Holding

The appellants are guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Sec. 299 read with Sec. 304 Part‑I IPC, the Arms Act conviction is set aside, and compensation under Sec. 357(3) CrPC is awarded.

Summary

Baldev Singh and his father were convicted by a Special Court for murder (Sec. 302 r/w Sec. 34 IPC) and for possession of an unlicensed weapon. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, including the FIR, eyewitness statements and post‑mortem report, and found that the injuries inflicted were not sufficient to constitute murder but amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Sec. 299 read with Sec. 304 Part‑I IPC. The Court held that the FIR is not substantive evidence but can be used to assess the credibility of the prosecution case. Consequently, the conviction was altered to Sec. 299/304 IPC and the conviction under the Arms Act was set aside. In addition, invoking Sec. 357(3) CrPC, the Court ordered the appellants to pay Rs. 35,000 each as compensation to the victim's widow and children, and limited their imprisonment to the period already served.

Issues considered

Whether the facts constitute murder under Sec. 302 r/w Sec. 34 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Sec. 299 r/w Sec. 304 Part‑I IPC.
Whether the conviction under the Arms Act (Sec. 25) should stand.
Whether compensation can be awarded under Sec. 357(3) CrPC in addition to imprisonment.
The evidentiary value of the FIR in relation to the testimony of the eyewitness.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 357(3)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 25, s. 299, s. 302, s. 304 Part-I, s. 34
Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984s. 14

Subjects

murderculpable homicide not amounting to murderSection 299 IPCSection 304 IPCSection 357 CrPCcompensationFIR evidenceArms Actproperty disputefamily feud

Judgment

BALDEV SINGH AND ANR. A
v.
STATE OF PUN.JAB

OCTOBER 13, 1995

[A.S. ANAND AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, J.J.j B

()inzinal Lalv :

Indian Penal Code, 1860:

Sections 302 r/w 341299, 304, Pait-I-Murder/culpable homicide-No
c
illlention to cause death-No knowledge that injwies inflicted were likely to
cause death-Held; offence falls under Section 299 read with Section 304,
Pan-I and not under S.302 r/w S.34.

Code of Ciiminal Procedure, 1973 : D
Section 357(3T--Con111ensation--Maintaining tile se11tence of ilnp1ison-
nient-No1 beneficial to victin1 or his lleirs-ACcused in a }Josition to pay-Fit
case for substitution of sentence of bnp1iso1unent by award of con1pensation.

Evidence Act, Ifi72 : E
First infonnatimi Repmt-Value and use of-Not a substantive piece of
evidenw--Relevant on(v in judging the veracity of prosecution case--Only the
essential or broad picture need be stated in it.

The first appellant and his father were convicted under Section 302 F
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life. The first appellant was also convicted
under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

According to the prosecution, PW-S's husband took the land belong- G
ing to the second a11pellant for cultivation. The second appellant wanted
the Government land being cultivated by PW-S's husband in lieu of the
lands taken over by him, but he did not consent to this. On the evening of
4th May, 1984 PW-5, her husband and son (PW-6) were working in the
field. When they reached near the field of the second appellant, armed with
kirpan, the first appellant armed \\-'ith Barchha and S with a pistol came H
301
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A there. S fired from the pistol aiming at PW-S's husband, but he was not
hit. The first appellant gave Barcha blow on the thigh of PW-S's husband
while the second appellant gave kirpan blow on his chest. Both the appel-
lants--accused gave further injuries to him. A, who was in the nearby field,
having heard the alarm, reached the spot and tried to intervene. The first
appellant .gave ba~cl1ha thrust in the thigh of A. Thereafter, the accused
B
ran away with their respective weapons. PW-S's husband died at the spot.
PW-5 lodged a First Information Report (Ex.P-7). The post mortem on the
dead body of PW-S's husband was performed by PW-1. The statement of
A was recorded by PW-10. A expired on 12.S.1984.

c On the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution
including that of PW-1, PW-S, statement of A and F.I.R. (Ex.P-7) the
Special Court came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the
appellants-accused were proved.

In the appeal before this Court, on behalf of the accused persons it
D was contended that there was discrepancy between Ex. P-7, (F.l.R.) and the
deposition of PW-S in Court and hence her evidence was not trustworthy;
that PW-S's husband did not receive any injuries by pistol; that there was
no evidence as to who cause the fatal injuries to him; that the accused
persons did not have an intention to cause death or had knowledge that
E death was likely to be caused by the injuries inflicted; that the accused
persons could only be convicted under Section 299 read with Section 304,
Part-I, IPC; and that this was a fit and proper case for award of compen-
sation under Section 3S7 Criminal procedure code to the heirs of the victim
who were his near relations.

F Disposing of the appeal, this Court

HELD: 1. There is nu discrepancy between Ex. P-7 (F.l.R.) and the
deposition of PW-Sin Court. It should be remembered that Ex. P-7 was given
within two hours of the incident and PW-S a lady would have been in an
G agitated mind then. The proper value to be attached to the F.J.R., the cus-
tomary or essential details to be mentioned there-in and the use that can be
made of it should not be lost sight of. Stated brieny, the F.J.R. is not a
substantive piece of evidence, it is only relevant in judging the veracity of
prosecutiorr' case and the value to be attached to it depends on the facts of
each case. Only the essential or broad picture need be stated in the F.l.R. and
H all minute details need not be mentioned therein. (311-C-H]
13ALDEVSINGH v. STATE 303

Ram Kumar v. State of M.P., AIR (1975) SC 1026; Bishen Das v. State A
of Punjab, AIR (1975) SC 573; Podda Narayana v. Stale ofA.P., AIR (1975)
SC 1252; Gumam Kaur v. Bakshislz Singh, AIR (1981) SC 631; State of
Hmyana v. Sizer Singh, AIR (1981) SC 1021; State of UP. v. Bal/abh Das &
01s., AIR (1988) SC 1384; Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1988) SC
628 and Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, [1990] 4 SCC 692, relied on. B

2. On a careful consideration of the materials available in the case
and in particular Ex. P-7 (F.l.R.), -statement by A, evidence of PW-5 and
the medical evidence, it is clear that the Court below was justified in
holding that the appellants - accused caused injuries to PW-S's deceased
husband which resulted in his death. It is also clear that the Court below C
was justified in holding that the first appellant alone caused injuries to A
resulting in his death. [314-B-C]

3. The medical evidence negatives any wound as having been sus-
tained by PW-S's deceased husband, by pistol. The arms possessed by the D
accused are not inherently dangerous to infer that the intention of the
accused was to cause death or that the accused had knowledge that by
inflicting the injuries as was done, death was likely to be caused. There is
no evidence or finding as to who caused the fatal injuries which resulted
in the death of PW-S's deceased husband. The appellants accused inflicted E
injuries only on the thigh and at the back. The incident happened nearly
11 years ago (4.S.1984). The injuries inflicted on A by the first appellant
have not been proved to be serious or fatal and A died nearly 8 days after
the incident on account of cumulative effect of the in.furies. The conviction
of the appellants for the offence under Section 299 read with Section 304,
F
Part-I, IPC is upheld. [317-C-D-G]

State of Andlzra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya, [1977] 1 SCR 601,
relied on.

4. The passage of time should have its impact in taking an overall G
view of the matter. The appellants have served the sentence of imprison-
ment for more than two years. PW-S's deceased husband is ari unfortunate
victim. The property dispute between the father and son has led to the
unfortunate incident. PW-S (widow) and children of the deceased are the
persons to suffer and they should not be forgotten ,and by merely main- H
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
,.___
A taining the sentence of imprisonment on the accused, the victim or his
heirs are not benefited. Considering the nature of the crime, the fact that
the accused and the victim are near relations, that it is a property issue
which ended in the calamity, the fact that the accused are admittedly in a
position to pay, it is clear that this is a fit case, in which Section 357 (3)
B Cr. P.C. can be invoked and a just and reasonable compensation given to
the family of the deceased (PW-5 and her children).· [317-E-F]

Hmi Singh v. Sukhbir Singh, (1988) 4 SCC 551; Dr. Jacob George v.
State, [1994] 3 SCC 4301 and Ba/raj v. State of UP., (1994] 4 SCC 291,
referred to.
c
D.R. Mitru's Code of Oiminal procedure-18th Edition, pp 1240-1241,
referred to.

5. In the circumstances, the following further directions are given in
D the interests of justice :·

(i) The appellants are found guilty and sentenced under Section 304,
Part-I of the Indian Penal Code to a term of imprisonment, which will be
limited to the period they have already undergone for causing the death of
PW-S's husband and A. (317-H, 318-A]
E
(ii) fo addition to the above, it is ordered that the two appel·
!ants-accused. shall pay by way of compensation a sum of Rs. 35,000
each to PW-5 and her children who have suffered the irreparable loss
due to the death of her husband for which the appellants · accused
F persons have been sentenced to the term of imprisonment already
undergone by them. (318-B]

(iii) The amount of compensation ordered shall be paid to PW-5 and
her children with in a period of 3 months from now. If it is not so paid,
G the amount shall be recovered by the persons entitled to the amount from
the appellants as if the direction contained herein is a decree passed
against them by this Court. If not recovered, the accused shall suffer the
balance of the term of imprisonment as imposed by the Trial Court, which
shall stand revived. (318-C]

H (iv) The conviction and sentence under Arms Act is set aside. (318-D]
BALDEVS;NGH v.STATE[PARIPOORNAN,J.] 305

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. A
181 of 1985.

From the Judgment and Order dated 3.l.85 of the Special Court at
Ferozcpur, Punjab in Case No. 49/84 & Trial No. 39 of 1984.

M.S. Gujral Singh and P.P. Singh for the Appellants. B
Ms. Arnita Gupta for R.S. Suri for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

PARIPOORNAN, J. Accused No. 1 Baldev Singh son of Roar Singh C
and Accused No. 3 Roar Singh son of Khushal Singh in Case No. 49/84 -
Trial No, 39/84 of the Court of Shri M.L. Merchea, Judge, Special Court,
Ferozepur have filed this appeal under Section 14 of the Terrorists Af-
fected Areas (Special Courts) Act of 1984{hereinafter referred to as 'Act')
against their conviction and sentence dated 3.1.1985. There were four D
accused in this case. Accused No. 2 Sham Singh son of Roar Singh and
Accused No. 4 Shamsheer Singh son of Roar Singh were acquitted by the
same judgment. The State has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of
accused Nos. 2 and 4.

2. The deceased No. 1, Balbir Singh and deceased No. 2 Amrik Singh E
and accused Nos. l to 4 are near relations. The following chart will help
to understand the relationship of the parties inter se :

Khushal Singh

F
Amrik Singh Roar Singh
(Deceased No. 2) (Accused No. 3)

G
Balbir Singh Sham Singh Baldev Singh Shamsheer Singh
(Deceased-1) (Accused-2) (Accused-1) (Accused-4)

The Court below, by its judgment dated 3.1.1985, convicted Accused Nos.
1 and 3 under Section 302 read with Section 34.of the Indian Penal Code
for committing the murder of Balbir Singh. Baldev Singh, accused No. 1 H
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing
the murder of Amrik Singh, deceased No. 2 and under Section 25 of the
Arms Act for heing in possession of the Barchha without licence. It is
against the said conviction and sentence the accused have filed this appeal
under the Act.

B 3. The prosecution alleged that accused Nos. l to 4 committed the
murder of Amrik Singh and Balbir Singh, deceased Nos. l and 2. The
prosecution case is as follows :

Balbir Singh was in Aalli village cultivating the land of the Govern-
c ment. About 3 years prior to the incident he shifted to village Saddushah-
wala and took 2-1/2 kilas belonging to his father Roar Singh for cultivation.
Father Roor Singh wanted the land in village Aalli from Balbir Singh in
lieu of the lands taken over by Balbir Singh. Balbir Singh did not consent
to this. On 4.5.1984 at about 8 P . M. Balbir Singh, his son Avtar Singh
D (PW-6), Daya Singh and Dalip Kaur, widow of Balbir Singh (PW 5), were
working in the field collecting ·bundles of the wheat stacks. When they
reached near the field of Roor Singh, Roor Singh armed with Kirpan,
Baldev Singh and Shamsheer Singh armed with Barchhas and Sham Singh
with a pistol came there. Roor Singh raised lalkara stating that Balbir Singh
should not be spared. Sham Singh fired from the pistol aiming at Balbir
E Singh. But Balbir Singh was not hit. Balbir Singh laid himself on the ground
to save himself from the firing. Bundles of wheat-stacks fell on him. Baldev
Singh gave Barchha blow on the thigh of Balbir Singh. Shamsheer Singh
gave Barchha thrust in the chest of Balbir Singh. Roor Singh gave Kirpan
blow in the chest of Balbir Singh. All the accused gave further injuries to
F Balbir Singh. Amrik Singh, deceased, who was in the nearby field, having
heard the alarm, reached the spot and tried to intervene. Baldev Singh gave
Barchha thrust in the thigh of Amrik Singh. Thereafter the accused ran
away with their respective weapons. Balbir Singh died at the spot. Dalip
Kaur (PW 5), widow accompanied by one Sher Singh went to Police Station
Mallanwala and gave the F.I.R. (Ex.P-7) at 10.20 P.M. A case was
G registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code
and Section 25 of the Arms Act, against the accused. On the other hand,
Amrik Singh reached the Rural Dispensary, Mallanwala at 9 AM. the next
day. PW 2, Dr. Raja Singh, Doctor, Rural Dispensary, Mallanwala, ex-
amined him at 9.45 A.M. In the meanwhile, PW-10, Rattan Singh, Station
H House Officer, Police Station, Mallanwala proceeded to the spot, found
BALD EV SINGH v. STATE [PARJPOORNAN,.1.J 307

the dead-body of Balbir Singh with multiple injuries lying in the field of A
Roor Singh, the accused with Daya Singh and A\1ar Singh (PW-6) guarding
the dead-body. Ex. P-24 inquest report was prepared. Dead body was
despatched for post- mortem examination through Ex. P-24/A. Rough
site-plan P-6/A was prepared. The shoes of Balbir Singh P/0-8 were col-
lected from the spot under seizure memo Ex. P-25. Blood stained earth
B
was collected under seizure memo Ex. P-26. Three stacks of wheats were
secured under seizure memo Ex. P-75. Thereafter, in the evening PW-10,
Rattan Singh, reached the hospital and made inquiries about Amrik Singh.
PW-2, Dr. Raja Singh, opined that Amrik Singh was fit to make a state-
ment. Thereafter, PW-10, Rattan Singh, recorded the statement of Amrik
Singh Ex. P-28. Amrik Singh produced his blood-stained shirt and kachha c
which were taken possession of under Ex.P-29.

4. PW-1 Dr. J asp al Singh performed the post mortem on the dead-
body of Balbir Singh on 5.5.1984. The post-mortem revealed the following
7 injuries :
D
l. Incised W[!Ulld 5 ems. x 2 ems. on the front of the left chest in
upper part 3 ems. above the nipple with blood clots. On
dissection the underlying rib was found cut and left thoracic
cavity full of clotted blood. Lower part of the heart stood
punctured through and though. The lower part of the lung E
also lay injured.

2. Incised wound 9 ems. x 3 ems. front and upper part of
the right thigh, oblique in direction with blood clots. On
dissection the underlying major blood vessels were found
corripletely cut and sub-cutaneous congested. F

3. Incised wound 9 ems. x 3 ems. at the outer and upper part
of the right thigh with blood clots. On dissection sub-
cutaneous tissues \Vere found congested.

4. Incised wound 5 ems. x 2 ems. at the middle of the right thigh
G
with blood clots and sub-cutaneous tissues congested and soft
tissues cut.·

5. Incised wound 1-1/2 ems. x 1/2 cm. at the middle of the right
buttock sub-cutaneous tissues congested. H
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A 6. Incised wound 1-1/2 ems. x 1/2 cm. at the outer and upper
part of the left thigh near iliac crest with blood clots.
'
7. Incised wound 7 ems. x 2 ems at the back of the abdomen in
lower part in middle at Jumbo sacral region with blood clots
with underlying vertebra partially cut and sub-cutaneous tis-
B sues congested."

The Doctor opined that death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a
result of multiple injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death. He also opined that injury No. 1 alone was sufficient
c in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Amrik Singh expired on
12.5.1984. An assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Mallanwalla,
Gurmel Singh (PW-11)', on receipt of the said information, went to the
hospital and prepared Inquest Report Ex. P-5. The dead body was
despatched for post-mortem through request Ex. P-5/A.

D 5. Accused Sham Singh, Roar Singh, Shamsheer Singh and Baldev
Singh were arrested on 12th and 14th May, 1984. PW-7, Head Constable
recover.ed the loaded pistol and cartridges from Sham Singh under seizure
memo Ex. P-8 and Ex. P-9. From Shamsheer Singh a Barchha was
recovered under seizure memo P-14 and his statement was recorded Ex.
P-13. As per Ex. M/0/7 Barchha was recovered from Baidev Singh under
E seizure memo Ex. P-19. Thereafter, the following charges were framed
against the 4 accused persons.

(i) ''Baldev Singh U/s. 302 l.P.C.

(ii) Sham Singh Roor Singh U/s. 302 r/w
F
and Shamsheer Singh. Section 34 l.P.C.

(iii) Baldev Singh, Sham Singh 302 r/w Section
Shamsheer Singh and 34 I.P.C.
Roar Singh
G
(iv) Baldev Singh 25 Arms Act.

(v) Shamsheer Singh 25 Arms Act.

(Sham Singh accused was charged under Section 25 Arms Act by
H the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Zira.)"
BALDEVSINGH v. STATE[PARIPOORNAN.J.] 309

The cases against the accused under the Arms Act were clubbed along with A
the main case. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges.

6. The prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-5 and PW 7 lo PW-11.
Affidavits of police officials were also taken into account. PW-1 is Dr.
.laspal Singh, who performed the post mortem on the dead body of Balbir
Singh PW-2, Dr. Raja Singh, examined Amrik Singh (deceased) and gave B
Ex. P2 1ne<licolega1 report. The learned judge, Special Court, after refer-
ring to the nature of the injuries, as disclosed in the post mortem certifi-
cate, held that the case of the prosecution that Sham Singh the accused
fired at Balbir Singh stands belied since there was no fire arm injury on
the body of the deceased. He was also acquitted of the charges framed c
under the Arms Act. The learned Judge also acquitted Shamsheer Singh,
holding that the statement of PW-5 that Shamsheer Singh gave a Barchha
thrust in the chest of Balbir Singh, finds no mention in the F.I.R. and the
participation of Shamsheer Singh in the crime is open to serious doubt.
Giving the benefit of doubt, Shamsheer Singh was acquitted. The prosecu-
tion has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of Sham Singh, Accused D
No. 2 and Shamsheer Singh, accused No. 4.

7. The learned Judge of the Special Court heavily relied upon P- 7,
F.I.R. and testimony of Dalip Kaur, PW-5 and statement of Amrik Singh
Ex. P-28, and the medical evidence afforded by PW-1 and PW-2 and E
relevant certificates issued by them to hold that the cases against Baldev
Singh, accused No. 1 and Roor Singh, accused No. 3 have been proved.
On the basis of this finding, Baldcv Singh and Roar Singh were convicted
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code for committing
the n1urdcr of Balhir Singh. Baldcv Singh, accused No. 1 \Vas also convicted
under Section 302 1.P.C. for co1111nitting the murder of Amrik Singh and F
under Section 25 of the Arms Act for being in possession of Barchha
without licence.

8. We heard counsel. The arguments of appellants' Counsel can be
summarised thus :
G
There is no reliable record to show that deceased Balbir Singh was
cultivating the land in the village Saddushahwala belonging to his father.
The deceased was not living there. The F.I.R. Ex. P-7 slated that Sham
Singh fired from his pistol at Balbir singh which struck his chest and later
all the accused attacked the deceased which resulted in his death. The final H
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11995) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A act which caused the death is not attributed to any person. Amrik Singh
has not seen the inc:ident and the narration in the statement of Amrik
Singh, Ex. P-28, is only a surmise. Dalip Kaur, PW -5 while in the box gave
a different ver>ion regarding the pistol shot of Sham Singh. It was stated
that the shot did not hit at Balbir Singh though he fell down. The deposition
of PW-5 on this 1-ital aspect is entirely a different story. So, the evidence
B
of PW-5 is not trustworthy. Daya Singh who was said to be present during
the incident was not examined. What is more - the medical evidence
disclosed that the pistol shot is not the cause of death. Since there is no
independent evidence to show that the appellants/accused Nos. 1 and 3
caused the fatal injuries, their conviction and sentence under Section 302
C read with Section 34 1.P.C. cannot be sustained. It is the prosecution case
that accused No. 2 fired from the pistol at Balbir Singh, and Shamsheer
Singh, accused No. 4 alone gave a thrust in the chest. But, the medical
evidence disclosed that injury No. 1 did not result from any pistol shot. If
at all, injury No. 1 incised wound in the left chest was attributable only to
D Shamsheer Singh who was acquitted. It is clear from Ex. P-7, F.l.R. and
the evidence of PW-5 that Baldev Singh gave a Barchha blow at the thigh
of Balbir Singh and Roar Singh gave a Kirpan blow at the back of Balbir
Singh. The fact!i stated above do not warrant the sentence and conviction
of the appellants, accused Nos. 1 and 3 under Section 302 read with Section
34 I.P.C., nor can the conviction stand scrutiny under the Arms Act. On
E the other hand, counsel for the prosecution submitted that there was a
treacherous attack on the deceased Balbir Singh by accused Nos. l to 4
and though it was Sham Singh who used the pistol, the other accused
caused severe injuries in important parts of the body which resulted in the
instantaneous death of Balbir Singh and so the conviction and sentence
F awm·ded lo accused Nos. 1 and 3 by the learned Judge, Special Court, are
justified.

9. Appellants' counsel attacked Ex. P-7, the F.1.R., Statement given
··by Dalip Kaur, PW-5, an eye-witness as untrue. It was argued that PW-5
was categoric in the F.I.R. that Sham Singh fired from his pistol at Balbir
G Singh which struck his chest on the left side and he fell down. Thereafter,
the other accused attacked the deceased with Barchha and in!licted injuries
which resulted in the death of Balbir Singh instantaneously. Al the trial,
PW-5, however, deposed that Sham Singh fired from the pistol at Balbir
Singh, but Balbir Singh was not hit. Balbir Singh fell down and bundles of
H wheat fell on his head and the other accused inflicted various injuries on
BALDEVSINGJ-1 v. STATE[PARIPOORNAN,J.] 311

other parts of the body of Ball>ir Singh like thigh, chest, back, etc. There A
is discrepancy on a very vital aspect oft he case - as to whether Balbir Singh
was hit and he fell down when Sham Singh fired from his pistol. The
medical evidence disclosed, no fire-arm injury on the body of the deceased.
No M.T. wad or Palllit were recovered from the spot. The above aspect
will show that PW-5 cannot be believed, that Ex. P-7, FIR is not a true or
B
proper version of the incident and the details given therein are unfounded.
On this basis it is only appropriate to hold that PW-5 is not speaking the
truth and if her evidence is excluded, the prosecution case stands on very
fragile foundation.

10. We are of the view that there is no discrepancy between Ex. P-7, c
FIR and the deposition of PW-5 in Court. We should remember that Ex.
P-7, FIR was given within two hours of the incident and PW- 5, a lady,
would have been in an agitated mind then. In Ex. P-7, PW-5 only stated
that Sham Singh fired from his pistol at her husband whiCh struck his chest.
That could only be what she inferred. She did not state that her husband D
died as a result of the above pistol shot. It is because of the various injuries
inflicted by the other accused, Balbir Singh, died. And as PW-5, she stated
that Balbir Singh was not hit when the accused Sham Singh fired from the
pistol at Balbir Singh, but Balbir Singh fell down. Bundles of hay fell on
his head and the other accused intlicted various injuries on other parts of
the body. Really, there is no contradiction or variation in the deposition of E
PW-5 from what she stated in FIR, Ex. P-7. We are of the view that the
plea of the appellants' counsel fails to reckon the proper value to be
attached to the FIR, the customary or essential details to be mentioned
therein and the use that can be made of it. There are innumerable decisions
of this Court dealing with the above aspects of the FIR. Mention may be F
made of a few important decisions of this Court on the subject Ram Kumar
v. State of M.P., AIR (1975) SC 1026; Bisha11 Das v. State of Punjab, AIR
(1975) SC 573;' Podda Narayana v_ State of A.P., AIR (1975) SC 1252;
Gumam Kaur v. Bakshish Singh, AIR (1981} SC 631; State of Hwyana v.
Sher Singh, AIR (1981} SC 1021; State of U.P. v. Ba/labh Das & 01'-., AIR G
(1985) SC 1384; Jogi11der Singh v_ State of Punjab, AIR (1988) SC 628 and
Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, [1990] 4 SCC 692. Stated briefly, the FIR
is not a substantive piece of evidence, it is only relevant in judging the
veracity of prosecution case and the value to be attached to il depends on
the facb of each case. Only the essential or broad picture need be stated
in the FIR and all minute details need nol be mentioned therein. It is not H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A a verbatim summary of the prosecution case. It need not contain details of
the occurrence· as if it \Vere an "encyclopae<lia' 1 of the occurrence. It may
not be even necessary to catalogue the overact acts therein. Non mention-
ing of some facts or vague reference to son1c others are not fatal. We
should also bear in mind that the FIR was given by PW-5, who is an
illiterate lady soon after the occurrence, when she should have been very
B
emotional and in a disturbed state of mind. We find that the evidence of
PW-5 is substantially in accord with Ex. P-7, FIR and the court below was
justified in placing reliance on Ex. P-7 and the evidence of PW-5. We repel
the plea of the appellants' counsel to the contrary.

c 11. The statement of Amrik Singh Ex. p-28 translated into English is
contained at pages 12 and 13 of the paper book. He has categorically stated
therein that he heard the pistol shot when he was feeding the crop nearby
and he immediately rushed to the field of his brother Roor Singh and found
that Balbir Singh was being inflicted with injuries by his brothers and Roor
D Singh. He has also described the various blows administered to Balbir
Singh by the accused persons and that Balbir Singh was murdered at the
spot by the culprits. He stated that Sham Singh had earlier fired a shot
with his pistol. When he tried to rescue, Balbir Singh, his. nephew, Baldev
Singh gave him (Amrik Singh) a blow with his Barchha from its sharp side
towards him, which struck at his right thigh and he fell down. He was
E brought from village Saddushahwala by Anoop Singh in an injured condi-
tion and was admitted in the hospital at Mallanwalla. PW-10, the Inves-
tigator recorded ·the statement after satisfying from the Doctor about the
fitness of Amrik Singh to make the statement. The Court below has placed
reliance on Ex. P-7, FIR, the statement of PW-5 and the above statement
of Amrik Singh, Ex. P-28 and found thus :
F

"The statement of Dalip Kaur PW-5 is that Baldev Singh gave
Barchha blow at the thigh of Balbir Singh; that Roor Singh gave
Kirpan blow at the back of Balbir Singh and that the accused gave
further injuries. The parties are closely relation as is clear from
G the pedigree table (propounded by me in para 1 of the judgment).
Normally no daughter-in-law would accuse her father- in-law or
husband's brother. It is in the statement of Dalip Kaur PW-5 that
Baldev Singh gave Barchha thrust in the thigh of Balbir Singh. Her
statement is corroborated by the medical evidence also. The motive
H alleged is that previously Balbir Singh was putting up in village
BALDEV SINGH v. STATE [PARIPOORNAN, J.] 313

Alli, Police Station Sultanpur, district Kapurthala, and had for the A
last three years shifted to village Saddushahwala; there he was
cultivating the land of Ro.or Singh and Roar Singh father of Balbir
Singh (Deceased) wanted that Balhir Singh should part.with the
land in his occupation in village Alli. Roor Singh accused admits
having given the injuries but his pica is one of self defence for
B
which there is not an iota of evidence. There is no injury on the
person of Roar Singh. It was urged that the copies of the Khasra
Girdawari did not support the possession of Balbir Singh. It is a
matter of common knowledge that if a relation cultivates the_ land
of a proprietor the same is shown as self cultivated by the revenue
officials at the time of girdawari (crop inspection). Moreover, there C
is no presumption of correctness to the entries of the Khasra
Girdawari within the meaning of section 44 of the Punjab Land
Revenue Act. The Fact that the occurrence is shown to have taken
place in the field of Roar Singh is of no consequence because the
statement of Dalip Kaur PW-5 is that the occurrence had taken D
place near the vacant field of Roar Singh. The Statement of Amrik
Singh Ex. P 28 ............. "

(pp.11-12 Paper book)

Again, in paragraphs 30 and 31 (page 15 of the Paper book), the CQurt E
found thus:

"The statement of Dalip Kaur PW-5, witness of the occurrence,
and the statemePt of Amrik_ Singh Ex. P-28 bring the offence home
to Roar Singh and Baldev Singh accused. It cannot be lost sight F
of that the accused did not prove much less allege any past hostility
with Dalip Kaur PW-5. As given earlier the parties are closely
related. The statement of Dalip Kaur PW-5 deserves credence.
Baldev Singh and Roar Singh accused gave injuries to Balbir Singh
resulting in his death and thereby committed an offence punishable G
under Section 302 r/w section 34 of the Penal Code. Amrik Singh
was an intervenor and as such section 34 of the Penal Code would
not be attracted against Roar Singh. It was Baldev Singh alone
who caused injuries to Amrik Singh resulting in his death. Baldev
Singh accused was also found in possession of a Barchha which
would make him liable under section 25 Arms Act. I convict Baldev H
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Singh and Roor Singh accused under section 302 r/w section 34 of
the Penal Code for committing th~ murder of Balbir Singh. Baldev
Singh accused is also convicted under section 302 of the Penal
Code for committing the murder of Amrik Singh and under Section
25 of Arms Act for being in possession of Barchha without licence."

B 12. On an anxious consideration of the materials available in the case
and in particular Ex. P-7 (FIR), Ex. P-28 (statement by Amrik Singh),
evidence of PW-5 (widow of deceased. Balbir Singh) and the medical
evidence, we are satisfied that the court below was justified in holding that
Baldcv Singh (accused No. 1) and Roor Singh (accused No. 3) caused
c injuries to Balbir Singh (deceased No. 1), which resulted in his death. We
are also satisfied that the court below was justified in holding that Baldev
Singh (accused No. 1) alone caused injuries to Amrik Singh (deceased No.
2) resulting in his death.

13. Now, about the conviction and sentence, the court below held :
D
1. That Baldcv Singh (accused No. 1) and Roor Singh (accused No.
3) are guilty under section 302 read with section 34 IPC in causing
the death of Baldev Singh and sentenced them to imprisonment
for life;
E
2. That Baldev Singh (accused No. 1) is guilty under section 302
!PC in causing the death of Amrik Singh and sentenced him to
imprisonment for life; and

3. Thai Baldev Singh was guilty of possession of Barchha without
F licence under section 25 of Arms Act.

14. In evaluating the legality and propriety of the conviction and
sentence so passed by the court below, the following facts highlighted
before us by appellants' counsel deserve consideration. The accused as also
the victims (deceased) are members of the same family (near relations)
G (father and sons). The feud in the family centered round the entitlement
to property. According to the prosecution, the deceased Balbir Singh
moved to Saddushahwala village three years prior to the incident and was
cultivating two and half kilas of property, admittedly belonging to the father
(family) and it is in evidence that father Roar Singh (accused No. 3) wanted
H properties in Alli village in lieu of the property taken over by deceased in
BALD EV SINGH v. STATE [PAR!POORNAN • .T.J 315

Saddushahwala village, which was not heeded to. While deceased Balbir A
Singh \Vas carrying on cultivation in Saddushahwala property, the father
Roor Singh (Accused Nn. 3) and his other sons appeared in the scene and
shouted about the unauthorised cultivation carried on hy Balbir Singh. The
accused, no doubt had arms (kirpan, barchhas) and in the final analysis,
the finding is that accused Nos. I and 3, only inllicted wounds in the thigh
B
and hack. The plea of the accused, though not acccpted \Vas a right of
1

self-defence. No douht, ·the wounds inllictcd by the accused caused the
death of Balbir Singh. ln the e<intext and nature of the several injuries
inllictcd, it could, at best, be (assumed) stated that the bodily injuries
inflicted were likely to cause the death of Balbir Singh and the acts
committed by the accused amounts to culpable homicide as defined in C
section 299 IPC. It is not proved nor docs any material exists to state that
the accused had an intention to cause th_e death of Balbir Singh or had the
knowledge that in inflicting the injuries, that death was likely to be caused.
So, it was argued that the facts proved will not bring the case within section
300 !PC punishable under section 302 !PC and, if at all the accused can D
be convicted and sentenced only under section 299 read with section 304
(first part) of IPC only. It was further submitted that the father Roor Singh
was more than 80 years of age, that he is possessed of valuable properties, .
and the dispute itself having stemmed from the right to property, this is a
fit and proper case \Vhcre the court should consider, mitigative circumstan-
ces and substitute the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the award of E
reasonable and appropriate compensation under section 357 Cr. P.C. to
the heirs of the victim, \Vho are none other than their near relations. Our
attention was invited to the decision of this Court in State of Andhra
Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punna;ya, [1977] 1 SCR 601, at pp. 608-609 to
contend, that, if al all, ihc conviction and sentence can hc, only under F
Section 299 read with section 304 Part I !PC and stress was laid on the
following passage :

"... \Vhenever a court is confronted with the question \Vhether the
offence is 'murder' or 'culpable. homicide n(Jt amounting to
murder', on the facts of a case, it will he convenient for it to G
approach the problen1 in three stages. The question to be con-
sidered at the first stage would be, whether the accused has done
an act by doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof
of such casual connection between the act of the accused and the
death, leads to the second stage for considering whether that act H
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS jl995] SUPP. 4S.C.R.

A of the accused amounts to "culpable homicide" as defined in S.
299. H the answer to this question is plima jacic found in the
aflirn1ativc, the stage for considering the operation of S. 300, Penal
Code is reached. This is the stage at which the Court should
determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the
case within the ambit of any of the four clauses of the definition
B
or n1urdcr contained ins. 300. If the <i11S\Ver to this question is in
the negative the offence would be 'culpable homicide not amount-
ing to murder', punishable under the iirsl or the second part of S.
304, depending, respectively, on whether the second or the third
Clause of S. 299 is applicable. If this question is found in the
c positive, but the case comes, within any of the Exceptions
enumerated in S. 300, the offence would still be 'culpable homicide
not amounting to murder,' punishable under the First Part of S.
304 Penal Code."

15. Similarly for the mitigation of the sentence of imprisonment and
D
for applying section 357 of Cr. P.C. the following passage occuring in B.B.
Milra's Code of Criminal Procedure - 18th Edition (1995) at pages 1240 "
1241 was relied on :

"S. 357 (a) Scope - ...... The power of courts lo award compensation
E to victims under Sec. 357, is not ancillary to other sentences but is
an addition thereto. It is a measure of responding appropriately
to crime as well as of reconciling the victim with the offender. It
is, to some extent, a constructive approach to crimes, a step
forward in our criminal justice system. Therefore, all courts are
F rccommcndc<l to exercise this po\vcr liberally so as to nlcct the
ends of justice in a better way. Any such measure which would
give the victim succour is far better than a sentence by deterrence.
Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 357 provides for ordering of payment by way
of compensation to the victim by the accused. It is an important
provision and it n1ust also be noted that po\vcr to a\Vard compen-
G sation is not ancillary to other sentences but it is in addition thereto
........ In a\varc.ling con1pcnsation the court has to decide whether
the case is fit one in which compensation has to be awarded. If it
is found that compensation should be paid then the capacity of the
accused lo pay compensation has to be determined. It is the duty
H of the court to take into account the nature of crime, the injury
EALDEVSINGH v.STATE[PARIPOORNAN,J.] 317

suffered, the justness of the claim for compensation and other A
rt!fcvant c1rcun1stanccs in fixing the amount of con1pensation. 11

Reference was also made lo the decisions of this Court in Hmi Singh
v. Sukhbir Sing/1, I L988J 4 sec 55 L; Dr. Jacob George v. Stace, [1994] 3 sec
430 and Ba/raj v. State of U.P., Jl994] 4 SCC 291.
B
lA We are of the view that the submission made as staled
hcreinabove, am entitled to acceptance. The medical evidence negatives
any wound as havirtg been sustained by deceased Balbir Singh, by pistol.
The arms possessed by the accused are not inherently dangerous to infer
that the intention of the accused was to cause death or that the accused C
had knowledge that inflicting the injuries as was done, death was likely to
·~

be catis!!tl. There is no evidence or linding as to who caused the fatal
injuries which resultc<l in the death of Balbir Singh. The appellants-accused
inflicted injuries only Clft the thigh and at the back. The incident happened
nearly 11 years ago (4.'.i,1984), The injuries inflicted on the thigh of Amrik D
Singh by BaldeV Singh have rtdt been proved to be serious or fatal and
Amrik Singli died hearly 8 Jays after the incident on account of cumulative
effect of the injuries. The passage of time should have its impact in taking
an over all view of the mallet, The appellants have served the sentence of
imprisonment for more than two years, till they were allowed bail by this
Court by order dated 17.11.1987. Balbir Singh is an unfortunate victim. The E
property dispute between the father and son has led to the unfortunate
incident. PW-5, widow and children of Balbir Singh, are the persons to
miler and they should not be forgotten and by merely maintaining the
sentence of imprisonment on the accused, the victim or his heirs are not
benefited. Consiclering I he nal urc of the crime, the fact that the accused F
and the victim are near relations, that it is a property issue which ended in
the calamity, the fact that the accused are admittedly in a position to pay,
we ate of the view that this is a fit case, in which section 357(3) Cr. P.C.
can be invoked and a just and reasonable compensation given to the family
of Balbir Singh· (PW-5 and children). In the circumstances, while uphold-
ing the conviction of the appellants for the offence under section 299 read G
with section 304, Part-I, IPC, we give the further following directions in the
interests of justice :

1. Thal the appellants are found guilty and sentenced under section
299 read with section 304, Part-1 of the Indian Code to a term H
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A of imprisonment, which will be limited to the period they have
already undergone for causing the death of Balbir Singh and
Amrik Singh.

2. In addition to the above, we order that the two appellants/ac-
cused Nos. 1 and 3 shall pay by way of compensation a sum of
B Rs. 35,IJIJIJ each to PW-5 and her children who have suffered the
irreparable loss due to the death of Balbir Singh for which the
appellants/accused persons have been sentenced lo the term of
imprisonment already undergone by them.

3. The amount of compensation ordered by us shall be paid to
c PW-5 and her children within a period of 3 months from today.
If it is not so paid, the amount shall be recovered by the persons
entitled to the amount from the appellants as if the direction
contained herein is a decree passed against them by this Court.
If not recovered, the accused shall suffer the balance of the term
D of imprisonment as imposed by the Trial Court, which shall stand
revived.

4. The conviction and sentence under Arms Act is set aside.

The appeal is disposed of as above.
E
v.s.s. Appeal disposed of.