STATE OF PUNJABversusGINDER SINGH

                             (2009] 1 S.C.R. 891


-;....                      STATE OF PUNJAB                           A
                                     v.
                               GINDER SINGH
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 502 of 2002)
                            FEBRUARY 3, 2009
                                                                      B
           [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, V.S. SIRPURKAR AND ASOK
  ..,.                  KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]

             PENAL CODE, 1860:
                                                                      c
              ss. 302, 201 and 302134 - Murder of a person stated to
         have been caused by his second wife, son, son - in- law and
         another - Trial court convicting the wife and the son -
         Acquittal by High Court - Held: There is no credible evidence
         to show involvement of the accused in the crime - Order of
                                                                       D
         acquittal calls for no interference.
              Informant's brother was alleged to have been killed
         by his wife, son, son-in-law and another person. The
         prosecution case was that there were differences
         between the deceased and his second wife, whom he E
         had given a beating. On the day of the incident, efforts
         were being made for settlement, but an altercation took
         place between the deceased and his son and the latter
         gave 'gandhali' blows on the head of his father; that the
         son-in-law, the second wife· of the victim and the other F
         person also joined in assaulting the victim, who
         succumbed to the injuries. The trial court convicted and
         sentenced the son u/ss 302 and 201 IPC. The wife of the
         deceased was convicted and sentenced uls 302134 IPC.
         The other accused were acquitted. The High Court G
         allowed the appeal of the convicts and dismissed that of
 ~       the State against acquittal.

              In the petition under Article 136 of the Constitution
         of India filed by the State challenging the acquittal, the
                                    891                               H
    892          SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2009) 1 S.C.R.


A Court restricted notice so far as accused son was
  concerned, and dismissed the petition as regards the
  wife of the deceased.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court
B      HELD: Even though it is accepted that there were
  two eye witnesses, one the brother of the deceased and
  the other a friend, and there was an attempt to protect the
  accused, there is no credible evidence to show
  involvement of the accused persons in the crime. That
C being so, High Court's order of acquittal calls for no
  interference. [Para 9] [895-E-F]

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 502 of 2002.
D       From the Judgment and Order dated 10.2.1999 of the High
    Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal
    No. 308-DB of 1995 and 203-DBA of 1996.

      Gagan Deep Sharma, Ajay Pal and Kuldip Singh for the
E Appellant.

          Vipin Gogia and Jaspreet Gogia for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

F        DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. The State of Punjab is in
    appeal against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High
    Court directing acquittal of the respondent who was convicted
    for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sec. 302
    and Sec. 201 of the Indian P~nal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC').
G
         2. The other accused Manjit Kaur was convicted for
    offences relatable to Sec.302 read with Sec.34 IPC and 201
    IPC.

      3. Learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda, directed acquittal
H of Balbir Singh and Angrez Singh. The State questioned their
              STATE OF PUNJAB v. GINDER SINGH                    893
                   [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
     acquittal in Criminal Appeal No. 203-DBA of 1996 which was         A
     dismissed by the High Court. The two convicted accused
     persons also filed Crl. Appeal No.308-08 of 1995 before the
     High Court.

         4. While issuing notice on 25/1/2002 this Court had
                                                                        B
     dismissed the petition qua Manjit Kaur, Balbir Singh and
     Angrez Singh and restricted the notice so far as the present
+    respondent Ginder Singh is concerned.

          5. The background facts as projected by the prosecution
     is as follows:                                                     c
           6. First Information Report with regard to murder of Bant
      Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was lodged by
      his brother Maghar Singh on 21.5.1994 at 5.10 a.m., which
      was recorded by S.I. Piara Singh P.W.-5. Maghar Singh in his      D
      statement made before S.I. Piara Singh stated that he was
      resident of village Mansa Khurd. They were seven brothers
      eldest being Sant Singh who was residing at village Bhagi
      Bander for the last 3 years. First marriage was solemnized with
      Jangir Kaur and second marriage (kareva) was performed with
                                                                        E
      accused Manjit Kaur. His first wife Jangir Kaur gave birth to
      two sons and one daughter. Out of them, eldest was Amarjit
      Kaur, whereas younger to her was Balbir Singh and youngest
     to all was Jaswinder Singh. Amarjit Kaur was married with
      Nidhan Singh at Bathinda and Jaswinder Singh was also
     doing labour work at Bathinda. Manjit Kaur gave birth to Virpal    F
     Kaur and accused Ginder Singh. Virpal Kaur was married with
     Angrez Singh. His brother Bant Singh did not have cordial
     relations with his younger son Ginder Singh. For this reason
     Ginder Singh was residing at Bathinda. On the day of Baisakhi
     his brother Sant Singh had given beatings to his wife Manjit       G
~-
     Kaur and on account thereof, there was a dispute in the house.
     A day before lodging the FIR he alongwith Makhan Singh Ex-
     Sarpanch had come to village Bhagi Bander at about 4 P.M.
     in order to settle the dispute where the son-in-law of Sant
     Singh, namely Angrez Singh and Ginder Singh and Balbir             H
    894         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2009] 1 S.C.R.


A    Singh his nephews, his borther's wives Manjit Kaur and Jangir
     Kaur were present in the house. Out to old age, the eye sight
     of Jangir Kaur had become weak. His brother Bant Singh came
     to the house at about 8 p.m. and inquired about his welfare. At
    that time an electric light in the courtyard was on. They started
B    talking about the settlement of the dispute. It was about 9.30
    p.m. During the course of settlement Ginder Singh and Bant
     Singh exchanged hot words and his brother Bani Singh stood
     up and started going to his room. Ginder Singh picked up a
    Gandhali lying nearby and gave two blows with the same on
c   the head of Bani Singh which hit his head. Thereafter Angrez
    Singh took Bant Singh in his grip and Balbir Singh picked up
    a soti lying there and gave soti blow on shin on right leg of Bani
    Singh. Ginder Singh gave one more blow with Gandhali to Bani
    Singh which hit him on the left ear and back side of the ear.
    Balbir Singh gave a soti blow which hit the right side of his head
0
    as a result of which his brother Bani Singh fell down. Makhan
    Singh and he himself raised an alarm, "Na Maro, Na Maro"
    (don't kill, don't kill). When his brother Bani Singh was lying
    fallen, Angrez Singh continued twisting his left arm while Ginder
    Singh continued twisting his left knee. While Bani Singh was
E   lying on the ground, Manjit Kaur and Balbir Singh continued
    giving blows thrustwise with their respective sotis on the left leg
    and back side of left knee and Manjit Kaur kept on saying loudly
    that he should be taught a lesson for giving beatings to her. As
    a result thereof his brother sustained injuries on his left leg. They
F   stepped forward to rescue him but the accused tried to attack
    them also. His brother Bant Singh succumbed to his injuries at
    the spot. Out of fear they ran away outside and informed Jangir
    Singh Sarpanch about this occurrence. After taking along Jangir
    Singh Sarpanch with them, they had come to lodge the report.
G   The cause of grudge was that about a month back on the day
    of Baisakhi, his brother Bant Singh had given beatings to his
    wife Manjit Kaur and whole family was fed up with him. On
    account of this grudge, all the accused had connived with one
    another and committed the murder of Bani Singh by inflicting
H   injuries to him.
          STATE OF PUNJAB v. GINDER SINGH                 895
               [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
     7. The first information report was lodged on 21/5/94 at A
5.10 a.m: while the alleged offence took place on 20/5/1994
at about 9.30 p.m. The special report reached the concerned
Magistrate at Bathinda on 21.5.1994 at 7.30 a.m. Two
witnesses were pressed into service as eye witnesses. They
were P.W. 3 and 4. The trial Court held that the presence of B
these two witnesses at the time of occurrence was not
established. Notwithstanding such conclusion as noted above
two persons were convicted.

     8. In appeal the stand of the accused persons was that the
FIR was delayed; the eye witnesses were disbelieved and, C
therefore, the question of holding the accused persons guilty
does not arise. The High Court accepted the stand and directed
acquittal. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the
appellant - State submitted that it is a peculiar case where the
deceased was allegedly killed by his wife and a son, and out D
of two eye witnesses who were there; one was his brother and
the other was his friend. That being so, there was obviously an
attempt to protect the accused persons. Learned counsel for
the respondent on the other hand supported the judgment of the
High Court.                                                      E

     9. Even though it is accepted that there were two eye
witnesses; one was the brother of the deceased and the other
was friend and there was an attempt to protect the accused
there is no credible evidence to show involvement of the F
accused persons in the concerned crime. That being so, their
conviction would not be proper. High Court has precisely held
so. That being the position, we are not inclined to interfere in
this appeal.

       10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.                G

R.P.                                        Appeal dismissed.