MAJOR SINGH AND ANR.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

A                           MAJOR SINGH AND ANR.
                                          V.

                                ST ATE OF PUNJAB

                                OCTOBER 19, 2006

B                  [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU. JJ.]


          Penal Code, 1860-Section 302 read with Section 34-Murder-
    Prosecution case supported by version of eye-witness and medical evidence-
C   Motive for the offence was suspicion of accused agaimt deceased that he had
    caused death of their sister (wife ofdeceased)-Conviction and death sentence
    by trial court-Confirmed by High Court-On appeal, held: In the facts of
    the case, accused rightly convicted-However, death sentence reduced to life
    imprisonment.

D        Principle-Principle of 'Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus'-
    Applicability-Held: It is not an acceptable principle.

         Criminal Trial-Minor discrepancies in prosecution case-Effect a/-
    Held: Such discrepancies not a good ground for rejecting the entire
    prosecution case.
E
         Criminal Law-Motive-Evidentiary value of-Held: Motive is not very
    material in a case of direct evidence-It assumes importance in a case cf
    circumstantial evidence-Evidence.

          The appellants-accused herein along with their brother were alleged to
F   have caused death of a person by severing his head from the body. The incident
    was seen by PW-4 and 'C'. Medical evidence corroborated the version of the
    eyewitness. The motive for murder was that the accused suspected that the
    deceased had caused death of their sister, who was married to the deceased
    12 years ago, within two months of the marriage. Triai Court found the
    appellants guilty of offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to
G   death. Co-accused were acquitted. Conviction as well as sentence was confirmed
    by High Court.

          In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that it was a case of false
    implication as the incident was not seen by anyone due to lack of light; that
H                                        486
                      MAJOR SINGH v. ST ATE OF PUNJAB                         487
 they had no motive to kill the deceased; and that acquittal of the co-accused       A
 shows that the prosecution case is false.

         Disposing of the appeal, the Court
       HELD: 1.1. There is no reason to set aside the conviction of the accused.
 Motive is not very material in a case of direct evidence but it is very important
in a case of circumstantial evidence. Since, there is direct evidence in this        B
case, the court is not inclined to go into the motive in the present case.
Although, it is true that in the month of January usually it becomes dark at
7.30 p.m. but in the present case there was electric light by which the
witnesses recognized the assailants. From the statement of PWS SDC, Punjab
State Electricity Board it is clear that there was uninterrupted electric supply     C
in the village in question at the relevant time. It has come in evidence that the
witnesses identified the assailants in the electric light fixed on a bamboo pole.
The medical evidence also corroborates the prosecution version.
                                                                 (491-F; 490-C-D)
      1.3. Even if assumed that 'C' was not a witness of the incident, there is      D
no reason to disregard or disbelieve the evidence of PW 4 who was an eye
witness to the incident. He is a natural witness and he has clearly deposed
about the incident in question in detail. (490-H; 491-A)
      1.4. Minor discrepancies and minor defects in the prosecution case is
not a good ground for rejecting the entire prosecution case. (491-B)
                                                                                     E
      1.5. Merely because the co-accused have been acquitted the entire
prosecution case cannot be rejected. The principle of/alsus in uno falsus in
omnibus is not an acceptable principle. It is well known fact that in our country
very often the prosecution implicates not only real assailants but also
implicates innocent persons so as to spread the net wide. The court can always
discriminate and find out that who were the real assailants and who were not.        F
                                                                          (491-E)
      2. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering
the fact that there was probably some enmity due to suspicion about death of
the sister of the acused two years after her marriage to the deceased which
could have a motive for the crime, the sentence awarded to both the accused          G
from death sentente is reduced to life sentence under Section 302 IPC.
                                                                   (491-F-G)

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1231 of
2005.
                                                                                     H
    488                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A        From the Final Judgment and Order dated t. 7.2005 of the High Court of
    Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 575-DB of 2004.

         K.B. Sinha, Kawaljeet Kochar, D. Jha, Kusum Chaudhary for the
    Appellants.

B         D. Mahesh Babu, Sanjay Jain and Arun K. Sinha for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         MARKANDEY KATJU, J. This appeal has been filed against the
    impugned judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 1.7.2005 by
C   which the death sentence awarded to the accused Major Singh and Baldeo
    Singh under Section 302/20 I !PC has been upheld.

          Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

          The facts as narrated in the record of the case are that the sister of the
D appellants Major Singh and Baldev Singh, Sukhwinder Kaur had been married
    to the deceased Kashmir Singh about 12 years prior to the date of the
    incident. Sukhwinder Kaur died after two years of marriage with Kashmir
    Singh, and the accused had the suspension that Kashmir Singh had murdered
    Sukhwinder Kaur. It is alleged that this was the motive for which the accused
E   murdered Kashmir Singh in the incident in question.

           On 24.1.1999, Kashmir Singh was returning on a bicycle to his house
    after delivering the milk in the milk dairy and Lakhbir Singh PW4 was sitting
    on the carrier holding a small container meant for milk in his hand. At about
    7.30 p.m. they reached near the transformer of the village and there in the light
F   of the electric bulb which was on they found Major Singh armed with a
    'Kirpan' and Baldev Singh armed with 'Kapa' sitting along with their third
    brother Shingara Singh. Shingara Singh had raised a lalkara that Kashmir
    Singh had come in their grip and he should not be allowed to go away alive.
    Thereupon Lakhbir Singh had jumped from the carrier of the cycle. The
    deceased in tum had thrown his cycle and fled into the fields of the wheat
G   crop being followed by the appellants. It is alleged that in the presence of
    the witness, Baldev Singh had given a blow from the sharp side of his 'Kapa'
    on the left wrist of the deceased while Major Singh gave blows with Kirpan
    one after the other, as a result of which Kashmir Singh fell down. Shingara
    Singh then caught hold of the deceased by his hair, who had tried to catch
H   hold of the Kirpan of Major Singh and in that process he had received injuries
       MAJOR SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB [MARKANDEY KA TIU. J.]              489
on the fingers of his left hand. Thereafter, Baldev Singh caught hold of the     A
arm of the deceased and Major Singh severed his head with a blow of the
 Kirpan. An alarm was raised by Lakhbir Singh. which attracted Chanan Singh
to the spot and in his presence the accused ran away from the spot taking
away the severed head of the deceased. On account of nervousness. the
accused had left the Kirpan, turban and blanket at the spot. After leaving
Chanan Singh at the place of occurrence near the dead body, Lakhbir Singh        B
went to call his cousin Jagir Singh and thereafter both of them proceeded to
police post Behak Pachharian to lodge an FIR. On the way, they met AS!
Satnam Singh PW7 along with other police officials at the Bus Stand of village
Behak Pachharian where they were holding a Naka. Lakhbir Singh made a
statement Ex.P6 before the AS!, who after making his endorsement Ex.P6/A         C
had sent the same to the Police Station, Zira, on the basis whereof formal FIR
Ex.P6/B was recorded under Section 302 read with Section 34 !PC.

        AS! Satna111 Singh and the other police officials in the meantime had
  accompanied Lakhbir Singh to the spot, where a headless body of the deceased
  was lying. He prepared an inquest report and sent the body through Mehtab D
  Singh and Daljit Singh, Constables for post mortem to Civil Hospital, Zira
 along with application Ex.P3. On 25.1.1999, AS! Satnam Singh inspected the
 spot and prepared a rough site plan Ex.Pl4. He collected blood stained earth
 and ordinary earth from the scene of occurrence and put the same in two
 separate plastic boxes which were converted into parcels and were eventually E
 sealed with the seal 'SS'. The sealed parcels were taken into possession
 through recovery memo Ex.P7. The Investigating Officer, recovered the Kirpan,
turban and blanket from the spot. He prepared rough sketch of the Kirpan and
took the same into possession. The blanket and turban were also taken into
possession separately and both parcels were sealed by him and were taken
 into possession through memo Ex.P9. The bicycle of the deceased was also F
taken into possession. After autopsy, the post mortem report was handed
over to the police. According to the same, the injuries on the body of the
deceased were found to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course
of nature. The clothes of the deceased were also taken into possession and
parcels containing blood stained earth, ordinary earth, kirpan, blanket and G
turban were went to the Chemical Examiner on 24.2.1999.

      The trial court after detailed consideration of the evidence found the
accused guilty and sentenced them on 12.6.2004 to death, and also to pay a
fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default further rigorous imprisonment for two
years under Section 302 !PC. They were also awarded punishment of three
    490                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of which
    further six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 121 !PC.

          In appeal the High Court upheld the judgment of the trial court and
    dismissed the appeal. Hence the present appeal.

B         Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in fact no one had
  seen the incident as it was in the night, and it was a case of false implication.
  Learned counsel also repeatedly stressed that the appellants could have no
  motive for murdering Kashmir Singh. It is well settled in Criminal Law that
  motive is not very material in a case of direct evidence but it is very important
C in a case of circumstantial evidence. Since, there is direct evidence in this
  case, we are not inclined to go into the motive in the present case. Although,
  it is true that in the month of January usually it becomes dark at 7.30 p.m.
  but in the present case there was electric light by which the witnesses
  recognized the assailants. From the statement of PW5 Kuldeep Singh, SDC,
  Punjab State Electricity Board it is clear that there was uninterrupted electric
D supply in the village in question on 24.1.1999 from 2.30 p.m. to midnight. It
  has come in evidence that the witnesses identified the assailants in the
  electric light fixed on a bamboo pole. The medical evidence also corroborates
  the prosecution version.

          It has come in the prosecution version that Kashmir Singh had caught
E the Kirpan of Major Singh and when Major Singh pulled back the Kirpan, four
    fingers of the Major Singh were injured. In the post mortem of Kashmir Singh
    there are such injuries on the fingers of the deceased. This also corroborates
    the prosecution version.

          Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no trail of
F blood at the scene of the incident. In this connection we have perused the
    evidence of AS! Satnam Singh who has mentioned in his statement that he
    had found a Kirpan stained with blood on the spot which he had taken into
    possession, and he had also found blood stained earth which was put in two
    separate boxes and sealed. He also took into possession· one bicycle make
G   Hero on the carrier of which a hook was fixed and a drum was tied. One small
    drum was lying at a distance from the bicycle and he took that also in
    possession and then prepared a rough site plan. Thus the evidence of the
    In-charge of the Police Station, Satnam Singh also corroborates the prosecution
    version.

H         Even assuming that we accept the defence version that Chanan Singh
       MAJOR SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]                  491

was not a witness of the incident, we see no reason to disregard or disbelieve      A
the evidence of Lakhbir Singh who was an eye witness to the incident.
Lakhbir Singh is a natural witness and he has clearly deposed about the
incident in question in detail. We see no reason to disbelieve his evidence.

      Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to certain minor defects
and minor discrepancies in the prosecution case. It is well settled that minor      B
discrepancies and minor defects in the prosecution case is not a good ground
for rejecting the entire prosecution case.

      There is clear evidence of Lakhbir Singh that Baldev Singh caught hold
of the deceased by his arm and Major Singh severed his head from body by            C
Kirpan. The medical evidence, the police inspector's evidence, etc. corroborate
this version.

       Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that co-accused Jagga
Singh and Shingara Singh have been acquitted. He contended that this shows
that the prosecution case is false.                                                 D
       We cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant
that merely because Jagga Singh and Shingara Singh have been acquitted the
entire prosecution case has to be rejected. It is well settled that the principle
of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not an acceptable principle. It is well
known fact that in our country very often the prosecution implicates not only       E
real assailants but also implicates innocent persons so as to spread the net
wide. The court can always discriminate and find out that who were the real
assailants and who were not.

     Thus, we see no reason to set aside the conviction of the accused
Major Singh and Baldev Singh.                                                       F
      However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering
the fact that there was probably some enmity due to suspicion about
Sukhwinder Kaur's death two years after her marriage to Kashmir Singh which
could have a motive for the crime, we reduce the sentence awarded to both
the accused from death sentence to life sentence under Section 302 JPC. This G
appeal is disposed of accordingly.

KKT.                                                       Appeal disposed of.