Holding

The acquittal of Wasson Singh and Mukhtar Singh is set aside and they are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, while the acquittal of the remaining accused is upheld.

Summary

The State of Punjab charged six accused of murdering Hazara Singh and Resham Singh, relying primarily on the eye‑witness testimony of Resham Singh (PW‑2) and Bachan Singh (PW‑3). The High Court acquitted all accused, rejecting the witnesses as interested and pointing to inconsistencies, lack of motive for most accused, and alleged bias in the investigation. The Supreme Court held that the prompt filing of the FIR, corroborated by medical evidence, gave sufficient assurance to the eye‑witnesses' accounts, and that minor inconsistencies do not defeat credibility. It also found that motive was established for Wasson Singh and Mukhtar Singh, justifying conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34, while the lack of motive for the others warranted their acquittal. Consequently, the Court set aside the acquittal of Wasson Singh and Mukhtar Singh, sentencing them to life imprisonment, and upheld the acquittal of the remaining respondents.

Issues considered

The credibility of eye‑witness testimony of PW‑2 and PW‑3 despite being interested witnesses and having minor inconsistencies.
Whether the prompt lodging of the FIR by PW‑2 lends corroborative value to his testimony.
The impact of alleged investigative bias on the admissibility of forensic evidence (rifle, cartridges).
The necessity of establishing motive for each accused under Sections 302, 149 and 34 of the IPC.
The appropriateness of convicting only those accused for whom motive and circumstantial evidence were established.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 154, s. 342
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 149, s. 302, s. 34

Subjects

murdereye‑witness testimonyinterested witnessFirst Information ReportmotiveSection 302 IPCSection 34 IPCSection 149 IPCcriminal procedureforensic evidenceinvestigation bias

Judgment

61&

STATE OF PUNJAB A

.. v.

WASSON SINGH AND FIVE OTHERS

January 1 5, 1981
B
[R. S. SARKARIA AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.J
' .

Ctinti11al Procedure Code 1973. S. 154 & Indian Penal Code, S. 302-
Trial fot n1urdrr-Ar.:cused convic:ted by Sessions Court-Acquitted by High
l'ourt-lnterfercnce by Supreme Court.

F.I.R.-Pro111ptness i11 lodging-Evidentiary value of,
c

Eye-wit11eJ.H'.\-Uelated to d:eceascd-Antecedents of questionable nature
��i·u1i11y of: �·vi;hnc"e by Court-A1ethodology to be adopted.
lnvestjgatio11 O.fljcer--Faflure to join respectable persons of locality to
witr;:c.\'S recovery of i"W.0.-Value of such ·evidence.

D
The prosecution case ' against the six Uccused (Respondents) was that prior
to the incident in question, there was Ml al tercation · between the tWo deceased
on one side and the six accused on the other ovei tTespasS of cattle of the
accused persons- om the land of the deceased, whith dairuiged his cotton crop.
On the day of the incident when P.¥.'. 2, P.W. 3 and· the two deceased were
going by a foot path, the six accused suddenly emerged out of a field and
fired. The two deceased fell dead, while P.W. 2 and 3 ran and escaped unhurt. E
P.W. 2 reached the bus stand, picked up his motor cycle parked at a shop and
d rove to the ne<irest police station to lodge the F.I.R.

The Additional Sessidns Judge found that one of the accused. had a strong
. ·
motiye to inutdcr one oi _the deceased because of. an. oki_ fued a_nd that on
;�ccount of this ill v.ri1J, Some of the accused had ' a strong motive in joining
h<'lnds with thi.:: .others to, murder .the deceased, but that ..no motive could be F
established. for murdering the second deceased. He also found that the fact
that the F.I.R. was lodged by P.W. 2 with the utmost promptitude furnished
valuable con·oboration of his evidence and also d isbelieved the evideace of the
police Sub-Inspector (P.VV. 1 3 ) ; fn t he result he convicted all the six
accused under sect ion 302 read with section 149 I.P.C. for murder of one of
the deceased ��nd sentenced them to in1prisonment. Jn the case of first accused
however. he. was �e ntenced to· death' for the murder of one of the deceased. G

All the necu.;;cd appealed aga inst their conviction alld sentence to the High
Court \(·hich a liowea ihe appeal and rejected the· relference. It rejected the
·

evidence of the e ye -witnesses, P.\V. 2 and P.\V. 3 on the ground that these
\Vitnesses were closely related to the. first deceased who was the principal target
of the accuc;ed and that it had not been satisfactorily established by the prose�
cution that the other five accused had any motive to commit the 111urders in
H
q uest ion . It found that the prosecution story was highly unnatural and that
\he presence of \he two eye witnesses alongwith the deceased persong was un-
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1981] 2 S.C.R.

A likely. It further held there was material inconsistency in their testimony, as
to when the first deceased and P.\V. 2 had left the hamlet, and that the inves·
tig.ition of the Ca«e conducted by the Sub-Inspector (P.W. 13) did not inspire
confidence.

In the appeal by the State to this Court it was contended on behalf of the
State that the reasoning of the High Court was manifestly unsound, if not
B wholly perverse. The fact that the F.I.R, was lodged by P.W. 2 with utmost
promptitude and aJI the material facts including the. na·mes of the accused and
of the witnesses having been mentioned therein, indicated that there was no
time to concoct a false story.

On behalf of the respondents it was submitted that the acquittal could not
be disturbed, as the reasons given by the High Court could not be called
c perverse.

HELD : l(i) The acquittal of respondent Nos. I and 2 are set aside and
they are convicted under section 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code
for the murder of the first deceased and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
The bcnelit of doubt to the rest of the accused (responctents) and their
acquittal on all the counts maintained. [636 C-D]
D (iiJ Sufficient assurance of the testimony of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 was avail-
ahie from the circumstantial evidence regarding the participation of respon-
dents Wasson Singh and Mukhtar Singh in the murder of deceased Hazara
Singh. The evidence of the eye witnesses therefore, could safely be acted
upon for convicting these respondents for the said murder. [635 C-D]

2. The reasons given by the High Court for holding that P.W. 2 was not
'E eye witness of these two murders are utterly unsustainable. The reason
<'Ill
that P.W. 2 had succeeded in escaping unhurt, or that there are discrepancies
in the statcmeuts of P.\V. 2 and P.W. 3 as to whether they had gone with the
deceased on t·be very day of occurrence or a day earlier was no ground for the
conclusion that P.W. 2 was not in the company of the dece~sed or near aloout
the scene of occurrence when the two deceased were shot dead. [626 F-GJ

3. Discrepancies in rega.rd to collateral or subsidiary facts or matters of
detail occur even in the statements of truthful witn.sses, particularly when
they are examined to depose to events which happened long before thefr exami..
nation. Such discrepancies are hardly a ground to reject the evidence of the
witnesses when there is general agreement and consistency in regard to the
substratum of the prosecution case. [626H-627A]

G In the instant case the occurrence took place on August 4, 1973, while
P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 were examined at the trial oni December 27, 1974 i.e.
seventeen months after the incident. The trial court has rightly observed that :r
P.\V. 2 wa~ nf'Vl"r cross·examined by the defence regarding his whereabouts
and those of the deceased on the previous night. The mere fact that P.W. 2
did not IP..ake any purchase at Amarkot could hardly be a reason to hold that
his heini;: in the company of the deceased at the material time was improbable. •
[626G. 627B]

4. P.W. 3 is the brother a.nd P.W. 2 relation of the deceased. All three
1,vere livin!! together in the same hamlet in the fields. It is in the evidence of
PUNJAB V. WASSON SINGH 617
•
these witnesses that the other accused are partymen of respondent No. 1. It is A
further in evidence that sometime before the occurrence both the deceased and
P.W. 2 were arrested and handcuffed by a police Sub-Inspector on the a!legatio1\
that they were indulging in smuggling and \\'ould be liquidated. lti was, there-_
• fore, not improba·ble that this trio consisting of first deceased, P.\V. Z :ind
P.W. 3 'vere as usual moving about or carrying on their activities together.
Moreover the deceased must have known that Respondent No. 1 who was
inin1ically disposed to\vards him was at large on bail. This was an added B..
reason for this troika to move about for their security, if not for anything else,
in the company of each other. [627C-F]

5. (i) The .High Court has not all dealt with the First Information lleport
or the promptitude with which it was made. [628D]

(ii) The towering circumstance which lends assurance to the claim of P.W. C-
2 that he was an eye-\vitncss of the occurrence is that the First Infonnation
Report was lcxiged by him at the Police Station so promptly that he had practi ..
cally no time to spin out a false story. The reason employed by the High Court
for disbelieving the version of P.W. 2 regarding his owning and going on a
motor cycle to the Police Station was manifestly unsound. The Sub-Inspector
P.\V. 13 \Vas not questioned in cross examination as to whether or not P.W. 2
had come to the Police Station on a motor cycle. He was, however, questioned D. .
as to \vha-t transport he had used for going from the Police Station to the scene
of murders. The witness replied that he went on a motor cycle upto Amarkot
and fro1n there \vent on foot to the scene of occurrence. This explanation of
P.\V. 2 regarding the kacha path from Amarkot to the scene of occurrence,
being non-motorable on the day of occurrence, receives inferential support from
the fact appearing in the evidence of P.W. 13 that he had to cover the distance
trotn Adda Amarkot to the place of occurrence, on foot. E
l627H, 629E, 628G-629AJ
6. The conduct of the Investigation Officer (P.W. 13) indicates that he was
not favourably disposed to the deceased and P.W. 2. A suggestion was also
put to P.W. 13 by the Public Prosecutor that he had been, unf<l'ir in the investi-
gation of the case and tried to favour the 3rd and 4th responde111.t. The High
Court found that the note iti the zimini was a fraudulent insertion. This being
the case, Sub-Inspector (P.W. 13) would be least disposed to join hands with
P.W. 2 informant in preparing the First Information Report, after deliberation
with P.W. 2 at the spot. [629F-HJ

7. The opinion of the medical witness P.W. 1 corroborates the version of
• P.\V. 2 in as much as the latter has testified that the murders took place at
about 3.30 p.m. This means that the statement of P.W. 2 in the F.I.R. Wll6
made \vithout undue delay, and, as such, furnished very valuable corroboration G·
of his testimony at the trial in all material particulars. [630B-C]

8. (i) Both P.W. 2 aad P.W. 3 are related to the deceased, and as such are
interested witnesses. Their antecedents, also, are of a questionable nature, But
their antecedents or mere interestedness was not a valid ground to reject their
evidence. All that was necessary for the Court was to scrutinise their evidence
' with more than ordinary care and circumspection with reference to the pa~t -'lr I\
role assigned to each of the accused. An effort should have been made to sift
the grain from the chaff; to accept what appeared to be true and to reject the
618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R.

A rest. The l~igh Court did not udopt this methodology in appreciating their
evidence. Tnstead, it took a shortcut to disposal and rejccled their evidence
whole-sale against a!J the accused for reasons which arc maJ:1ifestly untenable.
[630E-G]

(ii) Excepting for immaterial. discrepancies the evidence of P.W. 2 and
P.W. J was consistent and their presence aot the time and place of murders was
B probable. Even so, as a· matter of abundant caution it will be safe to act on
their interested evidence 10 the extent to Which son1e assurance is coming forth
from surrounding cirCumstances or other evidence. [630H-631A]

9. The prosecution has proved that the respondent No. 2 had also a motive
to p<llrticipatc in the murder of the socond deceased. This lends assurance to
the testimony of P.\V. 2 and P.\V. 3 and strengthens the inference of guilt against
c the said accused also. P.W. 2's con'li'ltent testimony corroborated by the F.I.R.
was sufficient to establish this fact beyond doubt. [63JH-632A]
JO. It had been clearly proved that two fired cartridges were picked up from
the scene of crime and sealed into parcels \vhich were later deposited with sea16
intact in the Police Station. On the memo it is mentioned th.it these fired
cartridges were of 303 bore rifle. [632H]
D
11. There was substance in the observation of the trial Judge that the inves-
tigation \VilS biased in favour of the accused. If that was so, the failure of
P.W. 13 to join \\'Ith hiln respectables of the locality was by itself no ground
for ruling out the evidence of the discovery of the rifle, altogether. The par-
tiality of P.W. 13 towards the defence, rather assures the genuineness of the
discovery. He was least disposed to 'coJlaborate' or cooperate with the rela-
E tions of the deceased to procure this rifle from some other source and then foist
it on respondent Mukhtar Singh. The omission on the part of this Investigating
Officer to join \vith him some independent persons or respectables of the locality
to witness the recovery devalues that e\'idence but does not render it inadn1issible.
[6340-F, HJ
12. The circun1stance of the recovery of the rifle (Ex. P. 7) and the opinion
F of the Ballistic Expert that the empty cartiridge (CI) had been fired through the
rifle though feeble it might be-was relevant and furnished a further pointer to
the participation of Mukhtar Singh in the commission of Hazara Singh's murder
by rifle-fire. [635BJ
13. Although the investigation betrays a tilt in favour of the accused, and
P.W. 13 made a fradulent insertion in the zamini to help Joginder Singh
accused, it cannot be said that the version of P.W. 13, that when he went to the
G scene of murders at 5.30 p.m. he found Joginder Singh irrigating Ws nearby
fields at a distance of about 100 yards therefrom and he interrogated him there
and then but did not think it necessary to arrest him-is necessarily false. The
absence of motive and the presence of Joginder Singh near the scene of crime
shortly after the 1nurders, engaged in normal agricultural acti.vities does cast a
doubt about his participation in the commission of these murders. [635 F·GJ

H 14. P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 have stated that they started running away from the
•
spot, immediately after deceased Hazara Singh was shot dead. The surround·
ing circumstances, natural probabilities and the nonnal course of human conduct
PUNJAB v. WASSON Sll'GH (Sarkaria, J.) 619

also sugge:st the :s;u11e inference, that in1mediately on seeing Hazara Singh beina A
!Shot down, these \\fitnesses who were follov.-ing him ran fast for their lives.
llaU they tarried for a while at the scene of the murder, it ¥.roul<l have been too
late for then1 to escape unhurt. In such ;1 situation, when they were being
pursued by person.-.. nrmed with fire-arms, they \.'.ould if at alJ they turned and
looked behind have only a fleeting glimp . . e in the distance of the a6sailants of
Resha1n Singh deceased. That is why P.\\'. 2 is not consistent 1n his statements
as to \l.hich of lhc accused had fired at him when he was running away for his B
life. Moreover it has not been establishe<l that any of the :six accused had any
motive, whatever to murder Reshan1 Singh deceased. [635H--636C] ·

> • CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTJON : Criminal Appeal No. 499
').. ef 1976.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated C
22-7-1975 of the Punjab & Haryamt High Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 166175 and Murder Reference No. 10175.
0. P. Sharma and M. S. Dhillon for the Appellant.
R. K . .loin for Respondents Nos. I and 3 to 6.
D
R. K. Kohlt and R. C. Kohli for the complainant.

- The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SARKARIA, J.-This appeal by the State of Punjab is directed
against a judgment, dated July 22, 1975, of the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana, whereby the appeal Of the respondents (hereinafter E
referred to as the accused) was accepted and they were acquitted of
the double-murder charge against them. The prosecution story
narrated by Resham Singh (P.W. 2), who claims to be an eyewitness
of the occurrence, runs as follows.
Resham Singh (P.W.2) used to live with his brother-in-law,
Hazara Singh deceased, in a hamlet in the fields outside the habitation F
of village Cheema. One Ajit Singh of village Dhual was murdered,
~~ · and Wassan Singh accused and his party-men were tried therefor. At
the trial, Hazara Singh deceased appeared as an eyewitness of
that murder. The trial court convicted Wasson Singh and his com-
panions in that case. They went in appeal to the High Court.
Pending the appeal the High Court enlarged Wasson Singh accusetl G
on bail. The occurrence now in question in the instant case took
• place when Wasson Singh was on bail.
The lands of Avtar Singh, Mukhtar Siugh and Hnrbhajan Singh
accused (respondents) adjoin the lands of Hazara Singh deceased.
Three or four days prior to the incident in question, the cattle of II
these accused persons trespassed on the land of Hazara Singh and
damaged his cotton crop. Thereupon, a sharp altercation took place
620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R.

A between Hazara Singh and Resham Singh on one side and Harbhajan
•
Singh and Mukhthar Singh on the other. Gajjan Singh son of
Gopal Singh resident of the village interceded and pacified the
parties. Joginder Singh accused respondent is the brother of Mukhtar
Singh accused respondent while Harbhajan Singh Respondent is their
first cousion. Mukhtar Singh and Harbhajan Singh accused are alleged
B to be partyman of Wasson Singh.

On August 4, 1973 at about 3.30 p.m., Resham Singh (P.W.2) ..
Resham Singh (deceased) son of another Hazara Singh and Hazara
Singh deceased were proceeding by the foot-path from the Bus Stand
Amarkot to their hamlet. On the way Bachan Singh, brother of
c Hazara Singh, met them and proceeded along with them. When they
reached near the fields of Jarmaj Singh Sarpanch of Mahmoodpura,
all the six accused, namely, Wasson Singh, Baj Singh, Meja Singh,
Joginder Singh, Mukhtar Singh and Harbhajan Singh emerged from
the sann crop and came to the bank of the watercourse. Baj
D Singh was armed with a pistol and the other five accused were armed
with rifles. Wasson Singh, Joginder Singh and Mukhtar Singh fired
their rifles at Hazara Singh. The rifle shots hit Hazara Singh on the
left side of his head, and he dropped dead. Resham Singh
(P.W.2), Bachan Singh and Resham Singh deceased started running
towards the ploughed fields. Meja Singh, Harbhajan Singh and
E Baj Singh chased them. Meja Singh and Harbhajan Singh encirc-
led Resham Singh deceased and shot him dead with rifle-shots. Baj
Singh chased Resham Singh (P.W. 2) and Bachan Singh (P.W. 3) and
fired at them with bis pistol. When these two were running away,
the other two accused also fired at them. Resham Singh and Bachan
Singh, however, succeeded m escaping unhurt. Resbam Singh
F (P.W. 2) immediately reached the Bus Stand Amarkot, picked up his
motor-cycle which was lying there at a shop and drove fast to Police
Station Valtoha, where he lodged the First Information Report
(Ex. PE) at 4.30 p.m. Police Sub-Inspector Bishambar Lal recor-
ded the report of Resham Singh and sent a copy of the same as a
special report to the superior officers, including the Judicial
G Magistrate, Frrst Class at Patti, who received the copy of the F.I.R.
at 6.30 p.m., on the same day. While running away from the spot
Resham Singh (P.W. 2) had left behind his shoe (Ex. P"l) near the
scene of murders.

Sub-Inspector Bashambar Lal reached the scene of occurrence at ,.
H 5.30 p.m. and started investigation. He prepared the inquest re-
ports regarding the deaths of Hazara Singh and Resham Singh de-
ce:ased persons. He also took into possession blood-stained earth
PUNJAB v. WASSON SINGH (Sarkaria, J.) 621

• and other relevant articles lying near the two dead-bodies. He found A
two empty cartridge cases at the scene of Hazara Singh's murder.
He took them into possession and sealed them into a parcel. He also
seized two pairs of shoes lying at the spot.
After his arrest, Mukhtar Singh accused was interrogated by the
Investigating Officer on August 31, 1973. After making a statement, B
Mukhtar Singh accused, in the presence of witnesses, fed the police to
the discovery of the riJ!e (Ex. P-7) and some live cartridges. The
riJ!e and the empty cartridges earlier found at the scene of crime
were sent to the ballistic expert for examination and opinion. After
examination, the ballistic expert of the Forensic Science Laboratory,
')>... Chandigarh, reported (vide Ex. P. 9) that the 303 fired cartridge, C
marked 0, had been fired through the 303 rifle marked 'A' by
him. But no definite opinion could be given regarding the linkage of
the fired cartridge marked C 2 with the 303 rifle marked 'A' due to
lack of sufficient individual characteristic marks on C2 •
Joginder Singh accused was arrested on August 24, 1973 and D
Baj Singh accused on Decemb~r 18, 1973. The post mortem exami-
nation of the dead-body of Resham Singh was perfonned by Dr.
Gursharan Kaur on August 5, 1973 at 8 a.m. The Doctor found
five gun-shot injuries on his body. Two of these were wounds of
entry, with everted margins on the back of the left chest. No char-
ring was present on any of these gun-shot wounds. The death in E
the opinion of the Doctor was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting
from gun-shot injuries on the chest which were sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature.
On the same day, Dr. Gursharan Kaur conducted the autopsy on
the dead-body of Hazara Singh and found fonr fire-arm injuries, two of F
which were wounds of entry and two were wounds of exit. Al! these
injuries were on the skull. They involved fracture of the skull and
j.,4amage to the brain. These injuries had been caused with fire-
- arm and were sufficient to cause death instantaneously, in the ordinary
-'" course of nature.
At the. trial, the main-stay of the prosecution was the testimony G
of the two eye-witnesses, Resham Singh (P.W.2) and Bachan Singh
(P.W.3).
Examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C., Wasson Singh accused ad-
mitted that he along with others was tried for the murder of Ajit Singh
, of village Dhual and Hazara Singh dec&ased had appeared against him H
as eye-witness of that murder; and that he (Wasson Singh) was con-
victed by the Court of Sessi_on, but had been released on bail
7-152 SCI/81
622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R

pending his appeal in the High Court. He denied the rest of the
prosecution case and stated that he had been falsely implicated by
the relation! of Aj;t Singh deceased on suspicion; and that on the day
of occurence, 1'e was working as a Conductor on a truck at Muzaffar-
nagar.

B The plea of Baj Singh wa! one of plain denial of the prooecution
case. He stated that his brothers Punjab Singh, Narinder Singh and
Bagicha Singh had been prosecuted for the murder of one Puran Singh
who was a relation of Bachan Singh (P.W.3); that Punjab Singh
and his companions were acquitted in that case. Baj Singh added
that he used to look after the defence of the accused in Puran Singh's ~
murder case; and that on account of this, he had been falsely impli- /....._
cated. He further stated that at the time of occurrence, he was resi- .- ·
ding in U. P.
Meja Singh accused, also, denied the prosecution case. He stated
that one Balkar Singh of Village Wan had been murdered. He (Meja
Singh) used to look after the defence of Jarnail Singh (his wife's bro-
0
ther, who was being tried for the murder of Balkar Singh; that on
account of this, the relation of the said Balkar Singh had, in connivance
with the complainant party, falsely implicated him in the instant case.
The remaining accused, also, denied the circumstances appearing in
evidence against them.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, who tried the
case against these six accused persons, found that Wasson Singh had a
strong motive to murder Hazara Singh decea&'...d, because the latter had
appeared as an eye-witness against Wasson Singh in Ajit Singh's
murder case. The trial Judge further accepted the prosecution evi-
F dence in regard to the fact that a few days before this occurrence in
question, there was a : quarrel between Hazara Singh deceased and
Resham Singh (P.W. 2) on one side and Mukhtar Singh, and
Harbhajan Singh accused on the other, when the cattle of the accused~..
had trespassed on the land of the deceased and damaged his cotton - -
crop; and that on account of this ill-will, Joginder Singh, Mukhtar
G Singh and Harbhajan Singh accused had a sufficient motive to join
hands with Wasson Singh accused to murder Hazara Singh deceased.
The trial Judge further found that the prosecution had failed to
establish the exact nature of the motive which might have actuated
Meja Singh and Baj Singh to murder Resham Singh deceased. The
trial Judg;o further held that the F.I.R. which had been lodged by
H Resham Singh with great promptitude at Police Statio'n Valtoha, which
was about three miles from the place of occnrrence, furnished '
valuable corroboration of the evidence of Resham Singh (P .W. 2).
PUNJAB v. WASSON SINGH (Sarkaria, /.) G23

• He accepted the evidence of Resham Singh and Bachan Singh. He A
further found that Snb-Inspector Bishambar Lal had tried to favour
J oginder Singh accused by fabricating a note in his zimini at some
subsequent stage. This note is to the effect, that Joginder Sinch
was, in fact, present irri!ating his nearby fields and he joined the police
investigation on the very day of occurrence and had remained with
B
the police till the investit;ation by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police. The trial Judge disbelieved the plea of alibi set up by Meja
Singh accused. In the absence of independent evidence, the trial
Judge was unable to hold from the bare testimony of Bishamber Lal,
Sub-Inspector, that the rifle (Ex. P-7) had been recovered from
~ Mukhtar Singh accused. He, however, criticised th~ conduct or Sub- c
Inspector Bishamber Lal in not s.ending the empty cartridges found at
the spot to the ballistic expert of th~ Forensic Laboratory, Chandi1arh,
with due promptitude. In the result, the trial Judge held that
Wasson Singh, Joginder Singh and Mukhtar Singh accused had fired
their rifles at Hazara Singh deceased, and had caused his death. He
therefore, convicted these three accused for the substantive cffence D
under Section 302, Penal Code. He further held that the common
object of the unlawful assembly constituted by the six accused was to
murder Hazara Singh deceased. He therefore, further convicted all
• the six accused under Section 302 read with Section 149, Penal Code,
for the murder of Hazara Singh. The trial Judge found that the
murder of Resham Singh did not appear to have been caused in prose- E
cution of the common object of the said unlawful assembly. He
therefore, convicted Baj Singh, Meja Singh and Harbhajan Singh
accused only under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code, for
the mnrder of Reshilm Singh deceased and sentenced each of them to
imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/-. In respect of the
murder of Hazara Singh, Wasson Singh was sentenced to death, while F
each of the other five accus·~d were sentenced to imprisonment for life
. and a fine .
..i.~
The trial Judge referred the case to the High Court for confir·
mation of the death sentence of Wasson Singh. All the accused, also
appealed against their conviction and sentences. The Hi&h Court G
allowed the appeal, declined the roference and rejected the evidence
of the eye-witnesses, Rcsham Singh (P.W. 2) and Bachan Sinjh (P.W.
• 3) , for these reasons :
(i) Both these witnesses are closely related to the deceased
Hazara Singh, who was the prfncipal target of the accused. H
(ii) (a) Excepting in the case of Wasson Singh who had un-
doubtedly a grudge against Hazara Sin~h deceased, it has not been
624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1981] 2 S.C.R.

A satisfactory established by the prosecution that the other five accused •
had any motive to commit the murders in question.
(b) Gajjan Singh, who is said to have interceded and pacified
both the parties at the time of the alleged quarrel over cattle trespass, '
three or four days prior to the occurrence, between Mukhtar Singh
B and Harbhajan Singh on one hand and Hazara Singh deceased and
Resham Singh (P-W. 2) on the other, has not been examined by the
prosecution.
(c) There was no mention about this earlier incident in the• state-
ment of Bachan Singh (P.W. 3) before the police during investigation.
c (iii) Both Resham Singh and Bachan Singh, P.Ws. had earlier
been invol'."cd in cases of serious crime, and Bachan Singh was
admittedly registered as a bad character with the Police. O'n account
of their antecedents, Resham Singh and Bachan Singh do not appear
to be reliable people.
(iv) The prose9ution story is highly unnatural. The presence of
D these two eye-witnesses along with the deceased persons was unlikely.
Had these witnesses been with Hazara Singh deceased, they would
have been the target of attack after Hazara Si"ngh was killed and r,ot
Resham Singh deocased against whom the accused had no grudge.
( v) Hazara Singh deceased, Bachan Singh and Resham Singh,
E P.Ws., all admittedly reside in the hamlet of Hazara Singh deceased,
and if they had to go to Amarkot for making purchases, they would
have in all probability gone together. Bachan Singh's version, that
he had gone to Amarkot to make e'nquiries regarding the availability
of diesel and on his return journey in the way, met and joined the
company of his brother Hazara Singh deceased, and his companions,
F was not believable, becanse there was no need for Bachan Singh to
have gone to Amarkot for the purchase of diesel as he could have
asked Hazara Si'ngh to make the necessary enquiries.
(vi) There is a material inconsistency in the testimony of the two
eye-witnesses as to when Hazara Singh deceased and Resham Singh
G (P.W. 2) had left their beliak (hamlet). From the statement of
Resham Singh (P.W. 2), it appears that from their behck they had
gone to Amarkot that very day for purchasing cloth and on the return
journey they met Bachan Singh. As against this, the story told by
Bachan Singh is that a day earlier Hazara Singh deceased and Resham
Singh, P.W. had left their beliak for some unknown destination and
0 that a day later they had met him at the adda, after !heir departure •
from the behak the previous day. This V'crsion completely belies the
version of Resham Singh (P.W. 2) that they had left their behak
PUNJAB v. WASSON SINGH (Sarkaria, J.) 6 25

• m order to make purchases of c:oth and other articles,
(vii) Another odd feature brought out from the evidence of
Resham Singh (P.W. 2) is the presence of motor-cycle at Amarkot
' o'n that day, It is surprising that he could afford to maintain a motor-
cycle from the meagre income that he wonld have got from his 5 or
6 acres of land. His explanation as to why he left the motor-cycle B
at Amarkot, is also not convincing.
(viii) The investigation of the case conducted by the Sub-Inspector
Bish amber Lal (P.W. 13) does not inspire confidence.
(a) The evidence relating to the recovery of empty cartridges
(vide Ex. P.G.) and pair of shoes from the spot near the dead-body
of Hazara Singh, was not reliab'.e, because P.W. 13 did not mention
c
about the pre&e11cc of tbese articles in the inquest report (Ex. PDZ),
(b) Though the empty (crime) cartridges recovered from the spot
were sent to the ballistic expert earJi.er, they were returned to the
Police Station on the plea that the test cartridges had not been sent
along with those empties, "Even if it was so, there was no need of D
sending the crime cartridgecs to the Police Station, as the test cartridges

- could be sent for through a separate letter. Jn htis situation, the
suggestion that the crime cartridge had been later on fired through
rifle (Ex. P7) when it was recovered cannot be considered impro-
bable",
E
(ix) "On arrival at !hoe scene of the incident, P.W. 13 fonnd
Joginder Singh accused at a distance of abont 100 yards irrigating his
field. According to Bishamber Lal, he interrogated Joginder Singh
there and then, bnt did not arrest him. If Joginder Singh accused had
been found near the scene of the crime within a short time, engaged
in his normal activities, his participation in the crime would be highly F
improbable".
J - Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the
r'Oasoning of the High Court is manifestly unsound, if not wholly
perverse. Great emphasis has bee'n laid on the fact that the First
Information Report, in this case was lodged by Rcsham Singh (PW 2) G
with utmost promptitude, and .even its copy had reacho"d the Magis-
trate at about 6 or 6-30 p.m. at Patti, on the same day. In the First
Information Report, proceeds the argument, all the material facts
including the names of th•" accused and of the witnesses have been
mentioned. It is submitted that si'nce this FJ.R. was made without
delay in circumstances in which the informant had no time to concoct H
a false story, it furnished valuable corroboration of the evidence of
Rcsham Singh (P.W. 2), and made his evidence safe enough to be
626 SUPJU!ME COUl!.T REPORTS [1981] 2 s.c.R.
•
A accepted. It is further maintained that in the first place, the prrn;ecu-
tio'n had established that Mukhtar Singh, Harbhajan Singh and
Joiinder Singh had also a motive to join hands with Wasson Singh
to murder H~zara Singh deceased, and that even if it was held that
'
such motive on the part of the companions of Wasson Singh accused
had not been substantiated-as the High Court has held-then P.Ws. 2
B and 3 had also 'no motive or animus to falsely implicate them. Coun-
sel have criticised the failure of the High Court to discuss the value
and effect of the F.I.R. lodged by P.W. 2. It is emphasis•od that the
circumstance that the FI.R. was made without delay was a circums-
tance of paramount importance in evaluating Resham Singh's evidence
in particular and the prosecution evidence in general. It is argued
c that the omission on the part of the High Court to deal with and dis-
cuss the F.I.R. has caused •erious aberration in its approach and
viti•,ted its apprec]!;tion of the evidence of the eyo-witnesses.
On the other hand, Shri R. K. Jain, learned counsel for the
respondents, has submitted that since the reasons given by the High
D Court in •upport of the acquittal of the accused cannot be called
perverse, this Court should not, in keeping with its practice, disturb
the acquittal even if it fuels inclined to hold that the view of the evi-
dence taken by the trial court is also reasonable. Shri Jain has further --
triecl to oupport the reasonini;: of the High Court.
E We have carefully considered the contentions canvassed on both
siues. We are also not unmindful of the fact that we are dealing
with an appeal against an order of acquittal i'n a double-murder case.
Even so, we find that tho reasons given by the High Court for bo:ding
that Resham Singh (P.W. 2) was not an eye-witness of these murders,
are utterly unsustainable. The mere fact that Resham Singh (P.W. 2)
F had succeeded in escaping unhurt, or that there arc discrepancies i'n
the statements of Resham Singh (P.W. 2) and Bachan Singh (P.W. ~
3), as to whether they had gone to Amarkot with Hazara Singh'
deceased on the very day of occurrence or a day earlier, was no
ground for jumping to the conclusion that P.W. 2 was not in the
company of the deceased or nearabout the scene of occurrence when
G Hazara Singh and Resham Singh were shot dead.
The occurrence took place on August 4, 1973, while Resham Singh •
(P.W. 2) and Bachan Singh (P.W. 3) were examined at the trial on
December 27, 1974, that is to say, 17 months after the incident.
Such discrepancies in regard to collateral or •ubsidiary facts or
H matters of detail occur even in the statements of truthful witnesses,
particularly when they are examined to depose to events which
happened long before their examination. Such discrepancies are

'
PUNJAB v. WASSON SINGH (Sarkaria, !.) 627
•
hardly a ground to reject the evidence of the witnesses when there A
is general agreement and consistency in regard to the rnbstratum
• of the prosecutirn1 case. As rightly observed by the trial court,
Resham Singh (P.W.2) was never cross-examined by the defence
regarding his whereabouts and that of Hazara Singh deceased on
the previous night. The mere fact that P.W. 2 did not make any
B
purchases at Amarkot could hardly be a reason to hold that his
being in the company of Hazara Singh deceased at the material
time, was improbable.

It is common ground that there was no love-lost between Wassan
Singh appellant and Hazara Singh deceased. Wassan Singh, though c
convicted by the trial court for the murder of Ajit Singh, was
released on bail by the High Court pending his appeal. P.W. 3 is
the brother and P.W. 2 a relation of the deceased. All these three
were living together in the same hamlet in the fields. It is in the
evidence of these witnesses that the other accused are partymen of
Wasson Singh. It is further in evidence that sometime before the D
occurrence both Hazara Singh and Resham Singh (P.W. 2) were
arrested and handcuffed by Darshan Singh, Police Sub-Inspector
on the allegation that they were indulging in smuggling and
would be liquidated. Both of them however, escaped and appeared
with handcuffs on before the Deputy Home Minister and complain-
ed against the Police Sub-Inspector. Both were prosecuted for smug- E
gling betel leaves across the border. It was therefore, not improba-
ble that this trio consisting of Hazara Singh deceased, P.W. 2 and
P .W. 3 was, as usual, moving about or carrying on their activities
together. Moreover, the deceased Hazara Singh must have known
that Wasson Singh accused who was inimically disposed towards
F
him, was at large on bail. This was an added reason for this troika
_.1' -to move about for their security, if not for anything else, in the
company of each other.

Nor could P.W. Bachan Singh's presence at the scene of crime
be discounted and his evidence discarded merely on the score that G
there was no necessity for him to go to Amarkot for enquiring about
• the availability of diesel.

There is one towering circumstance which goes a long way to
lend assurance to the claim of P.W. 2 that he was an eye-witness of
the occurrence. It is that the F.I.R. (Ex. P.E.) was lodged by him B
a! Police Station Valtoha, so promptly that he had practically no time
to spin out a false story.
628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R.

A •
The learned trial Judge has accepted, and rightly so, the sworn
testimony of Resham Singh (P.W. 2) and Sub-Inspector Bishamber
Lal (P.W. 13), who was then Station House Officer, Valtoha, to
the effect, that the F.I.R. (Ex. P.E.), was recorded in the Police
Station at 4.30 p.m. Police Station Valtoha is three miles from Bus
Stand Amarkot. According to Resham Singh, the occurrence took
B
place at about 3.30 p.m. On seeing the occurrence and after elud-
ing the pursuit, Resh am Singh, as he says, ran to Adda Amarkot
through the fields covering a distance of about one kilometre.
According to P.W. 2, his motor-cycle was lying at a shop in Amar-
kot. He picked up his motor-cycle from there and drove to the
Police Station, Valtoha and without loss of time lodged the first in-
formation, there. The endorsement on Ex. PE, bears out that the
copy of the First Information was in the hands of Shri K. K. Garg,
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patti, at 6.30 p.m. This circum-
stance assures the truth of the prosecution evidence on the point
that the First Information Report was made by Resham Singh (P.W.
D 2) at the Police Station at 4.30 p.m., that is within two hours of the
occurrence, without undue delay. The learned Judges of the High
Court have not at all dealt with the F.I.R. or the promptitude with
which it was made. They doubted Resham Singh's version that
from Amarkot he went on bis own motor-cycle to Valtoha Police
Station. The argument employed by the High Court is that Resham
E Singh owned only four or five killas of land, and could not acquire
and maintain a motor-cycle from the income of his petty holding.
However, this was not the defence case. In cross-examination, the
defence themselves, brought out and tried to establish that he was
earning by smuggling betel or other things to Pakistan. Thus,
according to the own showing of the defence, P.W. 2 had a source
F of income other than his agricultural income. It was, therefore,
nothing improbable if Resham Singh owned a motor-cycle.

Sub-Inspector Bishamber I.al (P.W. 13) was not questioned in
cross-examination as to whether or not Resham Singh bad come to
G the Police Station on a motor-cycle. He (P.W. 13) was however,
questioned as to what transport he had used for going from the
Police Station to the scene of murders. The witness replied that he
went on a motor-cycle upto Amarkot and from there went on foot •
to the scene of occurrence. Resham Singh stated that since it had
recently rained, the kacha path from Amarkot to their hamlet in
e village Ban, had become muddy and unsafe for riding a motor-
cycle because of the high risk of skidding. That was why, the wit-
ness had left the motor-cycle at Adda Amarkot with a shopkeeper.
PUNJAB v. WASSON SINGH (Sarkaria, J.) 629

• It may be noted that the occurrence took place on August 4, 1973 A
when the rainy season would be in full swing. This explanation of
Resham Singh (P.W. 2) regarding the kacha path from Amarkot to
the scene of occurrence, being non-motorable on the day of occur-
rence, receives inferential support from the fact appearing in the evi-
-Oence of Bishamber Lal (P.W. 13), that he had to cover the dis-
tance from Adda Amarkot to the place of occurrence, on foot. Thus, 8
the reason employed by the High Court for disbelieving the version
of Resham Singh (P.W. 2) regarding his owning and going on a
motor-cycle from Amarkot to Police Station Valtoha was manifest-
ly unsound.
c
It was argued before the trial court on behalf of the accused that
the occurrence might have taken place at about 2 p.m. when Resham
Singh (P.W. 2) was about 400 or 500 yards away in his ham-
let, and that on hearing the report of gun-fire he was attracted
to the scene of crime, and he having seen the dead-bodies
lying there, went home, took his motor-cycle and. then drove to D
the Police Station Valtoha and brought Sub-Inspector Bishamber
Lal to the scene of occurrence and the Sub-Inspector prepared the
F.I.R. at the spot after deliberation with Resham Singh and others.
This c_onte_ntion was rightly rejected by the trial court. As observed
earlier, since it had rained a day prior to the occurrence, the kacha
path from Amarkot to the scene of occurrence and to the hamlet of E
the deceased must have been muddy and slippery. Therefore, the
very suggestion that from village Ban to ~markot and thereafter to
Valtoha, Resham Singh went on his motor-cycle, was improbable. -

Moreover, from the conduct of the Investigating Officer, Bisham- F
ber Lal, it appears that he was not favourably disposed towards the

-~ - deceased and the informant. Indeed, a suggestion was put to
Bishamber Lal (P.W. 13) by the Public Prosecutor, that he has been
unfair in the investigation of the case a!ld tried to favour Joginder
Singh and Meja Singh accused. The learned trial Judge found that
the investigation conducted by Sub-Inspector Bishamber Lal was G
biased in favour of Joginder Singh and Meja Singh accused persons,
and that the Sub-fnpector fraudently interpolated a note in his
zimini to help Joginder Singh accused. The High Court has, also,
found that this note in the zimini was a fraudulent insertion. This
being the case. Sub-Inspector Bishamber Lal would be least disposed
to join hands with Resham Singh informant in preparing the First H
Information Report, after deliberation with him (P.W.2) at the
'.Spot.
630 SUPREME COURT llEPO!lTS [198!) 2 S.C.R.

A '
Dr. Gursharan Kaur (P.W. 1) who performed the post-mOf"tem
examination of the dead-bodies of Resham Singh and Hazara Singh
on August 4, 1973 between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. respectively, opined •
that the time which elapsed between these deaths and their post-mortem
examination was about 18 hours. Thus, according to the Doctor'•
opinion, also, the deaths took place at about 2 or 3 p.111. on August 4,
B
1973. The opinion of the medical witness thus corroborated tbe ver-
sion of Resham Singh (P.W. 2) in as much as the latter has testified
that tbe murders took place at about 3.30 p.m. This means, that
the statement of Resham Singh (P.W. 2) in the First Information Re-
port was made without undue delay, and, as such, furnished very
c valuable corroboration of his testimony at the trial, in all material
particular.

If the presence of Resham Singh (P.W. 2) and Dalip Bachan Singh
(P.W. 3) at the time and place of murders was probable the further
question would be, how far their evidence could be safely accepted
D against each of the accused persons ?

It is true that both these witnesse• are relav~d to the deceased,
and, as such, are interested witnesses. Their antecedents, also, are
of a questionable nature. But their antecedents or mere interested-
ness was not a valid ground to reject their evidence. Persons with
E such antecedents are not necessarily untruthful witness. Nor mere
relationship with the deceased was a good ground for discarding their
testimony, when, as we have already held, their presence at the scene
of occurrence was probable. All that was necessary was to scruti-
nise their evidence with more than ordinary care and circumspection
F with reference to the part or role assigned to each of the accused. An
effort should have been made to sift the grain from the chaff; to accept
what appeared to be true and to reject the rest. The High Court
did not adopt this methodology in appreciating their evidence. Instead,
it took a short-cut to disposal, and rejected their evidence whole-sale
against all the accused, [or reasons wl1icl1, as already discussed, are
G manifestly untenable.

Keeping the principle enunciated above, we have scrutinised the •
entire material on record with particular focus on the evidence of
P.W.2 and P.W.3, against each of the accused. Excepting the inunate-
rial di•crepancies considered earlier, the evidence of P.W. 2 and
H P.W. 3 wai; consistent, and their presence as already mentioned, at
the time and place of murders was probable. Even so, as a matter
of abundant caution, it will be safe to act on their interested evidence
PUNJAB v. WASSON SINGH (Sarkaria, J.) 631

to the extent to which some assurance is coming forth from surround-
ing circumstunces or other ev;dence .
•
The story narrated by the eye-witnesses, Resham Singh and
Bachan Singh is that Wasson Singh, Mukhtar Singh and Joginder
Singh first fired a volley of ritleshots at Hazara Singh deceased as a B
result of which he dropped dead at the spot. The evidence of the
Doctor who performed the autopsy on the dead-body of Hazara Singh
is to the effect that there were two bullet wounds of entry on the left
side of the head. These wounds were located at a distance of 2t
ems. from each other. There were two corresponding wounds of
exit. There was no blackening or charring around these wounds of c
entry. This indicates that these injuries were caused by bullets fired
almost simultaneously from two separate rifles from a distance be-
yond 6 feet. This means at least the rifles fired by two of the three
aforesaid accused did find their mark, causing instantaneous death
of the decea>ed. Now, both the courts below have concurrently found
that Was•on Singh had a strong motive to murder Hazara Singh D
deceased. This circumstance, by itself, is sufficient to lend the neces-
sary assurance to the evidence of Resham Singh (P.W. 2) and Bachan
Sinah (P.W. 3) and make it a safe basis for convicting Was•on Singh
accused for the murder of Hazara Singh.
E
The trial court had accepted the evidence of Resham Singh
IP.W.2) in regard to the quarrel over cattk trespass that took place
3 or 4 days prior to these murders between Mukhtar Singh a'nd
Harbhajan Singh accused on one side, and Hazara Singh deceased
and P.W. 2 on the other. This story finds particular mention in the
F.1.R. (Ex. PE) which was lodged by P.W. 2 without undue delay. F
The High Court has rejected this story about this previous quarrel
............ on the three-fold ground, namely: (a) Gajjan Singh who interceded
and pacified the parties has not been examined, (b) No evidence of
the extent of damage done to the crop or of any complaint made to
village Panchayat has been produced, (c) Bachan Singh (P.W.3),
did not mention about this earlier incident in his police statement. G
ln our opinion, none of these was a valid ground for re,iecting the
• evidence of Resham Singh (P.W.2) in regard to this incident. Resham
Singh's consistent testimony on this point corroborated by the F.I.R.
(Ex. PE) was sufficient to establish this fact beyond doubt. Thus,
it was proved by the prosecution that Mukhtar Singh accused had
also a motive to join Wasson Singh accused in ki!ling Hazara Singh. B
The circumstance that Mukhtar Singh had also a motive to partici-
pate in the murder of Hazara Singh deceased lends assurance to the
632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981 J 2 S.C.R.

A
testimony of Resham Singh (P.W.2) and Bachan Singh (P.W.3),
and strengthens the inference of guilt against the said accused, also.
It is in the evidence of Sub-Inspector Bishamber Lal (P.W.13)
that Mukhtar Singh was arrested on August 18, 1973 and on August
31, 1973 Mukhtar Singh accused, whilst under Police custody, made
B a disclosure statement in the presence of Ajit Singh and Sardul !:iingh
Co'nstables. that he had kept concealed a 303 rifle with 5 cart-
ridges wrapped in a piece on cloth in a bundle of reeds lying inside the
courtyard of his house at village Thathiwala and he could get the
same discovered. P. W. 13 recorded that statement (Ex. P 1). There-
after, the accused was taken to village Thathiwala where he led the
c Sub-Inspector in the presence of Sardul Singh and Ajit Singh Cons-
tables, to that bundle and got discovered the rifle (Ex. P7) and the·
cartridges (Ex. PS to 12) there!rom. The Sub-Inspector prepared
the sketch of the rifle and the memo (Ex. PM) which was attested
by the aforesaid Constables. The rifle and the cartridges were sealed
D into parcels and were thereafter sent through Constable Ajit Si'ngh,
with seals intact, to the Police Station where they were received by
the Moharrir Head Constable Natha Singh (P.W. 10).

P,W. 13 has also, stated that he had on August 4, 1973 on ins-
pecting the scene of murders, found two empty cartridges (Ex. P3
E
and Ex. P4) from near the dead-body of Hazara Singh. The wit-
ness took them into possession and sealed them into a parcel in the
presence of Anokh Singh and Gajjan Singh witnesses. and prepared
the memo (Ex. PG). The parcel containing the empties was later
deposited by the Snb-Inspector, with seals in tact, in the Malkhana
of the Police Sta.lion.
F
The evidence of Sub-Inspector Bishamber Lal, with regard to the
seizure of the empty (crime) cartridges from the scene of occurrence
on August 4, was supported by Anokh Singh (P.W.4) who is an """""""
attesting witness of the memo, Ex.PG. The witness is a resident of
village Cheema. In cross-examination, he revealed that these two
G fired cartridg:es were lying at a distance of H karams (8 or 9 feet)
from the dead-body of Hazara Singh. Nothing was brought out in
cross-exan1ination to show that the witness was in any way interested
in the prosecution or was related to the deceased or had any animus
against the accused. Thus, it has been clearly proved that two fired
cartridges were picked up from the scene of crime and ,,,aled into
n parcels which were later deposited with seals intact in the Police Sta··
lion. Tn the memo (Ex. PG), il is mentioned that these fired cartridges
were of 3G3 bore rifle.
PUNJAB v. WASSON SINGH (Sarkaria, !.) 633

' Ajit Singh M:oharrir Head Constable (P.W.11) swore in his affi- /If.
davit that on August 4, 1973, he received the sealed parcel of
2 empty cartridges from Sub-Inspector Bishamber Lal. The seals on
• the parcel remained intact so long as the parcel remained in his
custody.
Then, there are the affidavits of Avtar Singh Constable \P.W. 9) B
and Natha Singh Moharir Head Constable showing that on September
24, 1973, the sealed parcels containing the rifle (Ex. P7) and the
five live cartridges were sent through P.W. 9 to the Forensic Science
Laboratory Chandigarh, who delivered the same in the said Labora-
tory with seals intact.
The evidence of P.W. 13 regarding the discovery of the rifle (Ex. c
P7) from Mukhtar Singh accused was fully corroborated by Constable
Sardul Singh (P.W. 12). His cross-examination reveals that Mukhtar
Singh was interrogated in the Police Station at 4-5 A.M. when he made
the statement (Ex. PL), leading to the discovery of the rifle (Ex. P7).
Sub-Inspector Bishamber Lal (P .W. 13) has slated that the sealed
parcel containing the empty cartridges, that had been found at the
scene of crime, was sent to the Fo"ensic Science Laboratory Chandi-
garh at a dale earlier than the one on which the parcel containing the
rifle (Ex. P7) and the five live cartridges was sent to the said Labora-
tory, but it was returned with the objection that it should have been
sent along with the test cartridges. Consequently, this parcel contain- E
ing the empties was again sent to the Forensic Laboratory along with
the sealed parcel containing the rifle (Ex. P7) and the live cartridges
recovered from Mukhtar Singh accused.
In the Report (Ex. PQ) of the Ballistic Expert (L. A. Kumar)
which was tendered in evidence and admitted without objection, it is
opined that the empty (crime) cartridge, marked C,, had been fired
through the rifle (Ex. P7) .
.. - In cross-examination, the defence suggested to P.W. 13, that he
had purposely recalled the parcel containing the empty cartridges from
the Forensic Science Laboratory for creating evidence against the
accused and he did so by firing one cartridge through the rifte (Ex. G
P7). The oblique suggestion was that the cartridge, marked C1 which
in the opinion of the Ballistic Expert had been fired through the rifle
(Ex. P7) was substituted for the original empty cartridge that l1ad
been found at the scene of murder. The Sub-Insp~ctor emphatically
denied the suggestion. It was further suggested to PW. 13 that the
rifle (Ex. P7) had, in fact, been handed over to the Police by the IJ
relations of the deceased after procuring it from some source. This
was also stoutly denied by P.W. 13.
634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R.

A The learned trial J u.dge discarded this evidence relating to the dis- •
covery of the rifle (Ex. P7) at the instance of the accused, Mukhtar
Singh, for the reason that Sub-Inspector Bishamber Lal, for no good
reason, had failed lo join respectables of the locality to witness the
discovery of the rifle, and that he (P.W. 13) "has tried to be a defence
witness rather than the investigating officer". The trial Judge accepted
B Anokh Singh's statement regarding the rewvery of the two fired cart-
ridges from the scene of Hazara Singh's murder on August 4, but he
adversely commented on the conduct of Bishamber Lal in delaying
the despatch of those crime cartridges to the Forensic Science Labora-
tory Chandigarh till after the recovery of the rifle. He observed : "In
all probability, Sub-Inspector Bishamber Lal wanted to help the accused
c by creating suspicion with respect to the identity of the firing impres-
sions" (on the empties). For this reason, according to the trial Judge,
the ballistic evidence "will not be corroborative· evidence for the prose-
cution."

We agree wilh the trial Court that the investigating officer did not
D deliberately join with him respectables of the locality to attest the
statements (Ex. PL) made by Mukhtar Singh, and to witness the sub-
sequent discovery of the rifle (Ex. P7) at the instance of Mukhtar
Singh. There was substance in the observation of the trial Judge that
the investigation was biased in favour of the accused. If that was
E so, the failure of Bishamber Lal (P.W. 13) to join with him respect-
ables of !he locality was, by itself, no ground for ruling out the evidence
of the discovery of the rifle, altogether. The partiality of Bishamber
Lal towards the defence, rather assures the genuineness of the discovery
He was least disposed to 'collaborate' or 'cooperate' with the relations
of the deceased to procure this rifle (Ex. P7) from ~ome other source
and then foist it on Mukhtar Singh. For the same reason, it is not
possible to hold that he recalled the sealed parcel containing the fired
(crime) cartridges from the Laboratory at Chandigarh, for substituting
a cartridge fired through the rifle (Ex. P7) or for fabricating evidence
in support of the prosecution. Moreover, the parcel containing the
two empties must have been returned by the Director of the Forensic •
G Laboratory on his own initiative and not at the instanco of the Sub-
Inc.pector (P.W. 13).

The omission on the part of this investigating officer to join with
him some independent persons or respectables of the locality to wit-
ness the recovery devalues that evidence but does not render it inad-
H missible. Although a suggestion of "planting" the rifle, and fabri-
cating the evidence of the empty cartridge (Ci) was put to Sub-
Inspector Bishamber Lal in cross-examination, no such allegation was
PUNJAB v. WASSON SINGH (Sarkaria, !.) 635

made, nor any such plea was set up by Mukhtar Singh accused when A
the evidence relating to the recovery of the two empties from the
spot, the discovery of the rifle (Ex. P7) at his instance and the opinion
• (Ex. PQ) of the Ballistic Expert was put to this accused in his exami-
nation under Section 342, Cr. P.C. The circumstance of the recovery
of the rifle (Ex. P7) and the opinion of the Ballistic Expert that the
B
empty cartridge (marked 0) (found on August 4, at the scene of
murder) had been fired through the rifle (Ex. P7),-though feeble
it might ~was relevant and furnished a further pointer to the parti-
cipation of Mukhtar Singh in the commission of Hazarn Singh's murder
by rifle-fire.

In sum, sufficient assurance of the testimony of P .W. 2 and
c
P.W. 3, was available from the circumstantial evidence discussed
above, regarding the participation of Wasson Singh and Mukhtar
Singh accused in the murder of Hazara Singh. The evidence 0£
the eyewitnesses therefore, could safely be acted upon for con- D
victing Wasson Singh and Mukhtar Singh accused-resporclents for
the murder of Hazara Singh.
But such assurance of the evidence of these eyewitnesses waQ
not available against the remaining accused regarding either of the
murders in question. Joginder Singh accused admittedly was not
present when the quarrel over cattle trespass took place between
E
Hazara Singh deceased and P.W. 2 on one side, and Mukhtar Singh
and Harbhajan Singh accused on the other. It has neither been
alleged nor proved that Joginder Singh had any motive of his own
to murder Hazara Singh deceased. Although, the investigation
l:etrays a tilt in favour of the accused, and P.W. 13 made a fraudu-
lent "¥isertion in the zimini to help Joginder Singh accused, it can- F
not be said that the version of P.W. 13 to the effect-that when,
he went to the scene of murders at 5.30 P.M., he found Joginder
Singh irrigating his nearby fields at a distance of about 100 yards
therefrom and he (P.W. 13) interrogated him there and theu, but
did not think it necessary to arrest him,-is necessarily false. The
absence of motive, and the presence of Joginder Singh near the G
scene of crime shortly after the murders, en~aged in normal agri-
cultural activities does cast a doubt about his participation in the
commission of these murders.

P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 have stated that they started running away
. from the spot, immediately after Hazara Singh was shot dead. The
surrounding circumstances, natural probabilities and the normal
H

course of human conduct also sugge~t the same inference, that
636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [198lj 2 S.C.R.

A immediately on seeing Hazara Singh being shot down, these witness- '
es who were following Hazara Singh, ran fast for their lives. Had
they tarried for a while at the scene of Hazara Singh's murder, it
would have been too late for them to escape unhurt. In such a.
situation, when they were being pursued by persons armed with
fire-arms, they could, if at all they turned and looked behind have
B only a fleeting glimpse in the distance of the assailants of Resham
Singh deceased. That is why, Resham (P.W. 2) is not consistent
in his statements as to which of the accused had fired at him when
he was running away for his life. Moreover, it has not been esta-
blished that any of the six accused had any motive, whatever, to
murder Resham Singh deceased.
c
For the foregoing reasons, we partly allow this appeal by the
State, set aside the acquittal of Wassan Singh and Mukhtar Singh
accused (respondents) and comic! them under Section 302 read
with Section 34, Penal Code for the murder of Hazara Singh dl7-
ceased and sentence each of them to imprisonment for life. We
D would, however, accord the benefit of doubt to the rest of the
accused (respondents) and maintain their acquittal on all the counts.
Wasson Singh and Mukhtar Singh shall surrender to their bail-bonds
to serve out the sentences inflicted on them.

N.V.K. Appeal partly allowed.

.
~-

•