Holding

The Supreme Court held that the trial court misread the evidence and that the conviction under IPC s.302 stands.

Summary

The appellant Sukhdeep Singh was charged with murder under IPC s.302 for allegedly firing at his rival, Karam Singh, resulting in death. The trial court acquitted him, holding that the eyewitness testimony conflicted with the medical report and that the recovered .303 cartridge could not have been fired from the accused's .315 bore rifle. The Allahabad High Court reversed the acquittal, accepting the eye witnesses and a forensic expert’s opinion that the cartridge was compatible with the weapon, and upheld the conviction. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the trial court misread the evidence; the medical findings supported the prosecution and the forensic analysis explained the cartridge discrepancy. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, leaving the conviction intact.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused on the ground of alleged inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence.
Whether the medical evidence can defeat the eye‑witness testimony in a murder case.
Whether the forensic finding that a .303 cartridge could be fired from a .315 bore rifle negates the trial court’s conclusion of a mismatch.
Standard of judicial review in an appeal against acquittal.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 161
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302

Subjects

murderIPC 302medical evidenceeyewitness testimonyforensic ballisticsappeal against acquittalevidence evaluation

Judgment

[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1252

A SUKHDEEP SINGH @ DEEP SINGH
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
..
'r
(Criminal Appeal No. 1037 of 2005)

DECEMBER 01, 2009
B
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860:

s. 302 - Murder - Accused firing at his rival - Causing Ji
c
his death -Acquittal by trial court on ground that oral evidence
was at variance with medical evidence and that empty
cartridge recovered from scene of occurrence did not match
the crime weapon - Conviction by High Court u/s 302 -
HELD: Trial court misread the evidence - Testimony of
D
prosecution witnesses was consistent - Medical evidence far
;...
from dislodging the prosecution case, fully supports the same
- Prosecution has also explained the confusion, if any, with
regard to the cartridge and the weapon - Forensic. expert has
deposed that .3Q3 bore cartridge was compatible with firing
E from .315 bore rifle and that the crime cartridge had in fact
been fired from crime weapon as distinctive characteristics
matching the two were available on forensic examination -
There is no reason to interfere with the conviction recorded
by High Court - Evidence - Medical evidence vis-a-vis oral it.
F testimony - Evidence regarding forensic examination of crime
weapon.

CRIMINAL APP ELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1037 of 2005.
G
From the Judgment & Order dated 05.05.2005 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Government Appeal No.
1441 of .1981.

Rohan Thawani and Prashant Kumar, for the Appellant.
H 1252
SUKHDEEP SINGH @ DEEP SINGH v. STATE OF 1253
UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
S.K. Dwivedi, AAG, Pramod Swarup, Sahdev Singh and A
Anuvrat Sharma, for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered

ORDER
.B
1. This appeal by way of special leave is directed against ·
the judgment of the Allahabad High Court whereby the judgment
of acquittal of the Sessions Judge has been reversed and the
accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced to
imprisonment for life etc. under Sec.302 of the IPC. c
2. The facts of the prosecution story are as under:

The appellant Sukhdeep Singh and the acquitted co-
accused Raje were friends whereas Gurbachan Singh (PW.2)
the first informant and Karam Singh were brothers. Balvendra D
Singh, brother of Sukhdeep Singh aforesaid, had some dispute
with one Kashmir Singh against whom some Criminal and Civil
proceedings were also going on. As per the prosecution story
about a month before the incident the two accused had come
to the house of Gurbachan Singh and had threatened Karam e
Singh to leave the company of Kashmir Singh, failing which they
would kill him. As this threat had no effect on Karam Singh, the
two accused arrived at his home at about 6;00 a.m. on 5th June,
1980 and whereas Sukhdeep Singh was carrying a rifle
belonging to Balvendra Singh, Raje was carrying a shotgun. It F
appears that a compromise was proposed even at that time
and to ensure that it would not be violated the accused
suggested that they go to the Gurudwara to take an oath before
the Guru Granth Sahib. On this assertion Gurbachan Singh and
Karam Singh accompanied by the accused left for the G
Gurudwara and along the way assodated Mahender Singh and
Darshan Singh and also told them as to what had transpired
and the terms of the compromise. As the group reached the
crossing of village Nateura, Gurbachan Singh, Darshan Singh
and Mahender Singh who were following the two accused and H
. '
1254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Karam Singh who had gone swiftly ahead, Raje suddenly ~-

caught hold of Karam Singh and Sukhdeep Singh fired a shot
which struck him in the stomach. Gurbachan Singh and the
others raised an alarm on whi<;:h Sukhdeep Singh fired another
shot towards them without hitting anybody. The accused then
B ran away with their weapons. One Ninder Singh (PW.3) who
was working in a nearby field also saw the incident. Gurbachan
Singh and the others also found that Karam Singh had died
instantaneously on account of the gun shot injury suffered by
him. Gurbachan Singh also rushed to the police station which
c was about 9 miles away and recorded the FIR at about 1.30
p.m. ASI Ragghu Singh (PW.7) reached the murder site,
recorded the inquest report and sent the dead body for its post-
mortem examination. The post-mortem examination was held
on the next day at about 4.15 p.m. by Dr. C.P.Srivastava
(PW.1 ). On the completion of the investigation the two accused
D ~-
were put to trial on a charge of murder. The prosecution relied
primarily on the statements of Gurbachan Singh (PW.2) Ninder
Singh (PW.3) and Mahender Singh (PW.5) the alleged eye
witnesses to the incident as also on the evidence of PW.4. Ram
Asray Pandey the expert from the Forensic Science Laboratory
E and Dr. C.P.Srivastava (PW.1) the Doctor concerned.

3. The trial court on an appreciation of the evidence held
that the statement of Gurbachan Singh (PW.2) was at variance ~c

with the medical testimony given by Dr. C.P. Srivastava (PW.1)
F in as much that the direction of the injury suffered by Karam
Singh falsified the ocular evidence of Gurbachan Singh. The
Court also held that the evidence of the recovery of the empty
s~ell from the of incident appeared to be a bit of padding by ·""
the police as the weapon that had been recovered from
G Sukhdeep Singh accused was of .315 bore whereas the
cartridge that had been recovered at the time of the inspection
of site by ASI Ragghu Singh on the day of the murder, was of )'- .
.303 bore and it was thus impossible to believe that this
cartridge could have been fired from the weapon in question.
It was also observed that as .303 bore was a prohibited bore
H
SUKHDEEP SINGH@ DEEP SINGH v. STATE OF 1255
UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
•(' ..;
weapon, cartridges of this category were not available in ·the A
market and the prosecution had, failed to explain as to the
source from where this cartridge had been procured. The Court
further held that before the incident about a month earlier when
--, the accused had advised Karam Singh to leave the company
of Kashmir Singh was also not proved and as such the motive B
itself was not acceptable. Having held as above, the trial Court
acquitted both the accused.

.\,- 4. The State of U.P., thereafter, filed an appeal before the
~ Allahabad High Court. The High Court maintained the acquittal
of Raje but reversed the acquittal of the present appellant c
Sukhdeep Singh. The High Court held that there was no reason
to disbelieve the eye witnesses (PW.2 and PW.3) one the
brother and the other a close relative of the deceased. The High
Court, however, confirmed the finding of the trial Court that
~ Ninder Singh's (PW.3) statement could not be relied upon. The D
High Court further held that the medical evidence clearly
supported the ocular evidence, as the anomaly pointed out by
the trial Court with regard to the upward direction of the wound
in the dead body had been explained by Gurbachan Singh
(PW.2) in the course of his evidence. The High Court also E
observed that Ram Asray Pandey (PW.4) had clarified that
though the cartridge recovered from the place of incident was
of .303 bore and the weapon was of .315 bore, yet on testing
he had found that a cartridge of this calibre could be fired from
the weapon in question and as the empty shell had specific and F
distinctive markings, it had in fact been found the alleged

... murder weapon. The High Court, therefore, conscious of the fact
that in an appeal against acquittal, interference should be
minimal and that too in case of perversity of the judgment of
the trial Court, held that the finding were indeed perverse and G
accordingly reversed the judgment of acquittal.
.,. ¥
5. Mr. Rohan Thawani, the learned counsel for the
appellant has first and foremost pointed out that it was well-
settled that interference by the High Court in an appeal against
HI
}
t
!
I

1256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
~

A acquittal was called for only in special circumstances and that +-
..,
too in a case where the judgment of the trial Court was
completely per-verse and could not have been rendered on the
evidence and if the trial court had given good reasons, the High
Court in the belief that a different view was also possible, should
B ,not have interfered in the matter. He has also pointed out that
the medical evidence completely belied the evidence of
Gurbachan Singh and Mahender Singh in as much that they had
not been able to explain as to manner in which the injury had ~

).
been suffered by Karam Singh or the direction in which the
wound had been caused as Dr. C.P. Srivastava's (PW.1) ....
c testimony had completely falsified their evidence. He has also
reiterated that the trial Court had on a very correct appreciation
of the evidence concluded that the recovery of the rifle and the
empty shell of .303 bore was a concocted piece of evidence
at the instance of an over-zealous police officer.
D f-
'
~
6. Mr. Pramod Swarup, the learned counsel for the State
of U.P. has, however, argued very vehemently in support of the
judgment.

E 7. Undoubtedly, Mr. Rohan Thawani's broad submission
with regard to the scope of the High Court's interference in an
appeal against acquittal cannot be faulted but we are of the
opinion that trial Court had clearly misread the evidence while
discarding the evidence of Gurbachan Singh and Mahender
•
Singh. It has to be borne in mind that Gurbachan Singh was
F
the· brother of the deceased and Mahender Singh was his
brother-in-law. To our mind, therefore, it would be difficult to
accept that they would leave out the true assailants a·nd to .-
involve some other persons. We also find that the spontaneity
of the FIR supports the prosecution story. Admittedly the
G
incident had happened at about 9.00 a.m. on 5th June, 1980,
and the FIR had been recorded at the instance of PW.2 ..,. .,
Gurbachan Singh by 1.30 p.m. at the police station which was
9 miles away. Gurbachan Singh has testified that it had not been
easy for him to reach the police station as he had to walk a
H
SUKHDEEP SINGH @ DEEP SINGH v. STATE OF 1257
UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
part of the distance before he could board a bus. We also A
.t
notice that no challenge has been to made the promptness in
the lodging of the FIR. We also see from a reading of the
statements of Gurbachan Singh and Mahender Singh that not
a single material contradiction had been pointed out in the
evidence in court· vis-a-vis their statements under Sec.161 B
Cr.P.C. meaning thereby that the version given by them was
consistent from the very first day.

i 8. We are also of the opinion that the medical evidence
far from dislodging the prosecution story fully supports the same.
Doctor C.P. Srivastava found the following injuries on the dead c
body:

"1. The wound of collate shot was (mix 8 cm) and it was
,. on the upper portion of the valley· about 3 cm left near the
. canter line. It was out side any black spot or parched Ohul D
-.It
san) has not been found. this would was in the stomach
on the back side going on the upper side.

2. The wound of bullet passing was 2 cm x 2 cm on the
right side of the back on the lower part of shoulder this
E
wound was mixing with wound number one."
/
9. The Doctor also opined that the gunshot injury could
have been caused by the firing of a shot from a distance of
more than six feet on the premise that there was no charring
or burning of the skin. F

10. Mr. Rohan Thawani has, however, placed reliance on
the following part of the cross-examination:

"The fire must have made on the left front side of the
deceased. The duration of death which I have told can be G
changed by 5 hours on both side. During summer season
-¥
the rigor mortis complete pass of within 36 hours. The
possibility of the death of deceased is in the morning at 5
or 6' 0 clock on 5/6/80 seeing the duration of the wound
No. 1 of the deceased the possibility is that the fire was H
1258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A made when the deceased was lying or fell lying. If the
deceased and the killer both stand on the same level ~

than the deceased must have not received these wounds
because the killer must have the lower level than the
deceased and the barrel of the gun must have been on
B the lower level. "

(Note: The paragraphs quoted above have
been taken verbatim from the Paper Book.)

11. We are of the opinion that the opinion rendered by the ,i
c Doctor does not refleet Mr. Thawani's submission. It bears
notice that it is not the suggestion of the defence at any stage
that the deceased had been shot after he had fallen to the
ground but on the contrary the positive prosecution version is
that the incident had happened after Karam Singh had been
D held by Raje in his grip. We find, therefore, that the very basis ~
of the argument raised by the learned counsel on the basis of ,!_

the statement of Dr. C.P. Srivastava that the injuries could not
have been caused while the deceased was in a standing
posture is not borne out from the cross examination. Even
E otherwise, we believe that it would be impossible for any
witness to give a categorical statement as to the posture that
the deceased or the assailants were holding at the time when
the firing incident happened. The trial Court was not justified in
coming to a contrary conclusion as it appears to be a case of l
the misreading of the evidence.
F
12. Mr. Rohan Thawani has, however, placed reliance on
Maniram vs. State of U.P. (1994 (suppl.) 2 SCC 28~} and
State of U.P. vs. Ram Bahadur and Others (200'1 \9) SCC
310) to contend that if the medical evidence contradicted the
G ocular evidence account, the prosecution must fail. The
observations relied upon by the learned counsel are, however,
required to be examined in the peculiar facts of each case. We ...,
have gone through the facts of thA cited cases and.find that they
are not applicable to the facts of the present one. Moreover, in
H a criminal matter based on appreciation of evidence, it would
SUKHDEEP SINGH @ DEEP SINGH v. STATE OF 1259
UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
be a very dangerous doctrine to rely on decisions taken on facts A
... as binding precedents as all such matters have to be evaluated
on an appreciation of the evidence which has come before the
Court in that very case.

13. We also notice that the prosecution has explained the
confusion, if any, with regard to the cartridge and the weapon. B
Dr. Ram Asray Pandey on testing in the laboratory found that
a .303 bore cartridge was compatible with firing from a .315
bore rifle and that the crime cartridge had in fact been fired from
~ the crime weapon as the distinctive characteristics matching
the two were available on Forensic examination. The mere fact, C
therefore, that the trial Court was of the opinion that as the
prosecution had not been explained as to the source of the .303
cartridge, was a matter of no consequence as it is common
" knowledge that prohibited bore weapons and cartridges are
readily available for those who seek them out. We thus see no D
.-, cause for interference in this matter.

14. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

R.P. Appeal dismissed.