SANTOKH SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

                        [2010] 10 S.C.R. 886


A                    SANTOKH SINGH & ANR.
                                 v.
                        STATE OF PUNJAB
                (Criminal Appeal No. 2079 of 2008)
                      SEPTEMBER 01, 2010
B
       [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH
                      NIJJAR, JJ.)

        Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302134 - Murder - Rivalry
C between parties resulting in death of victim - Conviction and
  sentence of accused uls. 302134 on basis of circumstantial
  evidence by trial court - High Court upholding the order of
  conviction and sentence of two of the accused and acquitting
  others - On appeal, held: All the circumstances taken together
D form a continuous and unbroken chain that deceased was
  shot dead by two of the accused - Clear evidence that
  accused went to the house of deceased t0 bring him out of
  the house for the purpose of committing his murder - Serious
  rivalry between the two Unions - Cleaning of pistol by
E accused to remove finger-prints strongly pointing towards the
  guilt of accused - There was no blackening or tattooing of the
  skin surrounding the wound - Therefore, trial court rightly held
  that possiblility of suicide was roled out~ Thus, orders of trial
  court as a/so High Court do not call for any interference -
F Evidence - Circumstantial evidence .

       According to the prosecution case, there was a
  Union rivalry between the parties. On the fateful day,
  accused persons went to the house of the deceased and
  took him to the hotel in presence of the complainant. He
G was forced to drink liquor and while he was under the
  influence of liquor, he was murdered. The trial court
  convicted the accused for offences punishable under
  Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and imposed
  sentence of imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1,000/
H                            886
  SANTOKH SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB             887


-. The High Court upheld the order of conviction and         A
sentence of appellant no. 1 and appellant no. 2. However,
the other two co-accused were acquitted. Therefore, the
appellants filed the instant appeal.

    Dismissing the appeal, the Court
                                                             B
     HELD: 1.1 The conclusions of the trial court and the
High Court that the circumstantial evidence adduced by
the prosecution formed a complete chain which led to the
conclusion, consistent only with the guilt of the accused
and inconsistent with their innocence, are not manifestly C
erroneous. There is clear evidence that the appellants had
gone to the house of the deceased to bring him out of
the house for the purpose of committing his murder. The
reason given, of an effort to sort out the Union disputes,
was merely a ruse to bring the deceased out of his house. D
There was serious rivalry between the two Unions. Only
two days prior to the shooting, the deceased left the
Union of the appe.llants and became the President of.
INTUC Union. The deceased would not have taken the
pistol with him had he not apprehended any danger from E
the accused persons. PW 5-wife of deceased clearly
stated that he had specifically asked to take the pistol
with him. [Para 14] [901-G-H; 902-A-C]      '

     1.2 The trial court noticed the absence of fingerprints
on the pistol and concluded that the fatal shot had not F
been fired by the deceased. His fingerprints were bound
to be present on the pistol in case the shot had been fired
by him. The fingerprint expert in his report clearly stated
that the pistol had been wiped/clean. The trial court rightly
concluded that the fingerprints were in all probability G
wiped away by the assailant to remove the evidence of
his fingerprints. There is no reason for any other person
to remove the finger prints. The far fetched suggestion
that the fingerprints were removed to rule out the
                                                              H
    888     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A possibility of the deceased having shot himself cannot
  be accepted. There is no evidence on the record to show
  that any other person had handled the pistol, in the
  interval between the shooting and the arrival of the police.
  There is no reason as to why the police would wipe away
B the incriminating finger prints. [Para 11] [899-B-E]

       1.3 The trial court noticed that the post mortem report
  nowhere mentioned that there was any blackening or
  tattooing of any area surrounding the fatal wound. The
C trial court, therefore, concluded that the possibility of
  suicide stands completely ruled out. The only inference
  is that it was a case of homicide. The shot was fired by
  someone, from amongst the accused appellants. It also
  came in evidence that in fact two shots were fired. The
  empty shell of the first one which missed was recovered
D some distance away from the body of the deceased.
  Taking stock of the entire evidence, the trial court
  concluded that the circumstantial evidence adduced by·
  the prosecution formed a complete chain which led to the
  conclusion, consistent only with the guilt of the accused
E and inconsistent with their innocence. The conclusions
  arrived at by the trial court were confirmed by the Division
  Bench of the High Court. [Para 12 & 13] [899-E-H; 892-A]

       1.4 There was no reason why the police as well as
F the prosecution would go out of the way to falsely
  implicate or prosecute the appellants. Both the trial court
  and the High Court upon appreciation of the evidence
  concluded that there was evidence to show that the
  accused and the deceased were carrying liquor with
G them. The glasses and the chicken curry were served to
  them at the hotel. The High Court also concluded that the
  presence of the carton of whiskey would clearly show
  that the deceased had consumed alcohol. Thereafter, the
  deceased was shot in the head with his own pistol.

H
  SANTOKH SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB              889


Whether the pistol was snatched away by one of the            A
accused persons or was handed over by the deceased,
is neither here nor there. The deceased was shot with his
own pistol. There was no blackening or tattooing of the
skin surrounding the wound. [Para 16] [902-E-H]
                                                              B
     1.5 The patient's admission and treatment register
produced seems to be the most unreliable document. It
was maintained in a slip shod manner. There were no
systematically maintained entries, either about the
particulars of the patient, the disease or the treatment.     C
DW-1 admitted that there was some overlapping in the
entries. The document does not inspire any confidence.
It cannot be said to be a reliable document. There was
no evidence indicating the particular expertise of DW-1.
According to the evidence of OW 1, there was only
preliminary diagnosis of the medical condition of the         D
deceased. There was no proof of any expert clinical
examination of the deceased. Thus., it cannot be said that
the deceased was suffering from chronic schizophrenia.
The courts below rightly rejected the plea that the
deceased was a psychiatric patient and was stated to be       E
suffering from schizophrenia. [Para 17] [903-A-D]

      1.6 The deceased and the accused were working in
the same organization. They were office bearers of the
same Union. Two days before the incident, the deceased        F
left the Union of the appellants and became the President
of the rival Union, therefore, they resented the action of
the deceased. They formed a common intention to
eliminate the deceased. They went to the house of the
deceased and invited him to accompany them to resolve         G
the Union disputes. They took him to the hotel where they
consumed liquor and were also served food by the hotel
staff. At some point of time the pistol of the deceased was
taken by one of the appellants. It is wholly irrelevant
whether it was voluntarily given by the deceased or taken
                                                              H
    890     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A   by the assailant. Thereafter, one of the accused persons
    shot the deceased in the head with his own pistol. They
    then wiped the fingerprints on the pistol, threw the pistol
    down next to the body of the deceased and tried to
    escape. This is an indication towards the guilt rather than
B   the innocence of the appellants. Two of them were
    captured just outside the hotel, the other two managed
    to escape. The injury on the deceased did not indicate
    that he had shot himself. The injuries showed that the
    shot was not fired at point blank range. There was no
c   tattooing or blackening of the skin surrounding the entire
    wound. The consumption of liquor could not be doubted
    in view of the evidence given by the waiter, who served
    the food. The waiter clearly stated that the visitors had
    brought the liquor with them. They were only given the
    glasses and the buckets of ice. They ordered for chicken
0
    curry, which was duly given to them. The waiter was
    conveniently removed from the dining hall to ensure that
    he did not become an eye witness to the murder. They
    told him to go and get two more chapattis. He, therefore,
E   went into the kitchen of the hotel. While, he was coming
    out of the kitchen, he heard the sound of gunfire.
    Although, the waiter was declared hostile, his evidence
    is consistent with the prosecution version. Even
    otherwise, the carton of whiskey was quite visible in one
    of the ph_otographs. All these circumstances taken
F   together clearly form such a continuous and unbroken
    chain, leaving no manner of doubt that the deceased was
    shot dead by one of the appellants. The cleaning of the
    pistol to remove the finger-prints is a circumstance which
    is a strong pointer to the guilt of the appellants. The
G   judgment of the trial court as also of the High Court do
    not call for any interference. [Paras 18, 19 and 20] (903-
    E-H; 904-A-G]

        CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
H   No. 2079 of 2008.
  SANTOKH SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB                     891


    From the Judgment & Order dated 12.03.2007 of the High            A
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal
No. 885 DB of 2003.

      K.T.S. Tulsi, Dil Jit Singh, Ajay Veer SiO.fl_h. lrshad Ahmed
for the Appellants.                                                   B
     Kuldip Singh for the Respondent.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. 1. The two appellants in
this Criminal Appeal have challenged the judgment of the C
Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 885-
DB of 2003, whereby the High Court upheld the conviction of
the appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with
Section 34 IPC sentencing them each to undergo imprisonment
for life with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with a direction to further D
undergo RI for :;ix months in case of default of payment fine.

      2. The prosecution case is that Inspector Harvinder Singh,
Station House Officer, Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar,
alongwith other officials including Balwinder Singh, ASI, Tarsem E
Singh, Constable, Bikram Singh, Constable, happened to be
present at Chowk Ciivil Lines, Amritsar, in connection with
patrolling during the night of 14.7.2002. At about 10.45 p.m.,
Rajiv Kumar son of Prem Nath Sharma resident of House No.
75/5, Gulati Road, Amritsar Cantt, met them. He gave them a F
written application dated 14.7.2002 (Ex. PE) giving the details
about the death of Sanjay Kumar @ Shammi. On the basis of
the complaint, FIR (Ex. PD) was registered at the Police
Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar at 11 :30 p.m. The deceased,
cousin of the complainant, was working in Air Force MES as G
FGM and was residing in MES Quarter No. 23/4. He was
Secretary of an Employees' Union. He, however, left the
aforesaid Employees' Union. Two days later, he became the
President of INTUC Union. Accused (1) Santokh Singh,
President of Employees' Union, (2) Sawarn Kumar (President H
    892      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010]-10 S.C.R.


A   of Employees' Union), GE Amritsar (3) Jagsher Singh Bhola,
    General Secretary, (4) Gurdev Singh, FMGHS II came to the
    quarter of the deceased in the presence of the complainant.
    They said that they wanted to discuss something about the
    disputes of the Union. They, therefore, took Sanjay alongwith
B   them. Thereafter, Arjinder Pal Singh @ Prince, owner of a Hotel
    came to their house and told them that Sanjay has been shot
    dead. In the complaint, it is stated that the complainant had full
    confidence that all the four persons who had called Shammi
    from his house had made Shammi drink liquor and while he
c   was under the influence of liquor, they had shot him dead after
    snatching his pistol. Endorsement Ex.P/1, was made on this
    statement by the Inspector and sent to the police station through
    Constable Bikram Singh. FIR (Ex. PE/3) was recorded on the
    basis thereof by Balbir Singh, SI. His signature on the same
    was identified by Inspector Harvinder Singh when he appeared
0
    as PW-12 in the case.

         3. The place of the incident, Hotel Genesis ·in the
    Cantonment area of Amritsar, was then visited by the Inspector
    alongwith other officials. The complainant Rajiv Kumar was also
E   taken alongwith the police party. Santokh Singh and Sawarn
    Kumar were arrested from the spot. Licensed pistol of Sanjay
    Kumar was found lying near the dead body. One empty, one
    missed cartridge and three live cartridges were also recovered
    therefrom. Prithipal Singh, Sub Inspector (Finger Prints Expert)
F   was called at that place and the pistol was got examined from
    him. It was opined by him that no decipherable finger print
    impressions were found. Santokh Singh and Sawarn Kumar
    (hereinafter referred to as "the appellants") were got medically
    examined and it was found that they had not consumed any
G   drug or alcohol. The post mortem on the dead body of Sanjay
    Kumar was duly performed and the dead body was handed
    over to his relatives. The other two accused Gurdev Singh and
    Jagsher Singh @ Bhola had, thereafter, surrendered in the
    Court. They were formally arrested in this case o_n 25.7.2002.
H
  SANTOKH SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB                 893
         [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
During the investigation, no witness came forward to give an A
eye witness account as to how the weapon was snatched from
Sanjay and how he was shot with the same weapon. The
investigation, however, concluded that the four accused had
called Sanjay Kumar from his house. It appears that extra
judicial confession was made by Jagsher Singh @ Bhola and B
Gurdev Singh before one Vipin Kumar son of Mulakh Raj,
resident of Ram Tirath Road, Amritsar to the effect that they had
killed Sanjay Kumar. It was also stated that on 13.7.2002 in the
presence of Prince Masih, son of Buta Masih, all the four
accused persons, had condemned Sanjay Kumar for leaving c
the Union and joining INTUC. They had also said that they will
have to do something in that connection. The report of the
Forensic Science Laboratory indicated that the pistol recovered
from the site of incident was found to be in working condition.
It also indicated that shots had been fired from the very same D
pistol. They were duly put on trial for the offence under Section
302/34 IPC and Section 25 of the.Arms Act. At the trial, it was
stated by Dr. Gurmanjit Rai (PW-1) that he had conducted the
post mortem examination on the dead body of Sanjay Kumar
@ Shammi on 15.7.2002 at 11.50 a.m. He had proved the post
mortem report (Ex. PA). The report mentions that the following E
injuries were noticed on the deceased:-

            "1.   Lacerated wound 1.5 x 1 cm with inverted
                  margins was present on right side of head,
                  4 ems. lateral to out end of eyebrow.          F
                  Abrasion color was present at the lower
                  margin of wound. Clotted blood was present.

            2.    Lacerated wound of 1.8 x 0.8 cm was
                  present on left side of head in the temporal G
                  region, 5 ems above pinna of ear. Margins
                  of wound were found everted Clotted blood
                  was present."

     The cause of death, in the opinion of the doctor, was
laceration of brain, vital organ, as a result of communicating   H
    894      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A   injuries no. 1 and 2, which was sufficient to cause death in the
    ordinary course of nature. The time that had elapsed between
    the injuries and death was opined to be few minutes and
    between death and post mortem was 24 hours.

         4. A number of witnesses were examined by the
B   prosecution in support of its case. Upon closure of the
    prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellants were
    recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the allegations were
    denied by them. Jagsher Singh @ Bhola and Gurdev Singh
    stated that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated.
c   Appellant No. 1, Santokh Singh stated thus:-

          'The allegations against us are totally false. Deceased was
          of aggressive nature and also living under depression. He
          used to have unpredictable swings of behaviour. He was
D         drug addict and was facing criminal cases. He remained
          in hospital for treatment also. The allegations of my
          alongwith other going to his house and to bring him are
          incorrect. He met us in restaurant. All of a sudden, he fired
          on his head may be to show false valour. It all is so sudden
          and sad, which feelings in him culminated in this act are
E
          difficult to tell. But he was depressed and aggressive and
          possible drug influence. Police on site inspection also
          agreed with it, but scenario of place of occurrence was
          changed. We got totally perplexed. I am innocent."
F         Appellant No. 2 gives the same version as appellant no.
    1.

          5. Upon examination of the entire evidence, the trial court
    convicted all the four accused under Section 302 read with
G   Section 34 IPC and they were sent to undergo imprisonment
    for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 302
    read with Section 34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the
    defaulter accused would further undergo RI for a period of 6
    months. The aforesaid judgment of the trial court was taken in
    appeal by the four convicts.
H
  SANTOKH SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB                  895
         [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

     6. The High Court upon re-examination of the en.tire          A
evidence has confirmed the findings recorded in the impugned
judgment qua appellant No. 1, Santokh Singh and appellant No.
2 Sawarn Kumar. However the co-accused Jagsher Singh @
Bhola and Gurdev Singh were acquitted of the charge under
302 read with Section 34 IPC. It is in these circumstances, that   B
the two appellants have challenged the aforesaid judgment in
this appeal.

     7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr.
K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted C
that this is undoubtedly a case of suicide which has been
deliberately twisted by the prosecutio!l into a case of murder.
Learned counsel submitted that deceased was suffering from
chronic Schizophrenia. He had been regularly receiving
treatment for mental illness at the Bhatia Neuro Psychiatric
Hospital, Amritsar. Deceased was also a drug addict. Learned D
counsel has placed strong reliance on the statement made by
Dr. J.P.S. ·Bhatia (DW-1 ). It is submitted by the learned senior
counsel that due to his illness, behaviour of the deceased was
wholly erratic and unpredictable. It is not possible to know the
reason as to why he may have shot himself. According to the E
learned counsel, the medical evidence would tend to suggest
that he had suicidal tendencies. Mr. Tulsi further submitted that
in this case, the prosecution has gone out of the way to
fabricate the case against the appellants. The appellants had
no motive whatsoever to kill the deceased. Even if there was F
slight disagreement with regard to the Union activities, the same
would not provide a motive strong enough to commit the murder
of the deceased. He submitted that the appellants had very
cordial relations with the deceased. They had, in fact gone to
his house to resolve any outstanding issues. He has pointed G
to a number of circumstances which would show that the police
has acted in a partisan manner. According to Mr. Tulsi, the
entire sequence of events given by the prosecution is
unbelievable. First and foremost, there is no eye-witness. The
                                                                   H
    896      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A FIR has been ante timed. It was in fact not recorded at 11.35
  as stated in the record. The inquest was conducted on
  15. 7.2002 that would mean that it was conducted sometime
  after midnight of the night of 14/15.7.2002. In the inquest report,
  the names of the accused appellants are not mentioned. It is
B submitted that the arrival of the police is ante timed. This is
  evident from the general diary which records that the police left
  for the scene of the crime at 11.30 p.m. The position of the body
  has been shifted. The empty cartridge of the missed shot was
  not recovered till the following day. This had been planted to
c justify the plea that two shots were fired. There is no evidence
  that the appellants had removed the finger prints. Therefore, the
  prosecution is suppressing the genesis of the incident.
  According to the learned senior counsel, the evidence of the
  witnesses is wholly unreliable. The witness tend to change the
  stand to suit the circumstances. Counsel further submitted that
0
  this being a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution
  has to prove that the circumstances on the reco,rd would be
  inconsistent with the innocence of the appellants. Learned
  counsel submitted that there ·has been definite tampering with
E the evidence. Even according to the prosecution witnesses, the
  deceased was first seen sitting on a chair with his head on the
  table. The pistol was said to be lying at the feet of the
  deceased. Thereafter, it is sought to be projected that the
  deceased was lying on the floor. According to the learned
  senior counsel, the cumulative effect of the inherent
F weaknesses in the investigation and tampering of evidence
  would lead to the clear conclusion that the appellants had been
  falsely implicated. Learned senior counsel further submitted
  that the prosecution cannot be permitted to take advantage of
  the fact that the pistol recovered did not have any fingerprints
G on it. It cannot lead to the conclusion that the appellants had
  deliberately removed the fingerprints. Learned senior counsel
  also submitted that merely because more than one shot was
  fired would not lead to the conclusion that the firing was not
  done by the deceased himself. Learned senior counsel also
H submitted that the recovery of the empty shells on the following
  SANTOKH SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB                    897
         [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
day is itself suspect. The possibility of the same having been      A
planted by the investigating agency cannot be ruled out.

     8. On the other hand, Mr. Kuldip Singh, appearing for the
State of Punjab submitted that the prosecution has proved the
case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel submitted
                                                                    B
that there is no break in the sequence of events. It has been
proved on the record that there was Union rivalry. The appellants
were resentful for the fact that the deceased had joined INTUC
after leaving their Union. They had gone to his house and
brought him to the hotel. They had got the deceased drunk.
Thereafter, they committed the murder. According to the learned     C I
counsel, if the deceased had shot himself, there was no
question of two shots being fired. Learned counsel further
pointed out that the evidence of the illness of the deceased is
non-existent. The record produced by Dr. J.P.S. Bhatia (DW-
1) is a clear fabrication. It has been prepared just to help the    D
appellants. Undoubtedly, the deceased was taking drugs for
which he had received soine treatment but he was not a
psychiatric case as projected by the appellant.

      9. We have considered the submissions made by the             E
learned counsel for the parties. The trial court examined the
entire evidence threadbare. From the evidence of the
witnesses, it has been established that Shammi had been shot
dead with his own licensed pistol. The incident had taken place
at Genesis Hotel. Accused persons including the appellants          F
herein were present in the dining hall on the same table as
Shammi. The divergence between the version given by the
prosecution and the version of the appellants was duly noticed
by the trial court. According to the prosecution, the shots were
fired by someone amongst the accused persons in furtherance         G
of common intention of all of them to murder Shammi. The
defence version on the other hand is that Shammi being a
person of unstable temperament due to his mental illness had
committed suicide. The trial court, in order to, rule out the
possibility that the appellants have not been falsely implicated
                                                                    H
o.




         898      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 10 S.C.R.

     A   meticulously noticed the facts which were proved by the
         prosecution.

               10. On a careful appreciation of the evidence, it was found
         by the trial court, and confirmed by the High Court that Shammi
     B   was an active participant in the Union activities. He had been
         the Secretary of the Employees' Union. Rajiv Kumar reiterated
         the facts about the Union activities of the deceased, Shammi,
         in his evidence. He stated that he was present in the house of
         the deceased when the accused reached there at about 8.45
     C   p.m. He was still at the house when Prince, the hotel owner,
         came and told th~m that Shammi had been shot dead, in his
         hotel. Both Rajiv Kumar and the widow of the deceased Indira
         Rani (PW-5) had stated that Shammi had taken the pistol
         alongwith him. He was in the habit of keeping the pistol in the
         dub of his pants. She also stated that after hearing the news
     D   about the murder of her husband, she became unconscious.
         Vipin Kumar, PW-6 had narrated about the extra judicial
         confession made by Jag.sher Singh @ Bhola about having
         committed the murder of Shammi. All these witnesses were
         cross-examined at length, but nothing was brought on the
     E   record, which would tend to show that their evidence cannot be
         believed or trusted. The trial court also noticed that in the
         statements made under Section 313, at least two of the
         accused had admitted that Shammi had met them in the
         restaurant. They had also stated that all of a sudden, he had
     F   shot himself in the head, may be to show false valour. It was
         stated that Shammi was depressed and aggressive and was
         possibly under the influence of drugs. The trial court noticed that
         all the accused persons were present in the hotel. They sat on
         one table. Shammi, as usual had his licensed pistol in the dub
     G   of his pants. Even though, there is no direct evidence of the
         shooting, it has been established by the statement made by the
         owner of the Hotel, i.e., Prince. He had clearly stated that he
         was sitting in his cabin while the deceased and the accused
         were being attended by a waiter of his Hotel, Ram Singh. Then
     H   all of a sudden, he heard a sound, he thought as if some part
   SANTOKH SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB                     899
          [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
of the cooler had broken down but immediately thereafter the           A
accused persons tried to run away. However, the waiter Ram
Singh and two others managed to capture two of them. Soon,
it was found that someone among the four persons had fired
at Shammi, who was found dead on his seat.
                                                                       B
      11. Noticing the absence of fingerprints on the pistol the
trial court concluded that the fatal shot had not been fired by
the deceased. His fingerprints were bound to be present on the
pistol in case the shot had been fired by him. The fingerprint
expert in his report has clearly stated that the pistol had been
wiped clean. The trial court, in our opinion, rightly concluded that   C
the fingerprints were in all probability wiped away by the
assailant to remove the evidence of his fingerprints. There is
no reason for any other person to remove the finger prints. We
are unable to accept the far fetched suggestion of Mr. Tulsi that
the fingerprints have been removed to rule out the possibility         D
of the deceased having shot himself. There is no evidence on
the· record to show that any other person had handled the pistol,
in the interval between the shooting and the arrival of the police.
Furthermore, there is no reason as to why the police would wipe
away the incriminating finger prints.                                  E
     12. The trial court also noticFrJ that the post mortem report
nowhere mentions that there was any blackening or tattooing
of any area surrounding the fatal wound. The trial court,
therefore, concluded that the possibility of suicide stands            F
completely ruled out. The only inference is that it was a case
of homicide. The shot was fired by someone, from amongst the
accused appellants. It has also come in evidence that in fact
two shots were fired. The empty shell of the first one which
missed was recovered some distance away from the body of
the deceased. Taking stock of the entire evidence, the trial court     G
has concluded that the circumstantial evidence adduced by the
prosecution formed a complete chain which leads to the
conclusion, consistent only with the guilt of the accused and
inconsistent with their innocence.
                                                                       H
    900      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A         13. The conclusions arrived at by the trial court have been
    confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The High
    Court noticed in extenso the evidence of Indira Rani, PW-5,
    wife of the deceased. She had categorically stated about the
    manner in which the four accused had come to their house and
B had requested her husband to accompany them. They had said
    something about having discussions about the functioning of
    the Union. She had also stated that when her husband left with
    the appellants, he was carrying his licensed pistol with him. She
    had admitted that iri her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,
c she had not mentioned that Rajiv Kumar was present when the
    accused persons haa come to the house and she had also not
    given information that her husband was also the Secretary of
    the Employees' Union andJater on he had joined as a President
    of INTUC. She also admitted that she had not mentioned to the
    police that the owner of the hotel, Prince, had told her that her
0
    husband had been shot dead by the four persons with whom
    ~e had gone. She had, however, stated t~at after Prince had
    informed her about the death of her husband, she had become
  · unconscious. She recovered only during fhe night. She denied
    the defence version that the accused had never visited the
E house. The High Court also noticed the evidence of Vipin
    Kumar, PW-6, before whom, the accused Jagsher Singh @
    Bhola and Gurdev Singh had made the extra judicial confession
    at about 11.00 p.m. on 18.7.2002. The High Court then
    recounted in detail the testimony of the owner of the hotel
F Arjinder Pal Singh@ Prince (PW-7). In essence, he has stated
    that the four appellants had come with the deceased and had
    sat on one table in the dining hall. All of a sudden, he heard
    the sound of a gun shot. At first, he thought may be the cooler
    in the dining hall had broken down. He saw the accused
G persons starting to run away from the restaurant. Two of them
    were over-powered by the waiters, while the other two ran away.
    He, confidently, gave the names of the accused, who had come
    to the hotel. He went to the house of the deceased and informed
    his wife about the murder. He categorically states about the
H
  SANTOKH SINGH & ANR~,,§TATE OF PUNJAB                        901
         [SURINDER SINGH NlJJAR, J.]
arrival of the police at about 11.00 I 11.15 p.m. His statement        A
was recorded and he narrated the incident to the police. He
also stated that the father of the deceased had reached the
hotel before the arrival of the police. However, the wife reached
a little later. According to this witness, the police had sent the
dead body for post mortem. They interrogated the staff and             B
recorded the statement. In his cross-examination, he has stated
that his restaurant was licensed for serving liquor. He had
himself gone to the area where the dead body of Shammi was
lying on the floor. He had noticed the glasses and other crockery
lying on the table. However, he did not notice whether those           c
glasses contained any liquor. The police did not take the
crockery, which was lying on the table into possession. He
stated that the deceased was bleeding from the mouth.
However, he did not see any blood stains lying on the table or
on the clothes. The Photographer, PW-8 stated that in the
                                                                       0
Photograph (Ex. P16) alongwith the other utensils, only one
glass appears to be _visible and no other glass was seen on
the floor. He, however, admitted that in (Ex. P14), it can be seen
that one carton of Bag Piper whiskey and one bucket of ice
are lying on the floor near the dead body. According to him,
the pistol and other ice bucket were seen lying on the table.          E
Therefore, there were two ice buckets on the site of the
incident. He has denied that any bottle can be seen lying on
the site near the dead body in the photograph (Ex. P13). This
witness stated that he had reached the site at about 12 .15 to
12.13 a.m. at night, i.e., after midnight.                             F

      14. In our opinion, the conclusions of the trial court and the
High Court cannot be said to be manifestly erroneous. There
is clear evidence that the appellants had gone to the house of
the deceased to bring him out of the house for the purpose of          G
committing his murder. The reason given, of an effort to sort
out the Union disputes, was merely a ruse to bring the
deceased out of his house. Mr. Tulsi has submitted that the
appellants were on good terms with the deceased otherwise
they would not have gone to his house. Therefore, this motive          H
    902     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2010] 10 S.C.R.

A of Union rivalry is a concoction of the prosecution. Learned
  counsel submitted that the wife of the deceased mentioned
  Union rivalry for the first time in the Court. We do not see much
  substance in the submission. It appears that there was serious
  rivalry between the two Unions. Only two days prior to the
B shooting, the deceased had left the Union of the appellants and
  become the President of INTUC. Had the deceased not
  apprehended any danger from the accused persons, he would
  certainly not have taken the pistol with him. His wife, who
  appeared as PW-5 has clearly stated that he had specifically
c asked to take the pistol with him.
        15. Mr. Tulsi has also submitted that the prosecution had
  miserably failed to collect any material evidence from the scene
  of the crime. Rather, they have tried to help the prosecution by
  literally shifting the body of the deceased. According to him,
D even the prosecution witnesses themselves, have said that the
  deceased was sitting on.the table with the head on the table.
  However, according to the police, the body was lying on the
  floor and the pistol was lying some distance away.

E      16. We are unable to agree with Mr. Tulsi. There is no
  reason why the police as well as the prosecution would go out
  of the way to falsely implicate or prosecute the appellants. Both
  the trial court and the High Court upon appreciation of the
  evidence have concluded that there is evidence to show that
F the accused and the deceased were carrying liquor with them.
  The glasses and the chicken curry were served to them at the
  hotel. The High Court also concluded that the presence of the-;-
  carton of Bag Piper whiskey would clearly show that the
  deceased had consumed alcohol. Thereafter, the deceased
G was shot in the head with his own pistol. Whether the pistol was
  snatched away by one of the accused persons or was handed
  over by the deceased, is neither here nor there. The fact of the
  matter is that the deceased was shot with his own pistol. There
  was no blackening or tattooing of the skin surrounding the
  wound.
H
  SANTOKH SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB                903
         [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
      17. Mr. Tulsi laid considerable amount of emphasis on the A
fact that the deceased was a psychiatric patient. He was stated
to be suffering from schizophrenia. He had placed reliance on
the evidence given by Dr. J.P.S. Bhatia. We are of the
considered opinion that both the Courts have rightly rejected
the evidence given by DW-1. The patient admission and B
treatment register produced seems to be a most unreliable
document. It has been maintained in a slip shod manner. There
are no systematically maintained entries, either about the
particulars of the patient, the disease or the treatment. This
witness admitted that there is some overlapping in the entries. c
The document does not inspire any confidence. By no stretch
of imagination can it be said to be reliable document. This apart
there is no evidence indicating the particular expertise of Dr.
Bhatia. Even according to his evidence there was only
preliminary diagnosis of the medical condition of the deceased. D
There was no proof of any expert clinical examination of the
deceased. From the above it cannot b~ said that the deceased
was suffering from chronic schizophrenia. This plea has been
rightly rejected by both the courts below.

    18. We may notice the scenario which emerge from the       E
proven facts, on record:-                         /
    '
The deceased and the accuseci .vere working in the same
organization. They were office bearers of the same Union. Two
days before the incident, the deceased alongwith the Union of F
the appellants and become the President of the rival union.
They, therefore, resented the action of the deceased. They
formed a common intention to eliminate the deceased. They
went to the house of the deceased and invited him to
accompany them to resolve the Union disputes. They took him G
to Hotel Genesis where they consumed liquor; they were also
served food by the hotel staff. At some point of time the pistol
of the deceased was taken by one of the appellants. It is wholly
irrelevant whether it was voluntarily given by the deceased or
taken by the assailant. Thereafter, one of the accused persons H
.
I




        904      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2010] 10 S.C.R.


    A   shot the deceased in the head with his own pistol. They then
        wiped the fingerprints on the pistol and threw the pistol down
        next to the body of the deceased. They tried to escape. This
        would tend to indicate towards the guilt rather the innocence
        of the appellants. Two of them were captured just outside the
    B   hotel, the other two managed to escape. The injury on the
        deceased does not indicate that he had shot himself. The
        injuries show that the shot has not been fired at point blank
        range. There is no tattooing or blackening of the skin
        surfounding the entire wound. The consumption of liquor cannot
    c   be doubted in view of the evidence given by the waiter, who
        served·1he food. This waiter had clearly stated that the visitors
        had brought the liquor with them. They were only given the
        glasses and the buckets of ice. They had also ordered chicken
        curry, which was duly given to them. To ensure that the waiter
    D   does not become I
                              an eye witness to the murder, he was
        conveniently removed from the dining hall. They told him to go
        and get two more chapattis. He, ther~fore, went into the kitchen
        of the hotel. While, he was coming out of the kitchen, he heard
        the sound of gunfire. Although, this witness was declared
        hostile, it is consistent with the prosecution version. Even
    E
        otherwise, the carton of Bag Piper whiskey is quite visible in
        one of the photographs.

             19. All these circumstances taken together clearly form
        such a continuous and unbroken chain as to leave no manner
    F   of doubt that the deceased was shot dead by one of the
        appellants. The cleaning of ttle pistol to remove the fingerprints
        is a circumstance which is a strong pointer to the guilt of the
        appellants.

    G        20. In our opinion, the judgment of the trial court as also of
        the High Court do not call for any interference. The appeal is,
        therefore, dismissed.

        N.J.                                          Appeal dismissed

    H