DARSHAN SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

                        [2016] 1 S.C.R. 555



                        DARSHAN SINGH                                   A
                                 v.
                       STATE OF PUNJAB
                (Criminal Appeal No. 2099 of2008)
                        JANUARY 06, 2016                                B

       [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]
      Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302 and 324 - Prosecution of
appellant-accused along with 6 accused for offences u/ss 148, 3021
149, 3071149, 3241149, 218 and 201 !PC - Prosecution case that
accused party and complainant party were facing proceedings u/s
                                                                        c
1071151 Cr.P.C. and the incident took place when the parties had
gone before the Court of the Magistrate for attending the
proceedings - Trial court acquitted 3 of the accused including the
appellant-accused - In State appeal, High Court set aside the
acquittal of appellant-accused and convicted him u/ss.302 and 324       D
- On appeal, held: The evidence of three injured eye-witnesses is
corroborated by the medical evidence - The appellant-accused has
been assigned specific role in assault - Thus the prosecution has
discharged its burden to prove the case - The plea of alibi by the
accused has been rightly held to be false - Therefore, the appellant-
                                                                        E
accused has rightly been convicted by the High Court.
      Evidence - Plea of alibi - Nature of - Plea of alibi is not one
of the exceptions contained in Chapter IV of !PC - It is rule of
evidence recognized u/s. 11 of Evidence Act - Such plea is required
to be proved only after prosecution has proved its case - Evidence
                                                                        F
Act, 1872 - s.11 - Penal Code, 1860 - Chapter IV.
      Words and Phrases - 'Alibi' - Meaning of
      Dismissing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1. There are three injured eye witnesses in the
present case. It is a case of day light incident. Injuries on the       G
person of said eye witnesses have been corroborated by the
doctors PW-4, PW-5 and PW-14. Ocular testimony of eye
witnesses cannot be discarded lightly. Injured eye witnesses have
assigned specific role as to how the appellant-accused assaulted
                                 555                                    H
556                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2016] I S.C.R.


 A    one of the deceased who suffered ante mortem injuries which
      gets corroborated from the autopsy report of the deceased. Once
      the prosecution has discharged its burden, the burden to prove
      that appellant-accused was not present with other accused at the
      place of incident and had gone elsewhere, lies on him. (para 12)
      (560-E-G J
 8
            2.1 The High Court has correctly held that the appelfant-
      accused has taken false plea of alibi. It is proved on the record
      that in the proceedings under Section 107/151 of Cr.PC before
      Executhe '.Vlagistrate, he was to be present in said case on
      17.02.1995. His presence and role is narrated in detail by the
 c    injured eye witnesses. Jn view of his role in the incident narrated
      by the eye witnesses, it is hard to believe that after moving
      application on 16.02.1995 for casual leave for 17.02.1995, the
      appellant attended the school next day in the first half and sought
      half day leave thereaftet~ The attendance register was not seized
 D    immediately after the incident. His pica of alibi is vacillating.
      (para 16( (562-D-EJ
            2.2 The word alibi means "elsewhere". The plea of alibi is
      not one of the General Exceptions contained in Chapter IV of
      IPC. It is a rule of evidence recognized under Section 11 of the
 E    Evidence Act. However, plea of alibi taken by the defence is
      required to be proved only after prosecution has proved its case
      against the accused. In the present case, said condition is fulfilled.
      (para 17J J562 -F-GJ
           CRl\-llNAL APPELLATE JURlSDICTlOl\i : Criminal Appeal
  F   No. 2099 of2008
            From the Judgment and Order dated 02.09.2008 of the High Court
      of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal 568-DBA of
      1998.
           K. T. S. Tulsi. Kuber Boddh. "iaYandeep Matta. 1\iraj Gupta. Raj
 G
      Kamal for the Appellant.
           Saurabh Ajay Gupta, AAG, 1\ ishant Bislrnoi Kuld ip Singh for the
      Respondent.
            The Judgment of the Court \\as delivered by
 H
              DARSllAN SIN(ill \. STAT!'. or l'LINJAB



      PRAFllLLA C. PANT, .J. I. This appeal is directed against
judgn1cnt and order datL"d 02.09.2008. passed by I ligh ('our! or Punjab
and 1-laryana. ('handigarh. \Vhcrcby the Iligh C'nun has disposed nf
Criminal Appeals No. 209 D.13. and 568 DllA. both or I998 and Criminal
Revision No. 654 or I 998. The appeal tiled b~ the State qua Darshan
Singh (present appellant) against his acquittal by the trial court. \Yas
                                                                                   B
allo\vcd and his acquittal \\'as reversed. ·rhc pn:scnt appellant has hl'Cll
convicted by the I ligh Court under Secti<Hl 302 ot. Indian Penal Code.
1860 (for short "IPC'). and sentenced to imprisonment for lil'c and
directed to pay a line Rs. 5.000/- and in default or payment of tine he is
directed to undergo rigorous i1nprison1111:nt for a further period       or six
months. Appellant Darslrnn Singh has been rurthcr found guilty of the              c
charge of o!Tcncc punishable under Scrti1J11 32.+ of I PC'. and sentenced
to undergo rigorous i1npriso111ncnt for a pL'riod of one year and directed
to pay line or Rs. 1.000/- with default clause directing to undergo rigorous
i111priSOlllllClll for l'urthcr pl·riod oft\\O lllOllths.

       1     We have heard learned counsel l'or the parties and perused            D
the papers on record.

      3. Prosecution story. in brief. is that there \vas dispute bct\\·ccn
co1nplainant and his relatives on one side and :1ccuscd p1:rsons on the
other side regarding their turn       or irrigating their fields. ()n account of
this, earlier there had been incidents or assaulting each other. In the            E
circutnstanccs. both the parties \Vere facing proceedings undcr_Scction
I 07 /15 I or Code ol'Criminal Procedure. 1971 (for short "Cr.PC") before
Exccut ivc Magistrate. Faridkot. On I 7.02. 1995. complainant Amrik Singh
(l'W-1) along with Raj Singh (l'W-.1). Sukhchain Singh(l'W-2). I larbans
Singh (one nfthc deceased). and their father Mander Singh and cousin
Gurscwak Singh with maternal uncle Santa Singh (another deceased)                  F
and Boota Singh had gone to attend the proceedings or the court. From
the side of accused Sura in Singh. Jas1nnil Singh. Darshan Singh (present
appellant), Jhanda Sir\gh and l3oota Singh had also come to the court on
said date. At about 11.00 a.m. both the sides started quarrelling and had
a heated exchange of \Von.ts, as Sura in Singh objected to presence of             G
13hajan Singh \vho \Vas relative or ..::01nplainant Atnrik Singh and not a
party to the proceedings. I le (Surain Singh). a Arnritdhari Sikh. took nut
his Siri Sahib (Small Krip:rn. a sharp edged weapon) and gave blow to
Blwjan Singh. When complainant party attempted to separate them. Sura in
Singh gave Kripan hknv on the person or Mander Singh. I le ~~ssaultcd
                                                                                   II
558                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (2016] 1 S.C.R.



 A    also on the left shoulder of the complainant Amrik Singh, and gave two
      blows on the person ofSuckhchain Singh. He did not stop there and also
      assaulted Harbans Singh (deceased) with Kripan. Accused Darshan
      Singh (appellant) also took out his Kripan and inflicted injuries on the
      person of Santa Singh (another deceased). Accused Darshan Singh
      (appellant) is said to have given blows also to Raj Singh. Pal Singh and
 B
      Jhanda Singh caught hold of Gursewak Singh, and Darshan Singh
      assaulted them also. Accused Boota Singh instigated other accused that
      no one should be escaped alive. The injured were taken to Guru Gobind
      Singh Medical Hospital, Faridkot, where Santa Singh and Harbans Singh
      succumbed to their injuries.
 c           4. Report of the above incident was lodged bycomplainantAmrik
      Singh (PW-2). On the basis of it, FIR No. 14, dated 17.02.1995 was
      registered at Police Station, City Faridkot. The investigation was taken
      up by Sub-inspector Ranjit Singh (PW-17), who took the dead bodies in
      his possession, sealed it, prepared inquest report and got sent them for
 D    post-mortem examination. Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu (PW-4) conducted
      post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of Santa Singh and Harbans
      Singh on 17.02.1995, and prepared autopsy reports. The other injured
      were also medically examined by PW-4 Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu and
      PW-5 Dr. Manjit Singh. There were injuries also on the side of the
      accused, and from their side accused Pal Singh, accused Surain Singh
 E    and accused Jhanda Singh suffered injuries.After interrogating witnesses
      and on completion of investigation PW-16 Assistant Sub-inspector Ram
      Singh (who took over investigation from S.I Ranjit Singh) submitted
      charge-sheet against accused persons in the court.
             5. It appears that after the committal of the case it was registered
 F    as Session Case No. 33of1995. On 7.7.1995,Additional Sessions Judge,
      Faridkot framed charge against all the accused, namely, Surain Singh,
      Darshan Singh (present appellant), Pal Singh, Jhanda Singh , Jasmail
      Singh, Boota Singh and Lachman Dass relating to offences punishable
      under Section 148, 302/149 (on separate counts of death of two persons),
 G    307/149, 324/149, 2 I 8 and 20 I lPC to which accused pleaded not guilty
      and claimed to be tried.
            6. Thereafter prosecution got examined PW-I Amrik Singh
      (informant), PW-2 Sukhchain Singh, PW-3 Raj Singh (all the three injured
      eye witnesses), PW-4 Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu who conducted post-
 H    mortem examination, PW-5 Dr. Manjit Singh, PW-6 Gurcharanjit Kaur,
            DARSHAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                                559
                 [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

 Ahalmad, PW-7 Ujjagar Singh, Steno to A.D.C. Moga, PW-8 ASI Basant         A
 Singh, PW-9 Head Constable Shagan Singh, PW-10 Inspector Prithvi
 Singh, PW-11 Prithi Pal Singh, S.S.Teacher, PW-12 Dharam Singh,
 Draftsman, PW-13 MHC Baljit Singh, PW-14 Dr. S.P. Singla, PW-15
 Sub Inspector Shivraj Bhushan, PW-16 Sub Inspector Ram Singh, PW-
 17 Inspector Ranj it Singh, PW-18 Constable Jagj it Singh and PW-19
                                                                            B
·satish Kalia,Ahalmad.
      7. The evidence adduced by prosecution was put to the accused
by the trial court under Section 313 of Cr.PC. In reply to which the
accused persons alleged that evidence against them was incorrect.
Appellant Darshan Singh took the specific plea of alibi stating that on
17.02.1995 he was attending his duty as a Laboratory Assistant in Senior    c
Secondary School, Janerian. Other accused took pleas of self defence.
On behalf of the defence DW-1 Satnam Kaur, DW-2 Rajinder Kumar,
DW-3 Darshan Singh (Teacher in primary school, Pakhi Khurd), DW-4
Pawan Kumar,Ahalmad, DW-5 J.V. Tiwari, DW-6 Mukhtiar Singh, DW-
7 Om Parkash and DW-8 AS! Harvinder Pal Singh were examined.                D
       8. The trial court after hearing the parties found that charge as
against accused Boota Singh, Darshan Singh and Lachman Dass is not
proved and, as such, they were acquitted. However, accused Surain
Singh was convicted under Section 302 of !PC for committing murder
of Harbans Singh and also under Section 307 of !PC for attempting to        E
murder Sukhchain Singh. He (Surain Singh) was further convicted under
Section 324 of !PC. Rest of the accused Jhanda Singh, Jasmail Singh
and Pal Singh were convicted under Sections 302/34, 307 /34 and 324/34
of!PC. After hearing the sentence, the trial court sentenced the convicts
to various sentences.
                                                                            F
      9. Convicts Sura in Singh, Jhanda Singh, Jasmail Singh and Pal
Singh challenged their conviction before the High Court, and by the
impugned order the High Court allowed appeal of Jhanda Singh, Jasmail
Singh and Pal Singh, but appeal of Surain Singh was dismissed. The
connected appeal No. 568 OBA of 1998 filed by the State qua Darshan
Singh against order of his acquittal was allowed, and he was convicted      G
under Section 302 of IPC for committing murder of Santa Singh and
sentenced to imprisonment for life and directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/
- with default clause. He was further convicted under Section 324 of
!PC for voluntarily causing hurt with a deadly weapon on person of
Gursewak Singh and Raj Singh and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment         H
560                    SUPREME COURT IU:PORTS                    J2016/ IS.CR.


 A    for a period of ,inc year and to pay line or Rs. 1.000/- "ith default
      clause. Aggricy~·d by saidjudg111cnl and order datL·d 02.09.2008. passed
      by the High Court. this appeal is filed by acrnscd Darslrnn Singh \\ho
      \vas acquitted by the trial court. but order of acquittal \v<Js reversed and
      \vas convicted b~~thc I figll C'ourl.

 B           I0. Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi. Senior Advocate. on behalf of the appcll:111t
      has argued before us that \\here t\\O vic\\'S tlre possible on the basis of
      evidence on record. the I ligh Court should not lwvc reversed the order
      of acquittal recorded by trial court. It is further contended that appellant
      Darshan Singh was discharging his duties in the school on 17.02.1995
      and \Vas nol present nt the place of incident ,,·hen occurrence took place
 c    and as such. the acquittal recorded by the trial court was not liable to be
      interfered" it:i. Our attention is dr:m n to the evidence adduced in defence
      in support of pica of alibi.
              11. On the other hand. learned counsel for the State pointed out
      that in the incident in qncstion. while Sura in Singh committed murder of
 D    Harbans Singh. the appellant (Darshan Singh) committed mnrder of Santa
      Singh. It is fu11her submitted that plea of alibi taken by the defence was
      correctly found false by the High Court after re-appreciation ofevidcnce.
      Learned counsel for the State rcforred to the statements of injured eye
      witnesses.
 E        12. We have considered rival submissions and perused the entire
   record of the case. There are three injured eye witnesses in the present
   case, namely, PW-I Amrik Singh. PW-2 Sukhchain Singh and PW-3 Raj
   Singh. It is a case of day Iight incident. Injuries on the person of said eye
   witnesses have been corroborated by PW-4 Dr. Sarabjit Singh S:mdhu.
   PW-5 Dr. Manjit Singh and PW-14 Dr. S.P. Singla. Ocular testimony of
 F eye witnesses cannot be discarded lightly. Once the prosecution has
   discharged its burden, the burden to prove that appellant Darshan Singh
   was not present with other accused at the place of incident and had
   gone elsewhere. lies on him. Injured eye witnesses have assigned specific
   role as to how he assaulted Santa Singh who suffered ante mortem
 G injuries which gets corroborated from the autopsy report of Santa Singh.
   There are as many as five stabbed wounds out of the six ante mortem
   injuries. The same are being reproduced below from autopsy report of
   Santa Singh:-
          "I. Transverse stab wound 3 x 0.5 cm was present on the anterior
          side of chest on the left side. 6 ems below and lateral to left nipple
 H
      DARSHAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                                    561
           [PRAFULLA C. PANT J.]

at 4.00 O'clock position. C .B.P was present. On dissection. it is        A
going in wards and medially tlfrough 6'" inter costal space. piercing
the pericardium and left vertical. Pericardia! sac contains about
200 C.C of fluid blood.
2. Transverse stab wound 3 x 0.5 cm on the lateral side of left
side of chest 6 ems lateral to the inju1y no. I. It was bone deep         B
C.B.P.
3. Transverse stab wound 2 x 0.5 cm was present at the back of
the left side of abdomen 3 ems lateral to mid line and 15 cm above
the posterior superior iliac spine of left side on dissection. the
peritoneum large intestia was cut. Peritoneal cavity contained
about 500 C.C. of fluid and clotted blood.                                c
4. Transverse stab wound 2.5 x 0.5 cm was present on the back
of the left side of abdomen. 6 ems lateral to the injury 110.3 C. B. P.
It was skin deep.
5. An oblique stab wound 1.5 x 25 cm on the back of left side of
chest, 2 ems from the mid line and 20 ems below the nape of the           D
neck, it was bone deep C.B.P.
6. A transverse stab wound 4 x 0.5 ems on the back of left side of
chest, 5 ems from the midline and 12 ems below the nape of the
neck. C.B.P. It was bone deep."
13. From the record, PW-I Amrik Singh (eye witness) appears               E
to have suffered following injuries at the time of the incident:-
''2.4cm x Icm incised wound- I 0.5 ems below and posterior to left
shoulder joint. X-ray ofleft shoulder joint advised.
Injury was kept under observation and duration was within 6 hours         F
weapon used was sharp weapon"
Injuries were declared simple in nature as per x-ray report and
was result of a sharp weapon."
14. Another eye witness PW-2 Sukhchain Singh found to have
suffered following injuries as per the injury report proved on the        G
record:-
"1. 1.0 cm x 0.25 cm incised wound on the middle of forehead.
X-ray advised.

                                                                          H
562                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       (2016] I S.C.R.


 A          2. 2 cm x 1 cm incised wound on right side of chest 17 ems from
            xiphisternum. Profuse bleeding was present. X-ray advised.
            3. 3 x 2 ems incised wound on right lumber region-I 0 ems below
            injury no.2. Surgical opinion and X-ray advised."
             15. Third eye witness PW-3 Raj Singh suffered following injuries
 B    on the date of incident, as proved on the record:-
            " 1. 1.9 cm x I incised wound in right Gluteal region-6 Y, ems
            below the right. Anterior superior iliac spine. X-ray advised.
            2. 2cms x I cm incised wound on right lower chest. Bonedeep 22
            ems below the right anterior, Axillary fold-17 ems below and slightly
 c          lateral to right memory gland. Surgical opinion was advised."
             16. Now, we come to the defence plea ofappellant Darshan Singh
      which was accepted by the trial court but rejected by the High Court.
      There is no cavil over the fact that appellant Darshan Singh was posted
      as Lab Assistant with the Senior Secondary School, Janerian. After
 D    carefully going through the statements of defence witnesses and other
      evidence on record, we agree with the High Court that accused Darshan
      Singh has taken false plea ofalibi. It is proved on the record that in the
      proceedings under Section I 07/I 51 of Cr.PC before Executive
      Magistrate, Faridkot, he was to be present in said case on 17.02.1995.
      His presence and role is narrated in detail by the injured eye witnesses.
 E    In view of his role in the incident narrated by the eye witnesses, it is hard
      to believe that after moving application on 16.02.1995 for casual leave
      for 17.02.1995, Darshan Singh attended the school next day in the first
      half and sought half day leave thereafter. The attendance register was
      not seized immediately afterthe incident. His plea of alibi is vacillating.
 F           17. The word alibi means "elsewhere". The plea of alibi is not
      one of the General Exceptions contained in Chapter IV of IPC. It is a
      rule of evidence recognized under Section 11 of the Evidence Act.
      However, plea ofalibi taken by the defence is required to be proved only
      after prosecution has proved its case against the accused. In the present
      case said condition is fulfilled.
 G
              18. After scrutinizing the entire evidence on record, we do not
      find any illegality in appreciation ofevidence, or in arriving at the conclusion
      as to the guilt of the present appellant by the High Court.
              19. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we find no force
 H    in this appeal which liable to be dismissed.
              DARSHAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                             563
                   [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

      20. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Appellant be taken into    A
custody by the court concerned to make him serve out the remaining
part of sentence, awarded by the High Court.
Kalpana K. Tripathy                                    Appeal dismissed.


                                                                           B