Supreme Court of India
STATE OF PUNJABversusRAJINDER SINGH & ORS. ETC.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 1244
- Decided
- 5 November 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The High Court correctly rejected the evidence of PW‑10; therefore, the acquittals on the murder charges stand.
Summary
The incident on 23 September 1996 involved a violent assault by several accused on the family of Surjit Kaur, resulting in the death of Jangir Singh. The trial court convicted multiple accused under sections 302, 364, 323, 149 and related provisions of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld convictions for offences under section 364 r.w. s.149 but acquitted the accused of murder charges (s.302 r.w. s.149) on the ground that the sole eye‑witness, PW‑10 (Leela Singh), was not credible. The State appealed, arguing that PW‑10’s testimony was cogent. The Supreme Court examined the witness’s delayed reporting, his close relationship to the deceased, and the implausibility of his detailed identification of each assailant, and held that the High Court was correct in discarding his evidence. Consequently, the acquittals on the murder charges were affirmed and the State’s appeal dismissed; the remaining appeals by the accused were dismissed as infructuous because they had already served their sentences.
Issues considered
- Whether the testimony of the solitary eye‑witness PW‑10 is reliable and sufficient to sustain convictions under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120-B, s. 148, s. 149, s. 201, s. 302, s. 323, s. 364, s. 427
Subjects
murderacquittalwitness credibilitysolitary witnessIPC sections 302, 364, 149criminal appealevidence evaluation
Judgment
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 1
-+ STATE OF PUNJAB A
II.
RAJINDER SINGH & ORS. ETC.
(Criminal Appeal Nos.11512-1154 of 2003)
NOVEMBER 5, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 and s.302 r.w. s.149-Acquittal
by High Court discarding evidence of solitary witness - c
Interference with - Meld: Not called for - Witness coming to
police 10 days after the incident- Explanation offered by him
/
that suddenly he became conscious of his constitutional duties
to see that guilty persons get punishment, was not believable
'I
- His evidence about the manner of assault attributed to the D
various accused persons was also not believable.
The trial Court held three of the accused persons
guilty under s.302 IPC, two accused 'GS' and 'MS' under
s.302 rlw s.149 IPC and seven accused persons under
E
s.364 rlw s:149 IPC and ss.148 and 323 IPC .
.. On appeal, High Court noted that PW10, the solitary
witness did not disclose about the incident for about 10
~ days and suddenly came forward to speak about the
incident to the police. The High Court upheld the F
conviction of seven accused persons, so far as
•
conviction under s.364 r/w s.149 IPC was concerned, and
directed acquittal of the accused persons 'MS', 'RS', 'KS'
• and 'GS' of charges relatable to ss.302 IPC r/w s.149 IPC.
'MS' died during pendency of appeal. G
f- In appeal to this Court, appellant-State contended
-4
that the evidence of PW-10, who was the solitary eye-
~
witness to the occurrence, relating to murder was cogent
1 H
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.
·J--
A and credible and the High Court should not have
discarded his evidence. 'GS' and 'RS' also filed appeals.
•
Dismissing the appeal of State and of the accused
persons, the Court
B HELD: The High Court rightly held that the conduct
of PW10 was most unusual. The witness admitted that he
was closely related to the deceased. The High Court, in
this background analysed his evidence with care and
caution. The explanation offered by PW10 that suddenly
c he became conscious of his constitutional duties to see i''
that guilty persons get punishment, was not believable.
His evidence about the manner of assault attributed to
the various accused persons was too hollow to have any
credence. It was quite unnatural that the manner in which
D the assaults were given could be given with such ,..
precision when accused persons were many as was the
number of injuries. That being the position, there is no
j,'
scope for interference in these appeals with the order of
acquittal so far as the offence relatable to s.302 or ss.302/
E 149 IPC are concerned. The appeal survives only in
..
respect of respondents 'RS', 'KS' and 'GS'. Since 'RS' and
GS' already served sentence, appeal filed by them has
become infructuous. [Paras 8 and 9) (5-E-H; 6-A]
·-f
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
F Nos. 1152-1154 of 2003. ,
From the final Judgment and Order dated 19.9.2001 of the
•
r
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal
Appeal Nos. 67-DB, 85-DB and 86-DB of 1999.
•
G WITH -j
Crl. Appeal Nos. 9-1 O of 2004.
'·
Sarup Singh Sr. Adv., H.M. Singh, Kaushal Yadav, Manav
Bajaj, Durgesh Yadav, Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, Satyapal
H
STATE OF PUNJAB v. RAJINDER SINGH & ORS. ETC. 3
Khushal Chand Pasi, Raja! Sharma, Dinesh Verma and A.P. A
Mohanty, for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered .by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in these appeals
is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and B
Haryana High Court. It has upheld the conviction of the seven
accused persons convicted by the Trial Court for offences
punishable under Sections 364 and 323 read with Section 149
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC'), while
acquitting accused Mohan Singh, Rajinder Singh, Kulvinder c
Singh and Gurcharan Singh of charges relatable to Sections
302, 201 read with Section 149 IPC. Originally, there were nine
accused persons out of whom two were acquitted by the Trial
Court. -2-
2. Criminal Appeal Nos.1152 to 1154 of 2003 have been D
filed by the State questioning the acquittal while other appeals
have been filed by the convicted accused persons.
3. Background facts, as projectE!ld by the prosecution are
as follows: E
At about 4.00 P.M. on 23.09.1996 Surjit Kaur, (PW-3) the
wife of Darshan Singh and the resident of village Dhadrian
along with her .son Sukhjinder Singh, her father Jangir Singh,
t her brother Mohinder Singh and cousin Surjit Singh were
present in her house whereas her husband Darshan Singh had · F
gone to the fields. In the meanwhile, her father- in-law Mohan
Singh armed with a gandasa, Kulwinder Singh and Bl)ola
Singh, son of Hardial Singh, Hardial Singh and Gurnam Singh
armed with a dang each, Rajinder Singh armed with an axe .<=!nd
Santa Singh (hereinafter referred to as Lamberdar) empty G
handed and two unidentified persons all armed with Dangs
came in a jeep. Accused Mohan Singh raised a lalkara that the
complainant party should be taught a lesson for taking
possession of !he land and the. Dera. The accused persons
H
.4 '
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.
J..-
A opened attack on the complainant
.
party causing
.'
injuries to Surjit
' .
Kaur and Sukhjinder Singh, Jangir Singh, Mohinder Singh, Surjit
Singh and Darshan Singh came to the spot and raised an alarm
on which the accused persons went -3-towards that side and
gave a beating to Jangir Singh (hereinafter referred to as the
B deceased) and took hirn away.
+
Surjit Kaur and other persons injured were thereafter taken
to the Primary Health Centre, Longowal. Information was sent '
to the police station on which investigation was started.
c 4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed
and the accused were;charged for offences punishable under
Sections 323, 427, 364, 302, 201, 120-B, 148 and 149 IPC.
Since they pleaded innocence, they were put on trial. The Trial
Court placed reliance on the evidence of the witnesses and held
D three of the accused persons to be guilty of offences punishable y
under Section 302 IPC, whereas accused Gurcharan Singh and
Mohinder Singh were. convicted under Section 302 read with
Section 149 IPC and all the seven accused persons guilty of
offences punishable under Section 364 read with Section 149
E IPC and Section 148 and 323 IPC.
5. Appeals were ·preferred by the convicted accused
persons. By the impugned judgment, the High Court, while
upholding the convi~tion of the respondents so far as the
conviction under Section 364 read with 149 IPC is concerned, 1
F directed acquittal of all the three accused persons who were -
4-convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and
the two who were donvicted for offences punishable under
Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. It is brought to our
notice by learned counsel for the appellant-State that accused
G Mohinder Singh had died during the pendency of the appeal
-l
before the High Court and Mohan Singh had died during the
pendency of the present Criminal Appeals.
6. According to iearned counsel for the appellant-State, the
H evidence of PW-10, Leela Singh, who was the solitary eye-
STATE OF PUNJAB v. RAJINDER SINGH & ORS. ETC. 5
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT,
. . J.]
witness to the occurrence, relating to murder was cogent and A
credible and the High Court should not have discarded his
evidence. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other
hand submitted that the analysis made by the High Court to
discard the evidence of PW-10 so far as the charge under
Section 302 and/or 302/149 IPC is concerned, cannot be B
faulted with.
7. The High Court has noted that Leela Singh (PW-10)
was allegedly the solitary witness to prove the charge. The High
Court noted that he had not offered any basis for his presence c
in the alleged occurrence. Additionally, he did not disclose
about the incident for about 10 days and suddenly according
to him, his conscious pricked him and ho came forward to
speak about the incident to the police. It further appears that
the manner of assaults were specifically detailed, is too hard o
to be believed.
8. The High Court found that his conduct was most unusual.
Though, he claimed that he was an independent witness and
had no relationship with the deceased or his family members, E
the witness fairly admitted that he was closely related to the·
deceased. The High Court, in the aforesaid background
analysed his evidence with care and caution. It was noticed that
his silence was most unusual because he was closely related
to the deceased. Furthermore, the explanation offered that F
suddenly he became conscious of his constitutional duties to
see that guilty persons get punishment, was hardly believable.
His evidence about the manner· of assault a.ttrib.uted to the.
various accused persons was too hollow to have any credence.
It was quite unnatural thatthe manner in which the assaults were· . G
given could be given with such precision When accused persons
were many as was the number of injuries, That being the
position, we do not find any si::0pe for interference in these
appeals with the order of acquittal so far as the. offence
relatable to Section 302 or 302/149 IPC are concerned. The H
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.
A appeal, as noted above, survives only in respect of
respondents Rajinder; Singh and Kulvinder Singh and
GurcharanSingh. The appeals are dismissed accordingly.
,,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.9-10 OF 2004 ·
B 9. These two appeals have been filed by accused
Gurcharan Singh and Rajinder Singh. After going through the
-6-well reasoned judgm,ents of the Trial Court and the High
Court and the fact that the appellants have already served out
C the sentence, as impos~d, these appeals have, in any event,
become infructuous an~ are, accordingly dismissed.
D.G. Appeals dismissed
,,._ .:·
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search