he was not involved in the murder and only his son Gurjant
Singh was responsible.
60
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971 J l S.C.R.
We shall first deal with the appeal of Gurjant Singh against his
conviction and sentence of death.
The prosecution case against Gurjant Singh has been accepted by the High Court and the Court of Session. Ordinarily this
Court does not consider evidence for the third time when a concurrent finding has already been reached by the High Court and
the Court of Session.
However, as there was an appeal against
the acquittal of Kartar Singh and the evidence was read to us in
that connection we have been able to appraise it in relation to Gurjant Singh a!So.
Our conclusion is that the case against Gurjant
Singh is amply proved. There are other pieces of evidence which
the High Court rejected, in our opinion, wrongly. If those arc
added to the evidence already accepted against Gurjant Singh they
leave no room for doubt (if there was one) that he was the person
who committed the seven murders on that fateful night.. Before
we summarise the case against Gurjant Singh we wish to consider
the evidenc~ which was discarded by the High Court in relation
to his case and the appeal against Kartar· Singh.
Testimony of three witnesses was rejected by the High Court.
The first is Kartar Kaur, the full sister of Kartar Singh, the second
her son Ranjeet Singh and the third Samandar Singh (P.W. 6).
The evidence of Kartar Kaur in the Committal Court was brought
upon the record of the Sessions trial, as Ex. E-14, and the evidence
of Ranjeet Singh before the Committal Court was brought on the
record of the trial court as Ex. E-17. When these documents were
admitted in evidence, counsel for the defence did not object to
· their being read. In the High Court, however, attempt was made
to get rid of the statements by saying that they were inadmissible.
since the provisions of s. 145 of the Indian Evidence Act were not
complied with.
In· our judgment, there was enough compliance
with s. 145 of the Evidence Act and the High Court erred in not
reading these earlier statements for what they were worth. When
these two witnesses were examined in the committal court, they
gave a clear version involving the two accused in the case. The
statement of .Mst. Kartar Kaur was that Gurjant Singh and his
'father Kartar Singh came to the house of Dayal Singh and Gur,iant
Sirigh called alou\I to Dayal Singh to ooen the door. The door
was opened and father and son entered.
At that time Guriant
Singh was carrying a sword. She stated quite clearly that Gurjant
Simrh attacked her father Daval Singh and later her step-mother
Phinno.
She also said that Kartar Singh had also entered with
Gurjant Singh and Kartar Sinl!h fired a firearm when Guriant
Simrh wns caught by Mohinder Sin@:h. She also stated that Mohin·
der Singh was wounded by Guriant Singh and then she ran out of
the house in the comoany of Mohinder Singh. These clear statements w~re completelv denied by her when she came to the Court
A
B
c
D
E
(I
G
H
-
'
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
RAJASTHAN v. KARTAR (Hidayatul/ah, C.J.)
61
of Session. Her effort then was to make it appear that the persons
who had entered the house had muffled their faces and she could
not identify them.
She also said that she had not seen anything
in the hands of those persons. In fact she did not say that there
were two persons at all but only one.
She was declared ho5tile
and was allowed to be cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor.
The Public Prosecutor read to her the whole of her statement
before the Committal Court and asked her Whether it was her
statement. ·She admitted that it was a true record of what she
had stated before the Committal Court, but she said that it was a
false statement given under 'police pressure'. The objection taken
to the admissibility of the statement was· that every single passage
which differed from her testimony in the Court of Session was not
put to her with a view to affording her an opportunity of explaining
why she had made a contrary statement. No doubt, if there were
some passages here and there which differed from her later version,
that procedure would have been necessary.
Here the witness admitted that her statement was truly recorded in the Committal
Court. She only denied that it was a true statement because she
said that she was made to depose that way by the police. It would
have been useless to point out the discrepancies between the two
statements because her explanation would have been the same. In
thc>e circumstances, the requirements of s. 145 of the Indian
Evidence Act were fully complied with and the earlier statement
could be read as evidence in the Sessions Trial.
The same was the case with Ranjeet Singh. He had also given
a graphic account of how Gurjant Singh had met him at his field
and had confessed to him that he was coming after murdering
Dayal Singh and the whole family.
Gurjant Singh said that he
was hungry and therefore he was brought home. As he was feeling cold a fire was lit and Gurjant Singh began to warm himself.
Then he asked for hot water so that he (Gurjant Singh) could take
a bath. He also asked Ranjeet Singh to prepare some tea. When
tea was being prepared Gurjant Singh ;mt his chaddar, shirt and a
shoe in the fire.
Ranjeet Singh on getting the smell came and
asked what was being burnt and was told that he (Gurjant Singh)
had burnt his clothes which were blood-stained.
When Gnrjant
Singh fell asleep. Karnail Singh father of Ranjeet Singh informed
the Lambardar and the Sarpanch and they came and caught Gurjant Singh and handed him over to the police.
In the Court of
Session Ranjeet Singh completely denied the statement. He was
.confronted with this statement and it was read over to him in
extenso.
He also admitted that was a true record of what he had
stated in foe Committal Court but that it was false and was given
under 'police pressure'. In our judgment, there was sufficient compliance with s. 145 of the Indian Evidence Act in his case also.
It would have been pointless to draw his attention to each sen-
62
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 1 S.C.R.
tence and ask his explanation because the explanation would have
been the same that it was false and given under pressure of police.
It may be pointed out that these two witnesses also made a
statement under s. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These
statements were, of course. not evidence but were corroborative
of what had been stated earlier in the Committal Court. The attention of the witnesses was drawn to passages from those statements also and their explanation only was that they were made
under 'police pressure'.
In our judgment the High Court was in
error in not reading the statement of Ranjeet Singh made before
the Committal Court and considering it as part of the evidence in
the case.
Samandar Singh (P.W. 6) was the third witness to be disbelieved. His statement was that he heard the report of a pistol shot
and climbed his roof. He saw in the house of Dayal Singh a light
burning and also that something was happening as there were
shouts of 'bachao' 'bachao' from that direction.
He saw Kartar
Singh and Gnrjant Singh coming out of the h0nse of Dayal Singh.
Gnrjant Singh had a naked sword in his hands and Kartar Singh
had a white mare with him. That mare belonged to Fazaldeen.
He accosted them but they did not stop and told him to go away
lest he should be killed.
Both the father and the son had not
covered their faces.
He saw them go away on the mare.
He fol-·
lowed them for some 70 to 80 paces and then turned back and
went to the house of Dayal Singh a,nd saw. the dead body of a
woman lying in the courtyard. He went to Fazaldeen but did not
find him.
He then returned to his own house which was next to
Dayal Singh's house and found Prema, Gnrdeep and other persons there.
He told them that Kartar Singh and Gurjant Singh
had gone away with the mare. He also saw Mohinder Singh who
was wounded.
The evidence of this witness was curiously disbelieved by the High Court because the report of the pistol shot was
no• heard by Fazaldeen and Gnrdeep Singh. It•is often the case
that the report of a firearm at night is heard by some persons and
not by others. It depends on the fact that some persons are awake
and some are asleep.
It is obvious
that Samandar Singh was
awake that night because he was at the house of Dayal Singh soon
afterwards. Perhaps lying awake and as his house was next door
he heard the report of the pistol shot and also the cries from Dayal
Singh's house.
There is nothing unnatural in the statement made
by Samandar Singh and we do not see any reason to disbelieve
him.
Another reason given by the High Court was that Samandar
Singh claimed to have follov. ~d the father and the son for 70 tc'i
80 paces and that would not be natural since it was night time and
the other two were armed. It may he that Samandar Singh, who
was a police surveille. claimed that he was following the suspects
merely t0 earn a name for himself.
Bm we do not think that his
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
D
E
F
H
RAJASTHAN v. KARTAR (Hidayatul/ah, C.J..
63
whole testimony is false because his statement that there was a
pistol shot was corroborated by Mohinder Singh and by Kartar
Kaur in her statement before the Committal Court. The ston• cl
pistol shot was disbelieved by the High Court because it was· not
mentioned to Fazaldeen and Gurdeep Singh by Mohinder Singh
and did not figure in the First Information Report. The First Jn.
formation Report was made not by one of the persons immediately
concerned but by a person who had the information from another.
In these cases, sometimes, a fact gets omitted which should h~•vc
been mentioned. Fazaldeen and Gurdeep Singh had stood by the
First Information Report although there was no mention in it
about the pistol shot. This was noticed by the High Court.
In
these circumstances the suspicion should have fallen on the rnr·
rectness of the statements of Fazaldeen and Gurdeep Singh r.ithcr
than on the statements by Mohinder
Singh, Kartar Kaur "ml
Samandar Singh.
No doubt Kartar Kaur and Ranjeet changed but it must be
remembered that Kartar Kaur and Ranjeet Singh were immediately related to Kni:tar Singh.
Kartar Kaur was his full sister
and Ranjeet Singh'was her son.
They were favourably disposed
towards Kartar Singh and his son Gurjant Singh.
Although they
had made truthful statements under the shock of what had hap·
pened they were trying to save them by denying their statements
in the Committal Court. It would be impossible to think that
police could exert pressure to make successive statements to the
police, then to the Magistrate under s. 164 and then to the Committal Court. It is obvious that pressure was exercised the other
way by Kartar Singh and Gurjant Singh and the earlier statements
were denied to save them.
When these statements are thrown in, the case against Gurjant
Singh remains amply proved.
Apart from the evidence of eye·
witnesses. namely, Mst. Kartar Kaur and her brother Mohinder
Singh, there is the evidence of Samandar Singh that he was seen
going away. Jn support of this evidence there is the extra-judicial
confession of Gurjant Singh to Ranjeet Singh when he met him
at the latter's village.
We are completely satisfied that this confession was made.
The circumstantial evidence of burninz the
chaddar. shirt and the shoe clearly demonstrates the guilt o{ Gurjant Singh.
It must be remembered that a safa and an odd shoe
were found at the spot near the body of Mst. Phinno. Mohinder
Singh identified them as the shoe and safa of Gurjant Singh.
The
High Court has accepted this evidence and we see no reason to dis·
believe Mohinder Singh who was the identifyin.g witness.
Then
there is the discovery of the sword with human blood-stains on it
and his pullover which was also found to be stained with human
blood.
The fact that Gurjant Singh was apprehended from a
•
SUPREME COURT REPORfS
(1971] l S.C.R.
place far away from the place where the murders took place also
shows that he had run ~way from the place of murder to seek
shelter elsewhere.
The evidence against Gurjant Singh is complete and we are convinced that the prosecution case put up against
him has been fully brought home to him.
We are further convinced that for the reasons given above statements made by Kartar
Kaur and Ranjeet Singh before the Committal Court are true and
they fully support the conclusion that Gurjant Singh has been
rightly convicted and sentenced.
His appeal will be dsmissed.
This brings us to the appeal against Kartar Singh.
We have
already stated that we think that the statement of Mohinder Singh
a bout the firing of the pistol by Kartar Singh is corroborated by
the earlier statements of Mst. Kartar Kaur and the statement of
Samandar Singh who heard the report of the firing of the pisfol.
At the scene of the murder a live cartridge of . 303 bore was found.
Later Kartar Singh made a statement to the police and as a result
of that statement a pistol and 18 live cartridges of the same bore
were dug out from the ground.
These corroborate the evidence
of Mohinder Singh and of Kartar Kaur that, Kartar Singh had a
pistol in his hand and he fired it to force Mohinder Singh to release Gurjant Singh with whom he was grappling. The presence
of the cartridge on the scene of the murder connects Kartar Singh
and lends· sufficient corroboration to the statement of the_ eyewitnesses to make the guilt brought home to him.
The High
Court was in error in thinking that Kartar Singh did nothing in
the matter and was a silent spectator. It is impossible to think
that Kartar Singh would stand aloof and let his son commit as
many
as seven murders including the murder of his
(Kartar
Singh's) own father and not do anything to prevent his
son unless he himself had connived and was a party. It ic clear from
the evidence that Kartar Singh and Gurjant Singh had come together.
They were both armed and both went away together.
The pistol was in fact fired and at the site of the offence a live
cartridge was found which matched with the pistol and the other
live cartridges dug out from the ground as a result of a statement
made by Kartar Singh.
We believe Samandar Singh's statement
that he saw these two go away together, as indeed he must have.
after the assault on the family had been made.
On the whole
the case against Kartar Singh is also proved. He did not do anything to murder these persons but he certainly was there with
Gurf ant Singh and both were of the same mind in doing away with
the family of Daval Singh including Dayal Sinqh himself.
We
are satisfied that the case stood proved against him as well.
We allow the appeal of the State of Rajasthan agamsr Kartar
Singh and convict him under s. 302/34, I.P.C. He was awarded
B
c
D
.E
F
G
H
A
B
RAJASTHAN v. KARTAR lHidayatul/ah, C.J.)
65
a senter.ce of death. by the learned Ses~ions Judge but, we think,
that as his part in the seven murders, was secondary, it would be
sufficient if the sentence of life imprisonment is imposed upon him.
Kartar Singh is therefore convicted under s. 302/34, l.P.C. and is
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 'If he is not
in custody he shall be arrested forthwith and committed to prison
to serve out his sentence.
Y.P.
Appeal a/lowed ..