Supreme Court of India
SUCHA SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 806
- Decided
- 13 May 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
The conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside because the prosecution's key witness was unreliable due to material contradictions, and no other competent evidence proved the appellant's guilt.
Summary
The incident occurred on 16 February 1991 when the deceased Sakander and his brothers were allegedly attacked by appellant Sucha Singh and his accomplice Manga. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the first informant, Gurdev Chand, whose FIR and later supplementary statement contained material contradictions regarding the number of injuries, time and place of the attack, and identification of the accused. The trial court acquitted both accused, finding the informant's evidence unreliable and noting the absence of any proven motive. The High Court, however, convicted Sucha Singh under Section 302 IPC, holding that the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus should not be applied and that motive was immaterial. The Supreme Court held that the contradictions rendered the informant's testimony untrustworthy, and without reliable direct evidence the appellant could not be convicted, thereby setting aside the conviction and restoring the acquittal.
Issues considered
- The reliability of the first informant's testimony in view of contradictions between the FIR and supplementary statement.
- Whether the absence of a proven motive can defeat a charge of murder when evidence is unreliable.
- The applicability of the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus to the present facts.
- Whether delay in lodging the FIR affects the credibility of the prosecution case.
- The necessity of corroboration for child witness testimony.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 300, s. 302, s. 307, s. 34
Subjects
murderattempt to murderevidence reliabilitywitness contradictionsmotiveIPCacquittalappeal
Judgment
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 871
.(
SUCHA SINGH A
V.
STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 753 of 2008)
MAY 13, 2009
B
-t [S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 - Prosecution under ss. 302
and 307 - Of two. accused - Charge of co-accused altered to
one ulss. 302134 and 307134 in view of supplementary c
statement of first informant- Acquittal of both the accused by
trial court - High Court convicting the accused u/s. 302 while
upholding acquittal of co-accused - On appeal, held:
Evidence of eye-witness (first informant) is not reliable - There
are vital contradictions in the FIR and the supplementary D
statement of the first informant - The contradictions regarding
number of injuries, time of occurrence, place of occurrence,
sequence of events and the manner of identification of the
accused significant - There was lack of motive - Accused is
thus liable to be acquitted. E
>; CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
~f; No. 753 of 2008.
From the Judgment & Order dated 24.05.2007 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal F
No. 809 of 1997.
Vikas Mahajan, Vishal mahajan (for Bhaskar Y. Kulkarni
for the Appellant.
-,j.
Kuldip Singh for the Respondents. G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a
871 H
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.
~
·{
A judgment and order dated 24.5.2007 passed by a Division
Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
in Criminal No.809 OBA of 1997 allowing an appeal preferred
by the respondent herein from a judgment of acquittal passed
by the learned Sessions Judge.
B
2. The prosecution's case is as under:
"I
At about 8.00 pm on 16.2.1991, one Gurdev Chand
(PW4), his brother Sheru (PW5), aged 11 years and another
brother Sakander (the deceased) aged about 13 years had
c gone outside the village to answer the call of nature. Appellant
who is said to have been armed with 'datar' along with one
Manga came on their way. Whereas Manga is said to have
raised a 'lalkara' that the complainant be taught a lesson for
selling adulterated liquor with water, Sucha Singh gave a 'datar' ,,
D blow on the deceased. Allegedly, Manga gave a 'datar' blow
on Sheru (PW5). On their raising cries, Bhindi, younger brother
of the first claimant, came on the spot, whereafter the accused
ran away with their weapons. The deceased was removed to
civil hospital, Pathankot where he died.
E
3. A first information report was lodged at about 12.05
noon on 17.2.1991. 1
4. Before the learned Trial Judge, inter alia, Gurdev Chand I'
(PW4) and Sheru (PW5) were examined to prove the
F prosecution's case. The learned Trial Judge noticed that
although a charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC) had been framed against Manga, but the first informant,
in his supplementary statement had accepted that Manga was
empty handed. It was on the aforementioned premise that the
G appellant by reason of amendment of the charge had been
charged under Section 302 and 307 of the IPC whereas Manga
was charged under Section 302/34 and 307/34 of the IPC.
The learned Trial Judge recorded a judgment of acquittal,
inter alia, on the following findings:
H
$UCHA SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 873
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
-? (1) The difference between the statement in the first A
information report and the supplementary statement
was very vital. The allegations against Manga had
been withdrawn only upon noticing that his right hand
pejrg arnputat~d, he was not in a position to inflict
~ny Injury. · B
i (2) Statement of Gurdev Chand was held not to be
trlJl?tv-!9rthy keeping in view the change in his stand
also in regard to the sequence of events. Whereas
in his first statement, he stated that Sakandar had
first been attacked by Sucha Singh, in his
c
supplementary statement, he alleged that Sheru had
t)een the first victim whereafter Sakandar ran away.
He was chased for a sufficient distance and an
l injury was inflicted on his body with a 'datar'.
D
(3) The omission in the first information report that
Sheru was taken to a civil hospital before the first
information was lodged was only to explain the
delay in lodging the first information report although
such an allegation had not been made in the first E
infprrnation report.
.."' (4) Whereas in his first statement, Gurdev Chand
alleged that Sheru had been inflicted only with one
a single injury by Manga, but later he stated that
F
three-four injuries had been inflicted on his person
whereas in the medical report only a single injury
was found on the person of both the deceased and
Sheru.
(5) There were contradictions in the matter of lodging G
.J of the first information report as it was said to have
been lodged by Gurdev Chand after riding on a
cycle for 12 kms. and the police met him at Jugial.
He had stated that on his way back, the cycle had
been kept in police vehicle while according to H
874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 8 S.C.R.
'·(
A Inspector Amrik Singh (PW7), the cycle had been
kept in a shop at Jugial.
(6) The first information report was found to be ante-
timed even the blood was not found on the spot.
B (7) The evidence of the child witnesses was not
corroborated.
+
'
(8) The prosecution had not been able to prove any
motive on the part of the accused.
c 5. The High Court, on an appeal preferred by the State
against the said judgment opined :
(i) The maxim fa/sus in uno, falsus in omnibus should
not have been applied by the Trial Court as
D discrepancies in testimonies can occur due to error •'
of observations, error of memory or due to mental
disposition such as shock and horror at the time of
occurrence.
E (ii) Delay in lodging of the first information cannot be
a ground to doubt the correctness of the
prosecution case.
-
'/
(iii) Motive to commit an offence is immaterial where •
reliable direct evidence is available.
F
(iv) Keeping in view the nature of the evidence brought
on record, clause thirdly to Section 300 of the IPC
would be applicable.
(v) The evidence of the child witness had not been
G
tutored and, thus, no corroboration thereof was ,_
required.
The High Court, on the aforementioned findings, while
upholding the judgment of acquittal passed in favour of Manga,
H convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC.
SUCHA SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 875
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
/. 6. The question which arises for consideration is as to A
whether the High Court committed an error in interfering with
the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions
Judge.
7. The story advanced by the prosecution starts with a
B
motive on the part of the complainant's mother selling of illicit
-f liquor. In the first information report, it was alleged by the first
informant that his mother brought illicit liquor and sold it to
maintain her children. In his evidence, however, he stated that
his mother sold only two bottles of liquor occasionally.
c
If the brothers had nothing to do with the sale of liquor, as
has rightly been pointed by the learned Sessions Judge, that
motive must be held to have not been proved.
We may notice that PW5, however, categorically denied D
and disputed that his mother sold any liquor or she earned her
livelihood by doing liquor work.
8. At this stage, we may also notice the injuries alleged to
have sustained by Sheru which according to Doctor Vijay
Mahajan (PW2) were as under : E
"1. An incised wound 10 x 1.5 cm running horizontally
"'
J along the lower border of lowest mandible on left
side going posteriorly to the post auricular area and
anteriorly over the chin. The underlying bone was F
cut partially. Anteriorly the wound bifurcated into two
parts and went to the sub mandibular area. Fresh
bleeding was present and x-ray examination was
advised.
2. An incised wound 3 x Yz cm on the posterior G
• surface of left ear pinna running horizontally. It was
cartilage deep and fresh bleeding was present.
3. An incised wound 3 cm, linear skin deep running
horizontally over the front of left neck. H
876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.
~
A 4. An incised wound 5 x 0.5 cm bone deep running
into transverse direction on the top of right shoulder
'"
joint. Fresh bleeding was present. There.was
corresponding cut in the shirt and sweater X-ray
was advised.
B
5. An abrasion 3 x 2 cm on front of right knee joint."
:>
Post mortem report, conducted by Dr. R.K. Khanna, •
(PW1), read as under:
c "(1) An incised 16 cm x 8 cm x 6 cm deep wound obliquely
placed over the right side of the neck, extending from the
nape upwards to the tragus of right pinna with through and
through cutting of right external pinna at its centre into two
equal halves. Dissection revealed injury to subcutaneous
tissues, muscles and bone in the mastoid region and 1st r
D
and 2nd vertebral bodies on its right side going obliquely
upwards to the brain matter at the base of skull. The
intervening bones were sharply cut into pieces. Brain
matter was oozing out of the wound after tearing the basal
meanings. The intervening blood vessels and nerves were
E
also cut.
In his opinion, the cause of death was injury to vital orgari, 'I
i.e. brain and spinal cord which was sufficient to cause •
death in the ordinary course of nature. The injury was ante
F mortem in nature having been caused by sharp-edged
cutting heavy weapon."
9. There is some discrepancies with regard to time of
occurrence of the incident also. Whereas according to PW4,
G the assailants of his brothers were identified in a torchlight,
PW5 stated that they had identified the accused in the daylight .;.
and not under the torchlight. Even PW4, in his evidence,
admitted that he did not have any torch in his possession and,
therefore, he did not see the accused under the torchlight which
was introduced for the first time in his supplementary evidence.
H
SUCHA SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 877
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
.r
~
We may notice that in the first information, it is stated, he A
produced a torch containing three cells. The same has neither
been seized nor produced.
He furthermore denied that Manga had given any 'lalkara'.
He furthermore accepted that Manga's right arm was
8
amputated.
It is also of some significance to note that the place of
occurrence is at a distance of about one km from their house.
No evidence has been brought on record as to how the parties
are known to each other. C
There is, therefore, significant contradiction in the matter
of number of injuries, time of occurrence, place of occurrence,
sequence of events, the manner of identification of the accused,
lack of motive and false implication of Manga. P.W. 4 made D
vital contradictions in his FIR vis-a-vis the supplementary
statement evidently keeping in view the physical condition of
Manga. It is, therefore, difficult to rely upon his testimony.
PW4 in his deposition furthermore denied to have made
a statement before the police that Sucha Singh had given a E
'datar' blow on Sakandar on his neck.
10. PW4, in his evidence, even could not deny that Manga
is an employee in a private company and he remains at his
place of work from morning till evening. F
11. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned
judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained which is set
aside accordingly and that of the learned Sessions Judge is
restored. Appellant is in custody. He would be set at liberty
forthwith unless wanted in connection with any other case. G
12. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
K.K.T. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search