Holding

The conviction of Dilbagh Singh under IPC sections 302/382 and TADA section 5 is justified as the evidence, including trustworthy eye‑witness testimony and forensic findings, was duly appreciated without error.

Summary

The appellant, Dilbagh Singh, was convicted for the murder of his brother's sibling, Jagmail Singh, who was shot dead on 9 May 1992 during a dispute over extremist activities. The prosecution proved that Dilbagh Singh, along with Jasbir Singh and an unknown accomplice, opened fire with government‑issued rifles, killing the victim; the motive was the victim's refusal to re‑join their extremist group. Eye‑witness testimony of the victim's father (P.W.4) and brother (P.W.7) was found reliable, and the post‑mortem report confirmed fatal gun‑shot injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The trial court also convicted the appellant under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA). On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the evidence was properly appreciated, the witnesses were trustworthy, and there was no material error in the trial court’s findings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.

Issues considered

The adequacy and reliability of eye‑witness testimony of relatives in establishing the appellant's participation in the murder.
Whether the absence of the seized firearms from the accused undermines the conviction under IPC and TADA.
Whether conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act is necessary for the same set of facts.
Whether the trial court erred in its appreciation of the evidence leading to conviction under IPC sections 302/382 and TADA.

Legislation cited

Arms Acts. 25
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 382
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987s. 19, s. 5

Subjects

murderTADAeye‑witness testimonyfirearmsextremist activitiesappellate reviewconviction

Judgment

[2008] 9 S.C.R. 923

DILBAGH SINGH A
\/.
STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No.477 of 2007)
MAY 27, 2008
B
[S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]
-~

Penal Code, 1860 - s. 3021382 - Accused persons armed
with deadly fire arms attacked deceased - Fatal gun shot inju-
ries caused to deceased - Motive being enmity between the c
parties - Conviction u/s 3021382 and s. 5 of TADA - Justifica-
-· tion of - Held: Conviction was based upon proper appreciation
of evidence on record- Evidence of eye-witnesses even thought
related to deceased, was trustworthy and free from any doubt-
Gun shot injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
course of nature - Thus, conviction justified - Terrorist and Dis- D
ruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - s. 5 - Evidence.
"
According to the prosecution case, on the fateful day,
when P.W.7-complainant and JG were returning to their
house from their fields, the appellant along with JB and
an unknown accomplice armed with fire arms suddenly E
came there. At that time, the complainant was armed with
.303 bore riferand JG was armed with 7.62 bore rifer, which
were provided to them by the Government for their pro-
tection against terrorists activities in the area. Appellant
and JB opened fire on JG as a result JG fell down. The F
unknown accomplice picked up the rifle of JG and shot
at JG who died on the spot. PW.7 took shelter by the side
of the water channel and opened fire in the air to scare
the accused. After sometime the accused stopped firing
and fled away. Accused took away the rifle of JG. The com- G
plainant rushed to the place where JG was lying dead.
P.W. 4-father of JG witnessed the entire incident from his
house and rushed to the scene of occurrence. According
to the complainant, thP motive behind the murder of JG
923 H
924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 9 S.C.R.

A was that that JG was member of extremist activities with
the accused and had abandoned the extremist activities •
and got married whereas the accused wanted JG to join
their extremist activities, but he refused to do so. The com-
plaint was lodged. The investigation was carried out. The
B Investigation Officer took into possession the blood-
stained earth; two empty cartridges of 7.62 bore; 20 empty
cartridges of AK-47 rifle and 7 empty cartridges of .303
bore near the dead body. All the articles were packed and
sealed and were deposited with the P.W. 12-MHC. The
blood-stained earth was sent to the Chemical Examiner
c whereas empty cartridges were sent to Forensic Science
Laboratory. The doctor conducted the post mortem. The
accused JB and the unknown accomplice were killed in
the police encounter. The appellant was arrested. The
prosecution witnesses as also defence witnesses were
D examined. The Additional Judge convicted and sentenced
the appellant for offences punishable u/s. 302/382 IPC and
s. 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) ..
Act, 1987. Hence the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
E
HELD: 1.1 In the light of the evidence, the evaluation
of the findings recorded by the trial court does not suffer
from manifest error and improper appreciation of evidence
on record warranting any interference in this appeal. [Para
21) [936-F,G]
F
1.2 On independent scrutiny of the entire evidence
produced on record, more particularly the testimony of
P.W.4-father and P.W.7-brother of the deceased, it stands
fully proved that on 9.5.1992, around 7.00 p.m., P.W.7 and
the deceased were returning to their house after doing
G
routine agricultural pursuits in the fields, the appellant
along with JG and one more unknown accomplice armed
with fire arms suddenly came and stood in front of them
near the chowk located near their house and opened fire
at JG and shot him dead. The evidence of the eye wit-
H nesses could not be shattered by the prosecution and
- J.
DILBAGH SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB

their evidence has been found trustworthy, reliable and
free from any doubt. [Para 15] [932-F,G, 933-D]
925

A

1.3 It is found that PWs 4 and 7 are the truthful wit-
nesses who helplessly witnessed the crime from the close
range but could not help the deceased because of the
sudden attack on him by the accused who were three in B
number with deadly fire arms. P.W.7 fortunately protected
himself by taking shelter by the side of the water channel
as he could not take proper position and target the as-
sailants with his fire arm and he could only succeed in
...
firing shots in the air so that he could protect himself and c
when he looked at his brother the assailants had already
done their job. P.W.4 at the relevant time was about 65
years of age and was unarmed while standing on the ter-
race of his house which fact itself was enough to prove
that he could not target the assailants to save his son from
their brutal attack. It was but natural that under such fear-
D
ful and dangerous circumstances it could not be expected
from people of ordinary prudence such as P.Ws.4 and 7
that they could encounter with the terrorists who had
come with pre-meditated plan to take revenge with the
deceased who turned down their command of not join- E
ing the terrorist activities in the areas of operation. There
is no material contradiction in the ocular and medical evi-
dence appearing on record. The evidence of P.W.4 and
P.W.7 finds corroboration from the post mortem report of
the deceased which proves that the assailants had used F
deadly fire arms and as many as four direct gun shot inju-
ries were inflicted on the body of the deceased which re-
~ suited in 8 injuries of the wounds having entry and exit of
• I
( the gun shots. There were also multiple fractures of skull
bone of the deceased and brain matter was badly dam-
aged as deposed by the doctor-P.W 5. The doctor opined G
that the cause of death of JG was gun shot injuries to
> brain and right lung, which were sufficient to cause death
in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante-
mortem. [Paras 16 and 19] [935-D-H, 936-A,B, 934-D]
H
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 9 S.C.R.
,__
~
A 1.4 The deposition of P.W. 12-lncharge of the
Malkhana of P.S. would prove that as per the report of the
Police Station-DOR No. 10 dated 5.4.1992 one rifle .303
bore bearing no. 1050 with 50 live cartridges was sup-
plied to P.W. 4 and another rifle of 7 .62 bore having butt
B No. 476 with 25 cartridges was entrusted to P.W. 7, under
the BOS Scheme for the protection of their personal life
and pr.91>erty and safety of the life of other members of
the family from the attack of the terrorists who had been
extending threats to them. He deposed that on 9.5.1992
rifle 7.62 bore having butt No. 476 was said to have been
c snatched by the terrorists from the possession of the de- ..
ceased and that the entire case property was deposited
I-
by lnspector-P.W. 15-SHO with him with seals intact and
the same were sent to the office of the Chemical Exam-
iner through Constable-P.W. 15, whereas the parcels of
D empty cartridges were sent by him to the Forensic Sci-
ence Laboratory but the same could not be got compared y

as the fire arms used for commission of the crime could
not be recovered from the accused. It is his evidence that
so long as the parcels remained in his possession, he
neither tampered with them nor allowed any other per-
E
son to tamper with the same. [Para 18] [934-G,H, 935-A,8,C]
1.5 The trial court rightly concluded that the evidence
of defence witnesses was of no help and assistance to
the appellant to prove that he has been falsely implicated
F by P.Ws.4 and 7 in the case on hand. [Para 20] [936-E]
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 477 of 2007
From the final Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2007 of
the Additional Judge Designated Court Maximum Security Jail
G Nabha Punjab in Sessions Case No. 2 of 15.04.2004

Sarup Singh, Satyapal Khushal Chand Pasi for the Appellant.
Ajay Pal for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
DILBAGH SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 927
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. 1. The appellant has A
filed this appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disrup-
tive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 against the final judgment
and order dated 26.02.2007 passed by the Additional Judge,
Designated Court, Maximum Security Jail, Nabha (Punjab) in
Sessions Case No. 2 of 15.04.2004 whereby and whereunder 8
the Designated Court convicted and sentenced the appellant
for offences punishable under Section 302/382 of the Indian
Penal Code [for short 'the IPC'] and Section 5 of the Terrqrists
and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 [for short 'TADA'].
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on c
9.5.1992, Kirandeep Singh- the complainant (P.W. 7), son of
Balkar Singh (P.W. 4), went to Inspector Swaran Singh, the Sta-
tion House Officer (P.W. 15) who along with other police per-
sonnel was on patrol duty atAtalan bus stand and reported that
he is a resident of village Atalan, P.S. Ghagga, District Patiala.
They are four brothers, and two of his elder brothers are resid-
0
ing at Ludhiana, whereas he along with his third brother Jagmail
Singh - the deceased and father Balkar Singh (P.W. 4) are re-
siding in village Atalan and are engaged in the occupation of
farming. It was his case that due to terrorism activities in the
area, the Government has provided two rifles, one .303 bore E
and other 7.62 bore with cartridges to their family for self-pro-
tection and security. On 9.5.1992, at about 7:00 p.m. he and
his brother - Jagmail Singh were returning to their house from
the fields carrying the said arms (complainant was armed with
.303 and his brother armed with 7.62 bore). Dilbagh Singh, F
the accused-appellant along with Jasbir Singh and one more
tall young man armed with fire arms suddenly appeared before
them near the chowk of their house. Dilbagh Singh and Jasbir
Singh are the residents of the same village. They both opened
fire on Jagmail Singh who on receipt of fire arm injuries fell down G
on the ground. Thereafter, third accomplice, picked up the rifle
of Jagmail Singh and shot at Jagmail Singh who died on the
spot. The complainant took shelter by the side of a water chan-
nel and started firing in the air to scare the accused. The ac-
cused after sometime stopped firing. The complainant rushed
to the place where Jagmail Singh was lying dead and his 7.62 H
928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R.

A bore rifle was taken by the accused.
3. Balkar Singh (P.W. 4) had witnessed the entire incident
from his house. He rushed to the scene of occurrence. Accord-
ing to the complainant, the motive behind the murder was that
before joining the main stream of the society his brother Jagmail
B Singh - the deceased used to participate in the extremist ac-
tivities with the accused. The deceased later on abandoned
the extremist activities and got married. The accused still wanted
tile deceased to join their extremist activities, but since he re-
fused to do so, the accused killed him on the count.
c 4. The complainant asked his father, Balkar Singh (P.W.
4) to guard the body of Jagmail Singh and himself went to P.S.
Ghagga to lodge a report of the incident of murder to the police
but he met the SHO on the way where his statement (Ex.P1)
was recorded. The SHO endorsed Ex. P1 to the incharge of the
D Police Station for registration of the case, on the basis of which
FIR No. 27 (Ex. P2) dated 09.05.1992 came to be registered
for offences punishable under Sections 302/384 read with Sec-
tion 34 IPC and Section 5 of TADA and Section 25 of the Arms
Act. inspector Swaran Singh (P.W. 15) rushed to the place of
E occurrence and inspected the spot and informed his superior
officers and Army Officers requesting them to reach at the spot.
He prepared the inquest report (Ex. PA) on the body of the de-
ceased which was identified by Joginder Singh (P.W. 2) and
ASI Jarnail Singh (P.W. 17), residents of the same village. On
10.5.1992, the body of the deceased was sent to Civil Hospi-
F tal, Samana, with inquest and an application (Ex. PL) for con-
ducting the post-mortem examination through police C. Ram
Dia 1041 and C. Karnail Singh 2250.
5. On inspection of the spot, the Investigation Officer took
G into possession: (i) blood-stained earth vide recovery memo
(Ex. PB); (ii) two empty cartridges of 7.62 bore vide recovery
memo (Ex. PC); (iii) 20 empty cartridges of AK-47 rifle near the
dead body vide recovery memo (Ex. PD); and (iv) 7 empty car-
tridges of .303 bore near from the dead body vide recovery
memo (Ex. PE). All the articles were packed and sealed with
H seal SS in the presence of Mohinder Singh (P.W. 3). A rough
DILBAGH SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 929
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
...
site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared and marked A
Ex. PM. Statements of witnesses were recorded. All recovered
articles were later on deposited with MHC Balwinder Singh
(P.W. 12) at P.S. Ghagga.
6. On 10.5.1992 at 10:00 a.m., post mortem examination
on the body of the deceased was conducted by Or. Satish Arora B
(P.W. 5) who in his report (Ex.PF) reported that the cause of
death of Jagmail Singh was gun shot injuries to brain and right
lung resulting in his death which were sufficient to cause death
in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante-
mortem in nature. c
7. The accused Dilbagh Singh@ Bagha was arrested on
17.9.1999 by Inspector Budh Ram (P.W. 14) who conducted
the personal search of the accused and prepared personal
search memo and disclosed the grounds of arrest to the ac-
cused vide separate memo. Blood-stained earth (Ex. PB) was 0
sent to the Chemical Examiner whereas empty cartridges (Exs.
PC, PD & PE) were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory,
Chandigarh, Punjab. On receipt of the report of the Chemical
Examiner and after completion of investigation, charge sheet
was prepared and filed against accused Dilbagh Singh under
E
Sections 302/382/34 IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sec-
tion 5 of TADA. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges
and claimed to be tried.
8. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many
... as 18 witnesses namely,: Dalip Singh (P.W. 1) was a witness F
of extra-judicial confession allegedly made by accused Dilbagh
Singh, but he did not support the prosecution case; Joginder
Singh (P.W. 2) identified the dead body of Jagmail Singh,
Mohinder Singh (P.W. 3) resident of the village in whose pres-
ence the empty catridges and blood stained earth were taken
G
into police possession from the spot by the Investigating Of-
ficer, proved the recovery memos in this regard Exs. PC, PO
and PE. Balkar Singh (P.W. 4), father of the deceased is an eye
witness of the occurrence; Dr. Satish Arora (P.W. 5), Medical
Officer, who conducted the post mortem on the dead body of
Jagmail Singh; MHC Manrnohan Singh (P.W. 6) produced the H
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 9 S.C.R.

A original FIR register of this case; Kirandeep Singh (P.W. 7) the ,.
informant is the brother of the deceased; C. Tejinder Singh (P.W.
8) took the sealed parcels of catridges to the Forensic Science
Laboratory, Chandigarh, Punjab; HC Kuldeep Singh (P.W. 9)
proved the death of co-accused Jasbir Singh in police encoun-
ter and FIR No. 41 dated 29.5.1992 in this regard stood regis-
B
tered at P.S. Patran; SI Harminder Singh (P.W. 10) partly inves-
tigated this case; C. Hardam Singh (P.W. 11) took the parcels •
of the blood stained earth and blood stained clothes of the de-
ceased and deposited the same in the office of Chemical Ex-
aminer, Patiala and MHC Balwinder Singh (P.W. 12) with whom
c the case property was deposited in the Malkhana by the lnves-
tigating Officer, P.W. 12 also proved that one rifle bearing No.
1050 with 50 live catridges along with other rifle of 7.62 bore
and 25 catridges were issued to the complainant party for their
security. ASI Grudev Singh (P.W. 13) also partly investigated
D this case proved the death of co-accused Jasbir Singh @ Pappu
and Bawa Singh (the third co-accused with the appellant) in
police encounter in some other case, Budh Ram (P.W. 14) (since •
retired) Inspector of Police arrested accused Dilbagh Singh @
Bagha on 17.9.1999 and proved his personal search memo
and the grounds of arrest memo; Inspector Swaran Singh (P.W.
E
15), Investigating Officer of this case proved the investigation
part of this case; Balbir Singh (P.W. 16) proved the report of
the Chemical Examiner Exs PW16/A; Jarnail Singh (P.W. 17)
the then Ahlmad in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class
and Pardeep Kumar (P.W. 18), In-charge, FSL, Chandigarh,
F Punjab stated that the empty catridges could not be examined A.

as the weapons were not recovered in this case.
9. The accused in his statement recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case and pleaded inno-
cence. He stated that the deceased was a terrorist and was
G killed by the Police in an encounter and that he has been falsely
implicated in this case by the Police to save its own skin. Three
defence witnesses namely, SI Harminder Singh (D.W. 1), •
Darshan Singh (D.W. 2) and Amar Singh (D.W. 3) all residents
of village Atalan were examined. The trial court, on apprecia-
H tion of the oral and documentary evidence found the accused
DILBAGH SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 931
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302/382 IPC A
... and Section 5 of TADA and, accordingly, convicted and imposed
the following sentences upon him which shall run concurrently:-

OFFENCES IMPRISONMENT FINE IN DEFAULT OF
PAYMENT OF FINE
(RS.) B
.... U/S. 302 IPC Imprisonment for life 5,000/- RI for 3 months

U/S. 382 IPC 5 Years RI. 2,0001- RI 1 month

U/S. 5TADA 5 years RI. 2,0001- RI 1 month

10. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment
c
and order dated 26.02.2007 passed by the Additional Judge,
Designated Court, Maximum Security Jail, Nabha, the appel-
lant has filed this statutory appeal before this Court.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and D
with their assistance, we have examined the judgment of the
trial court and re-apprised the entire oral and documentary evi-
dence placed on record.
12. Mr. Sarup Singh, learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellant, assailed the judgment of the trial court, inter E
a/ia, contending: (i) that the presence of Kirandeep Singh - com-
plainant (P.W. 7) at the place of occurrence of the incident along
with the deceased is highly doubtful because the informant did
not try to save his brother and the fact that the accused persons
who allegedly were fully armed would have spared the com-
plainant especially when he himself was having a .303 bore rifle F
cannot be accepted; (ii) that even the conduct of Balkar Singh
(P.W. 4) - father of the deceased was not natural as he too did
not make any attempt to save his son from attack allegedly made
by the accused; (iii) that as the trial court has not convicted the
appellant for charged offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act G
which technically would amount to acquittal for the said offence,
therefore, on the same set of evidence conviction of the appel-
lant for offences under Section 302/382 IPC and Section 5 of
TADA by using the same weapons is not sustainable; (iv) that
the alleged incident had occurred at about 7:00 p.m. at the H
932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R.

A chowk of the village, it is unbelievable that no independent wit-
ness from the village has been examined by the prosecution to
corroborate the testimony of P.Ws. 4 and 7 who are highly inter- ..
ested witnesses; and (v) that the evidence of defence witnesses
has wrongly been ignored by the learned trial court who have
8 proved on record that the deceased was murdered by the police
in an encounter and the complainant at the instance of the Police
has implicated the appellant in a false case because of enmity.
13. Mr. Ajay Pal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent-State on the other hand submitted that the
c reasons given by the trial court for recording the order of con-
viction of the appellan: are based upon proper appreciation of
the evidence led by the prosecution in the case. He then submit-
ted that merely because P.Ws. 4 and 7, the two eye witnesses
are relatives of the deceased, their testimony cannot be disbe-
. lieved and discarded on this premise only as their evidence is
0 cogent, consistent and unblemished with the hypothesis of the
guilt of the appellant and this Court should be slow to interfere in
the well-reasoned and well-merited judgment of the trial court.
14. We have given our anxious and thoughtful consider-
E ation to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for
the parties. The arguments put forward by Mr. Sarup Singh al-
though are very attractive yet we find ourselves unable to agree
with the same.
15. On independent scrutiny of the entire evidence pro-
F duced on record, more particularly the testimony of eyewitnesses . _
namely, Balkar Singh (P.W. 4) - father and informant Kirandeep
Singh (P.W. 7) -brother respectively of the deceased, it stands
fully proved that on 9.5.1992, around 7:00 p.m., P.W. 7 and the
deceased were returning to their house after doing routine ag-
G ricultural pursuits in the fields. Dilbagh Singh the appellant along
with Jasbir Singh and one more unknown accomplice armed
with fire arms suddenly came and stood in front of them near
the chowk located near their house and opened fire at Jagmail
Singh and shot him dead. The unknown accomplice picked up \
7.62 bore rifle of Jagmail Singh and started firing shots at the
H body of Jagmail Singh - the deceased. P.W. 7 took shelter
DILBAGH SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 933
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
behind the cover surrounding the water channel and opened A
fire in the air to scare the accused and after a short while the
accused stopped firing and fled away from the place of occur-
rence. P. W. 7 rushed to the spot where his brother was lying
dead and his rifle was found missing. Both these witnesses
deposed with one voice that it was the appellant accompanied 8
by Jasbir Singh a resident of their village and one more un-
• known accomplice who murdered the deceased and the mo-
tive behind the killing of Jagmail Singh was that he was a mem-
ber of extremist activities with the appellant, but later on the
deceased joined the main stream of the society and left ex-
tremist activities which offended Dilbagh Singh who wanted the C
participation of Jagmail Singh in the extremist activities but the
deceased refused to rejoin their gang. The deceased after join-
ing the main stream of the society also got married. The evi-
dence of the eye witnesses could not be shattered by the pros-
ecution and their evidence has been found trustworthy, reliable D
and free from any doubt.
16. Dr. Satish Arora (P.W. 5), conducted the post-mortem
examination on the body of the deceased Jagmail Singh and
found the following injuries:-
E
"(1) Gun-shot injury: ,,
(a) Wound of entry- .6cm x .6crn over the right temporal
region above the pinna. Margins inverted,
blackened, collar of abrasion present around the
wound. t ·
(b) Wound of exit-1Demx1 Ocm on the left front temporal
region, margins averted. Multiple fractures skull
bones and brain matter coming out .of the wound.
(2)
G
(a) Wound of entry - .6cm x .6cm on the right scapular
region.
,. (b) Wound of exit - 2.5cm x 2.5cm on the front aspect
in its upper 113rd_
H
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R.

A (3)
(a) Wound of entry - .6cm x .6cm on the right mid thoracic
region.
(b) Wound of exit- 2.5cm x 2.5cm on the front of chest
8 in its lower 113rd.
(4)
(a) Wound of entry - .6cm x .6cm on the right leg in its
lower 113rd. r-
c (b) Wound of exil - 8cm x Bern on the back of right leg I-
in its upper 113rd."
As deposed before the court that there were multiple frac-

-
tures of skull bone, brain matter was badly damaged; there was
haemothorax on right side; the abdomen of the deceased was
D healthy, stomach was containing semi-digested food material
and, in his opinion, the cause of death of Jagmail Singh was ,
gun shot injuries to brain and right lung, which were sufficient to
cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries
were ante-mortem.
E 17. MHC Kuldip Singh (P.W. 9) of Police Station Patran
and ASI Gurdev Singh (P.W. 13), have proved on record that
Jasbir Singh and Bawa Singh, accomplices of Dilbagh Singh
were killed in police encounter in regard to another case FIR
No. 41 dated 29.5.1992 registered against them under Sec-
F tion 307, 148, 149 IPC, Section 25 Arms Act and Section 5 of
TADA at P.S. Patran, whereas Dilbagh Singh was arrested in
this case on 17.7.1999 by Budh Ram(P.W. 14).
18. The deposition of MHC Balwinder Singh (P.W. 12)
lncharge of the Malkhana of P.S. Ghagga would prove that as
G
, per the report of P.S. Ghagga, i.e. DOR No. 10 dated 5.4.1992
one rifle .303 bore bearing no. 1050 with 50 live cartridges was
supplied to Balkar Singh (P.W. 4) and another rifle of 7.62 bore
having butt No. 476 with 25 cartridges was entrusted to
Kirandeep Singh ((P.W. 7), under the BOS Scheme for the pro-
H tection of their personal life and property and safety of the life of
,,..,;;~J:r
DILBAGH SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 935
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
J. other members of the family from the attack of the terrorists who A
--'<
had been extending threats to them. He deposed that on
9.5.1992 rifle 7.62 bore having butt No. 476 was said to have
been snatched by the terrorists from the possession of the de-
ceased and that the entire case property was deposited by In-
spector Swaran Singh (P.W. 15) - SHO P.S. Ghagga, with him B
with seals intact and the same were sent to the office of the
' . Chemical Examiner through Constable Hardam Singh (P.W. 15),
· whereas the parcels Qf empty cartridges were sent by him to
the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, Punjab, but the
same could not be got compared as the fire arms used for com-
mission of the crime could not be recovered from the accused. c
It is his evidence that so long as the parcels remained in his
possession, he neither tampered with them nor allowed any
other person to tamper with the same.
19. On independent scrutiny of the evidence of P.Ws. 4 [)
and 7 we find that they are the truthful witnesses who have help-
~ lessly witnessed the crime from the close range but could not
help the deceased because of the sudden attack on him by the
.
t
accused who were three in number with deadly fire arms. P. W.
7 fortunately protected himself by taking shelter by the side of
the water channel as he could not take proper position and tar- E
get the assailants with his fire arm and he could only succeed in
firing shots in the air so that he could protect himself and when
he looked at his brother the assailants had already done their
job. P.W. 4 at the relevant time was about 65 years of age and
• was unarmed while standing on the terrace of his house which F
fact itself was enough to prove that he could not target the as-
sailants to save his son from their brutal attack. It was but natu-
ral that under such fearful and dangerous circ1.1mstances it could
not be expected from people of ordinary prudence such as P.Ws.
4 and 7 that they could encounter with the terrorists who had
come with pre-meditated plan to take revenge with the deceased · G
who turned down their command of not joining the terrorist a'i""
>'
tivities in the areas of operation. We do not notice material
contradiction in the ocular and medical evidence appearing on
record. The evidence of P.W. 4 and P.W. 7 finds corroboration
from the post mortem report (Ex. PF) of the deceased which H
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S. C.R.

A proves that the assailants had used deadly fire arms and as •
many as·four direct gun shot injuries were inflicted on the body ,.
of the deceased which resulted in 8 injuries of the wounds hav-
ing entry and exit of the gun shots. Added to it, there were also
multiple fractures of skull bone of the deceased and brain mat-
B ter was badly damaged as deposed by Dr. Satish Arora (P.W.
5). .;
~

20. We have gone through the statements of D.Ws. 1, 2
and 3 who have admitted in the cross-examination that they did
not know how Jagmail Singh died. They have not seen the oc-
c currence nor were they present at the time of occurrence at the
spot. They stated that there was some murmuring in the village
that Police might have killed deceased Jagmail Singh. Further,
these witnesses have never reported to the Police or higher
authorities that they have heard that Jagmail Singh was killed
by Police authorities or that the accused has been falsely impli-
D cated in this case. They have deposed in the court in favour of
the appellant for the first time in the year 2007 whereas the 1

murder of Jagmail Singh was committed on 9.5.1992 in front of
the home of P.W. 4 in the same village to which the defence
ti
"""
witnesses do belong.The trial court has rightly come to the con-
E clusion that the evidence of defence witnesses was of no help
and assistance to the appellant to prove that he has been falsely
implicated by P.Ws. 4 and 7 in the case on hand.
21. Having given our careful consideration to the above-
stated submissions made by the learned counsel for the par- ..
F ties and in the light of the evidence discussed above, it.must be
held that the evaluation of the findings recorded by the trial court
do not suffer from manifest error and improper appreciation of
evidence on record warranting any interference in this appeal.
22. In the result, for the afore-stated reasons, we find that
G there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

N.J. Appeal dismissed. "

H