Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the convictions, finding that the eye‑witness testimony, together with corroborative forensic and material evidence, established the guilt of the appellants under IPC 302/34.

Summary

The case involved the murder of Shamsher Singh and Amar Singh, allegedly committed by Swaran Singh, Jagjit Singh and others using a 12‑bore double‑barrel gun. The prosecution relied on eye‑witnesses (PW‑3 and PW‑4), forensic evidence (site plan, photographs, blood‑stained earth, post‑mortem reports, chemical analysis and ballistics) and the accused's own admission of presence at the scene. The appellants contended that the eye‑witness testimony was unreliable, that the forensic reports contradicted the witnesses, and that the delay in lodging the FIR and the trial prejudiced them. The Supreme Court held that the eye‑witness accounts were consistent and corroborated by material evidence, that the forensic findings supported the prosecution’s version, and that partial disbelief of a witness does not invalidate the entire testimony. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the convictions under IPC 302/34.

Issues considered

The admissibility and reliability of eye‑witness testimony when part of it is disbelieved
Whether forensic evidence (ballistics, chemical analysis, post‑mortem) contradicts or corroborates the eye‑witness accounts
Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the prolonged trial period warrants setting aside the convictions
Whether the accused can be held liable under IPC 302 read with Section 34 for the murders
Whether Section 340(3) of the CrPC should be amended to curb perjury (raised as a policy observation)

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 340(3)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 307, s. 34

Subjects

murdereye‑witness testimonyforensic evidenceballisticsdouble‑barrel gunIPC 302Section 34criminal procedurewitness protectionperjury

Judgment

A SWARAN SINGH ETC. ETC.
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB

APRIL 26, 2000

B [D.P. WADHWAAND RUMA PAL, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860-Sectlon 302-Murder by gunshots-Appreciation of
evidence-Testimony of eye witnesses regarding accused persons, involvement
not only consistent but duly convborated by material evidence-Motive for
C c1ime established-FIR p1vmptly lodged-Accused's presence at the scene of
occurrence with double barrel gun admitted-Deceased persons in drunken
state refuted by chemical examination report-Site plan, photographs showing
position of dead bodies and other mate1ials collected from the spot supporting
prosecution case-Conviction & sentence-Upheld.

D Criminal Trial:

Appreciation of evidence-Non-acceptance of eye-witness account re-
garding involvement of co-accused-Effect of-Held : merely because one
portion of evidence of eye-witnesses is disbelieved does not mean that Court is
bound to reject all of it.
E
Frequent adjournment-Causing delay in trial and harassment to wit-
nesses-Remedies-Suggested.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 304(3)-Amendmifnt to elimi-
nate evil of perjury-Suggested.
F
Appellants were prosecuted for offences under Section 302/34 of
Penal Code. The Prosecution case was that 'S', 'A', PW-3 and PW-4 were
returning from a village in a car. On their way, a truck started continu-
ously blowing horn from behind. PW-3 stopped the car and 'S' got down to
identify the driver of the truck. The driver of the truck brought the truck
G alongside the car. Accused 'SS' opened the left window of the truck and
shot 'S' in the chest with his 12 bore double barrel gun. 'S' died on the
spot. On hearing the shot 'A' got down from the car went to the back of the
truck. Accused 'S' and 'M' fired at 'A' hitting him in his chest. 'A' also
succumbed to his injuries on the spot PW-3 and PW-4 raised an alarm
H whereupon the assailants fled away from the spot. Subsequently, accused
572
S. SINGH ETC. ETC. v. STATE 573
~
~ 'SS' surrendered before the Magistrate and handed over the double barrel A
gun. Trial Court while acquitting accused 'A' and 'M', convicted and
sentenced accused 'SS' and the driver of the truck for offences under
Section 302/34 Penal Code. On appeal High Court affirmed the findings of
the trial Court. Hence the present appeals.

B
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that both the Courts
below had erred in relying on the eye-witnesses, namely, PW-3 and PW-4
as their evidence regarding the incident in so far as it related to 'M' had
been disbelieved by both the courts; that the evidence of the eye-witnesses
that the deceased had not drunk alcohol was belied by the Report of the
FSL; that the Investigating Officer's evidence was inconsistent with the c
evidence on record; that there was· a delay of 5-1/2 hours in lodging of the
complaint during which time the alleged eye-witnesses had concocted the
). ... story of involvement of the accused•

Dismissing the appeals, the Court D
Held : Per Ruma Pal, J

1.1. The eye-witnesses' accounts of the accused persons' involvement
~ in the crime are not only consistent but were duly corroborated by mate-
rial evidence. The enmity between the accused and deceased was estab- E
lished. Thus, Courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing the
accused-appellants. [581-G; 582-B]

1.2. Accused 'SS' has admitted his presence at the scene of occur-
rence with loaded double barrel gun and a cartridge belt. His defence that F
he had not fired by any shots and the deceased in a drunken State were the
aggressors cannot be accepted in view of the medical evidence. According
to the Chemical Examiner's report, the alcohol concentration found in the
viscera of deceased neither showed that it had been consumed immediately
prior to the occurrence nor was it sufficient to make the deceased inebri-
G

--
ated. [582-C]
---=-..t
2. The site plan, photographs showing position of deceased persons
and the blood stained earth collected from the spot supports the prosecu-
tion case that the deceased were killed at the spot next to the truck and not
near accused SS's house as claimed by him. H indeed the deceased were H
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A shooting indiscriminately as alleged by the accused there would have been
some pellets on the walls ofSS's house. It was not even suggested to any of
the -witnesses in the prosecution that there were pellets or pellet marks
near SS's house. Thus, both the Trial Court and High Court rightly re-
jected the story of accused to explain the presence of the truck at the scene
of occurrence. Further, the fact that the hitting was at close range supports
B the evidence of the eye-witnesses and runs contrary to the defence account
of the incident. [58l·G-H; 582-A]

.forensic Science in Criminal Investigation. & Trials (3rd Edn.).P. 280;
Fisher, SveTJ,Sson and Wendel's Techniques of Crime Scene lnvestigati9n (4th
C Edn. P. 296), referred to.

3. Merely ~ecause one portion of the evidence of eye-witnesses is
disbeiieved does not mean that tlie Courts were bound to reject all or'it.
Thus, non-acceptance of evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 by Courts below
regarding the involvement of 'M' will not render their evidence regarding
D involvement of appellants unbelievable. (583-D]

4. PW-1, Doctor has stated in his cross-examination that both the
deceased could have met their death at about 4 P.M. on the fateful day, but
this does not by itself establish the fact that the deceased were killed at 4
P.M. The evidence of PW 1, in chief was.that the death could have been
E eaused within 24 hours prior to the post-mortems. Therefore, PW-l's
evidence is equally consistent with the case of the prosecution that the
incident took place at 7.45 P.M. (583-H]

5. Minor· discrepancies in the testimony Qf PW-5, Investigating Of-
ficer, are not sufficient to discard the case of the prosecution or to throw
F
doubt on the eye-~tnesses' testimony. Furthermore, the Trial commenced ~-
about three y~ars after the incident and it is not unlikely that the Investi-
gating Officer c':luld ~ot remember the details of the investigation. [584-G)

Per Wadhwa, J. (Supplementing) :
G
1. A criminal case is built on the edifice of evidence, evidence that is
admissible in law. For that witnesses are required whether it is direct
evidence or cireumstantial. evidence. Here are the witnesses who are a
harassed lot. A witness in a criminal trial may come-from a far-off place to
find the case adjourned; He has to come to the court many times and at
H what cost to his own self and his family is not difficult to fathom. R has
S. SINGH ETC. ETC. v. STATE 575
become more or less a fashion to have a criminal case adjourned again and A
again till the witness tires and gives up. It is the game of unscrupulous
lawyers to get adjournments for one excuse or the other till a witness is
won over or is tired. Not only that a witness is threatened; he is abducted;
. he is maimed; he is done away with; or even bribed. There is no protection
for him. Then appropriate diet money for a witness is a far cry. Proper diet
B
money must be paid immediately to the witness and even sent to him and
he should not be left to be harassed by the subordinate staff. If the criminal
justice system is to be put on a proper pedestal, the system <:annot be left in
the hands of unscrupulous lawyers and the sluggish State machinery. All
the subordinate courts, should be linked to the High Court with a compu-
ter and a proper check is made on the adjournments and recording of c
evidence. [585-G-H; 586-A-D]

2. Perjury has also become a way of life in the law courts. A trial
judge knows that the witness is telling a lie and is going back on his
previous statement, yet he does not wish to punish him or even file a
complaint against him. He is required to sign the complaint himself which D
deters him from filing the complaint. Perhaps law needs amendment to
clause (b) of Section 340(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this
respect as the High Court can direct any officer to file a complaint.
To get rid of the evil of perjury, the court should resort to the use of the
provisions of law as contained in Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal E
Procedure. [586-F-G]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 721
of 1993.

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.9.92 of the Punjab and Haryana F
High Court in Cd.A. No .. 315-DB of 1991.

WITII

Criminal Appeal No. 720 of 1993.

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.9.92 of the Punjab and Haryana G

--
-. High Court in Cd.A. No. 204-DB of 199L

U.R. Lalit, Ujagar Singh, H.K. Puri, S.K. Puri, Ms. Naresh Bakshi, R.S.
Suri, Devender Verma, Rajiv Dutta, Uday Kumar, Rajesh Srivastava, Ujjawal
Banerjee, Ms. Enakshi Kulshreshtha and Kapil Sharma for the appearing
parties. H
576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A The Judgment of the Court were delivered by

RUMA PAL, J. These appeals have been preferred from the decision
of the Punjab & Haryana High Court holding the appellants guilty under
Section 302 and Section 302/34 9f the lildian Penal Code (IPC) in connection
with the death of Shamsher Singh and Amar Singh. The Additional Sessions
B Judge, Ludhiana as well as the High Court accepted the case of the prosecu-
tion and found the guilt of the appellants was established beyond reasonable
doubt.

The case of the prosecution was that on 24th April, 1986 at about 7.30
c p.m., Kamail Singh (PW3) was chiving a car with Gurmel Singh (PW4) sitting
next to him and Shamsher Singh and Amar Singh seated in the rear. All of
them had been to village Bharthala to inquire about 'purbias' (labourers) from
Dilbagh Singh. They did not find Dilbagh Singh nor any 'purbia' and were
on their way back to Samrala when a truck started continuously blowing its
horn behind the car. Shamsher Singh asked PW 3 to stop the car which PW
D
3 did. Shamsher Singh got down from the car and started looking at the truck
to identify who the driver was. Jagjit Singh who was driving the truck,
brought the truck along side the car. Jagjit Singh' s son Mittar Pal ( also
known as Lovely) and Swaran Singh were seated next to Jagjit Singh in the
front cabin of the truck. Swaran Singh opened the left window of the truck
E and shot Shamsher Singh. in the chest with his 12 Bore Double Barrel Gun.
Shamsher Singh died on the spot.

On hearing the shot, Amar Singh got down from the car and went to
the back of the truck. Then Jagjit Singh, his son Lovely as well as one Amrik
Singh got out of the truck. Jagjit Singh fired at Amar Singh hitting Amar
F
Singh in the chest. Amrik Singh told Jagjit Singh to fire more shots at Amar
Singh. Whereupon Lovely took the 12 Bore Double Barrel Gun from Jagjit
Singh and fired two more shots at Amar Singh, one of which hit Amar Singh
in the neck and the other in the stomach. The assailants fired more shots at
Amar Singh. Amar Singh died on the spot. While the assailants were firing
G shots, Satish_ Kumar, who got down from back of the truck also received a
shot. PW 3 and PW 4 both raised an alarm whereupon the assailants fled away
firing shots in the air as they ran.

The motive for the crime alleged by the prosecution was that Swaran
H Singh' s truck had been de-listed from the Truck Union of Samrala by
S. SINGH ETC. ETC. v. STATE [RUMA PAL, J.] 577
Shamsher Singh who was the President of the Truck Union, Samrala. It was A
also alleged that there was rivalry between Jagjit Singh and Shamsher Singh
because of the forthcoming elections to the Presidents' Office of the truck
union which was to be held about a week later.

On 24th April 1986 at 9.30 p.m. Kamail Singh (PW 3) lodged a First
Information Report at the Police Station, Samrala. SI Kamail Singh, S.H.O. B
P.S. Samrala (PW 5) went to the site and took possession of the truck, the
car, the registration papers, the blood stained earth from near the dead bodies
of the deceased, two empty cartridges from the cabin of the truck and four
empty caruidges from near the dead body of Amar Singh. According to the
PW 5 he found Satish Kumar who had been wounded at the spot and sent C
him to the Civil Hospital, Samrala. He then prepared an inquest report and
sent the dead bodies for post mortem to the Civil Hospital, Samrala.

As far as Shamsher Singh was concerned the post mortem was per-
formed at 10.30 A.M. on 25th April, 1986. The post mortem of Amar Singh
was done the same day at 12.40 P.M. Both post mortems had been performed
D
by Dr.Rajiv Bhalla, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Samrala (PW 1). Accord-
ing to the post mortem report Shamsher Singh had the following injuries:-

There was a wound 2 ems in diameter on the right side of the chest
with corresponding injury on the shirt and banian. The margins were E
blackened and rolled inwards with clots present. The wound was
present in the 2nd and 3rd intercostal space in the mid clavicular line.
The remnant of cartridge and pellets were removed from the wound
and sealed".

In the opinion of PW 1 the cause of death was fire arm injury leading F
to the rupture of the right lung and left lung leading to haemorrhage, shock
and death. It was also stated that the death was instantaneous and injuries
were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in the normal
course.
G
The following six• wounds were found on Amar Singh by PW 1:-

1. Worind 3.5 ems diameter on the left side of chest with blackened
margins with rolled in ends. The shirt was blackened with
corresponding injury on the shirt. The left strip of banian was
missing. The wound was 10 cm deep and in the area of Ist and H
~
,
I
~

578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
)11C:_,,...
A. second intercostal space. The remnant of cartridge was seen in
the wound and it was removed and sealed.

2. Wound 3 cm diameter in the middle of the chest in the anterior ~
triangle of the neck. The wound was 7 cm in depth with remnant
of cartridge and pellets removed and sealed.
B
3. Wound 3 cm diameter on the abdomen in the right upper r
guadrant with intestine protruding out of it 8 cm deep with 'Jr

margin rolled in and surroundings blackened. The intestines
were ruptured and there was corresponding cut on the shirt and
banian with margins blackened. The pellets were removed from
c injury and sealed.

4. A penetrating wound 2.5 ems diameter on the posterior aspect
of the left leg in the popli to:> gal fossa 2 cm above the knee joint ~ .
line with rolled in margins and blackened ends. TI1e wound was
D bone deep with remnants of cartridges and pellets embodied in
the femur. TI1ere was fracture of the lower and of femur. The
pellets were removed and sealed. There was corresponding cut
in the pajama with margins blackened.

5. A penetrating wound 2.5 cm diameter in the left leg 3 cm below
E the knee joint with rolled in margins and blackened ends with
corresponding cut on the pajama. The injury was bone deep and
there was fracture of the upper end of tibia.

6. Penetrating wound 2 cm diameter on the left leg rolled in
margins and blackened end 3 cm below injury No. 5 pellet
F removed and sealed. *-
In the opinion of PW 1 the cause of death was due to the injuries which
were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
cour.se.
G The various itei:nS''colle~ted by PW 5 from the site as well as parts of
the viscera of the deceased which had been removed during the post mortem
were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) by the police for chemical
analysis. On 26th April, 1986 Swaran Singh surrendered and handed over a
12 Bore Double Barrel Gun (Ex. P-22) before the Judicial Magistrate,
H Samrala (PW 6), who gave it on the same day to PW 5. Three months later
S. SINGH ETC. ETC. v. STATE [RUMA PAL, J.] 579
on 26th July, 1986 Gajja Singh father of Jagjit Singh produced a 12 Bore A
Double Barrel Gun (Ex. P 23) which was the licenced gun of Jagjit Singh
before PW 5. After six weeks after that, the Sarpanch produced another 12
Bore Double Barrel Gun which was the licensed gun of Shamsher Singh (Ex.
P 24). Three other 12 Bore Double Barrelled Guns were produced by other
witnesses on 27th October, 1986 (Ex. P25, Ex. P26 and Ex. P27). B

Surprisingly, although Jagjit Singh was named in the FIR he was not
arrested but the case was taken up for investigation by Shri Mohinder Singh,
DSP, Shri Baldev Sharma, DSP, Shri Sanjeev Gupta, SP and Shri B.P.Tiwari,
DIG, Crime, Chandigarh all of whom "found" that Jagjit Singh was innocent.
The police accordingly only chailaned Swaran Singh. Being aggrieved, PW C
3 filed a complaint on 1st December, 1986 against Jagjit Singh, Mittar Pal
Singh ( alias Lovely) and Amrik Singh. All the four accused Were committed
- ~·. to trial on 22nd September, 1988. The objection of the accused that the
complaint case and the challan case could not be clubbed was rejected by
the Trial Court on 8th February, 1989 and the trial commenced on 18th D
February, 1989.

The Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana charged Swaran Singh and
Jagjit Singh under Section 302134 IPC and Amrik Singh and Mittar Pal Singh
under Section 302/34 IPC. All four accused were also charged under Section
307/34 IPC. E

Apart from tendering the formal evidence of Constable Dev Bharath,
AMHC Jai Singh, Constables Hazurn Singh and Jagtar Singh on affidavits
(as these witnesses were not required by the defence for cross- examination),
the prosecution examined seven witnesses in support of the charges, namely,
Dr. Rajiv Bhalla (PW 1), Ashok Kumar, Draftsman (PW 2), Kamail Singh
F
(PW 3), Gurmel Singh (PW 4), Kamail Singh, SHO PS Samrala (PW 5), K.S.
Bhullar, Judicial Magistrate, Sarnrala (PW 6) and Randhir Singh (PW 7).

Swaran Singh in his defence stated that he was a member of the Truck
Union and was actively helping Jagjit Singh, the co-accused who was a rival G
candidate of Shamsher Singh, the deceased in the election to the Presidentship
of the Truck Union which was to take place on 3.5.86. According to Swaran
Singh, both the deceased with the intention of scaring away the helpers of
Jagjit Singh came anned to the front of the house of Swaran Singh on 24.4.86.
When Swaran Singh reached his house in his truck at 4.00 p.m. along with
H
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A his cleaner, Satish, he found the deceased in a drunken state, shouting and
using abusive language. The deceased allegedly were also firing indiscrimi-
nately Swaran Singh claimed that he ran away leaving his licenced loaded
gun, the cartridges along with the belt and his cleaner behind in the truck.
He further stated that the cleaner, Satish received gun shots at the hands of
B the deceased. He claimed that the eye witnesses were procured.

Jagjit Singh's defence was that he had been falsely implicated because
of his rivalry with Jagjit Singh in relation to the truck union.

Amrik Singh and Mittar Pal Singh's defence was that they were not
C present at the spot at all. They examined three witnesses, namely, the Ahlmad,
the Clerk (Complaints) and the Clerk (Records) of the Deputy Commission-
er's office of Ludhiana to prove that they had moved an application before
the concerned authorities for having been falsely implicated in the case.

The Trial Court acquitted Amrik Singh and Mittar Pal Singh on the
D ground that the prosecution had not been able to establish their guilt. The
Trial Court. however, convicted Swaran Singh under Section 302 IPC for the
murder of Shamsher Singh and under Section 302/34 IPC for the murder of
Amar Singh. Jagjit Singh was convicted under Section 302 JPC for the murder
of Amar Singh and under Section 302/34 1PC for the murder of Shamsher
E Singh. Both the accused were sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a
fine of Rs.5,000 or in default to furthe~ undergo rigorous imprisonment for
one year in respect of each of the offences. The amount of fine, if recovered,
was directed to be paid to the next kin of Shamsher Singh and Amar Singh
as compensation. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

F Three appeals were preferred before the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana. The first appeal was filed by Swaran Singh against his conviction,
(Criminal Appeal No. 315/DB of 1991), the second appeal was preferred by
Jagjit Singh against his conviction, (Criminal Appeal No. 204/DB of 1991),
·and the third appeal was preferred by the State of Punjab ( Criminal Appeal
G No. 270/DB of 1992) against the acquittal of Mittar Pal Singh. The High
Court disposed of all the appeals by a common judgment dated 18th Sep-
tember 1992. The High Court dismissed the State's appeal against the
acquittal of Mittar Pal Singh but affirmed the findings of the Trial Court in
respect of Jagjit Singh and Swaran Singh. However, the sentences were
altered by setting aside the sentences of fine imposed.
H
S. SINGH ETC. ETC. v. STATE [RUMA PAL, J.] 581
Being aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, Swaran Singh and A
Jagjit Singh have preferred appeals before this Court. It is contended before
us by both the appellants that both the Courts had erred in relying on the
eye witnesses, namely, PW 3 and PW 4 as their account of the incident in
so far as it related to Mittar Pal Singh had been disbelieved by both the courts.
It is further submitted that the evidence of the eye witnesses that the deceased
B
had not drunk alcohol was belied by the Report of the FSL. It is also pointed
out that Dilbagh Singh from whom inquiries regarding purbias were allegedly
sought to be made by the deceased had not been examined as a witness. It
is further contended that the investigating officer's evidence was inconsistent
with the evidence on record. The appellants' claim that the incident in fact
had taken pla£e in front of Swaran Singh's house at 4.00 p.m. and that this c
was supported by the evidence of PW 1, both as regards the deceased as well
. as Satish, cleaner of the truck. It is further claimed that there was as such
a delay in lodging of the complaint by 5-112 hours during which time the
alleged eye witnesses had concocted the story of involvement of the accused.
It is claimed that they had no motive, nor was there any evidence led by the D
prosecution as to their motive for killing Amar Singh. Finally, as far as Jagjit
Singh is concerned, it is stated that apart from the eye witnesses' account
there was nothing to connect Jagjit Singh with the crime. It is pointed out
that the ballistic expert's report clearly showed that the cartridges recovered
from the spot could not be linked to the licensed gun of Jagjit Singh.
E
In our view, both the appellants were rightly found guilty by both the
Comts. The evidence against them is conclusive. That there was enmity
between the accused and Sharnsher Singh was admitted. Amar Singh was the
deceased's associate and had the misfortune not only to have been present
when Sharnsher Singh was killed but also to have made himself visible to F
the accused then.

Both the eye witnesses' accounts of the deceased' s involvement are not
only consistent but were corroborated by the material evidence. The site plan
proved by PW 2 showed that the truck was parked towards the right rear end ·
of the car in which the deceased was travelling. If the deceased were firing G
indiscriminately, it is hardly likely that the appellants would park the truck
• next to the car. The photographs which were tendered as Exts. P9 and PIO
show the position of Sharnsher Singh's body next to the truck on the road
on the left of the truck and Amar Singh' s body at the rear of the truck. Tue
blood stained earth which was collected from the spot where the deceased's H
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] 3 S.C.R.
A bodies were found supports the position that the deceased were killed at the
spot next to the truck and not near Swaran Singh's house as claimed by the
accused. Both the Trial Court as well as the High Court rightly rejected the
story of Swaran Singh to explain the presence at the truck at the scene of
the crime.

B
That Swaran Singh was present at the scene and was carrying a loaded
double barrel gun and a cartridge belt has been admitted by him. His defence
was that he had not fired any shots. and that the deceased in a drunken state
were the aggressors. The appellants' allegation that the deceased were drunk
does not appear to be borne out by the medical evidence. According to the
c Chemical Examiner's report (Ext. PV/ 3) the alcohol concentration found in
the viscera of the deceased (Ext. Nos. 1,2, and 4) was 74.75 i;ig/100 mis. This
does not show either that the alcohol had been consumed immediately prior
to the occurrence as was suggested to the eye witnesses nor can it be said
that the alcohol content was sufficient to make the deceased inebriated.
D
It was also correctly noted by both the Courts below that if indeed the
deceased had been shooting indiscriminately as alleged by him, there would
have been some pellets on the walls of Swaran Singh' s house. The High Court
also noticed that it was not even suggested to any of the witnesses in the
prosecution that there were pellets or pellet marks near Swaran Singh' s house.
E
The evidence of PWl and the post-mortem reports were to the effect
that the single wound on the right side of the chest of Shamsher Singh and
several wounds on Amar Singh were blackened. 'Blackening is caused by
smoke deposit. Smoke particles are light. They do not travel far. Therefore,
F smoke deposit, i.e., blackening is limited to a small range'. See Forensic
Science in Criminal Invesigation & Trials (3rd Edn.) P. 280; Fisher, Svenssoll,
and Wendel's Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation (4th Edn. p.296). The
fact that the firing was at close range supports the evidence of the eye
witnesses and runs contrary to the defence account of the incident. The situs
of the wounds found by PW 1 on the deceased also bear out the eye
G
witnesses' testimony of the incident.

As far as Swaran Singh is concerned. the gun which was handed over
by him bearing No. 8395/5391/A-7 (Ext.22) to PW 6 was tested by the
Forensic Science Laboratory at Chandigarh. The report ( Ext. P-7) showed
H that three of the cartridges collected from inside the truck and the site had
S. SINGH ETC. ETC. v. STATE [RUMA PAL, J.] 583
been fired from the right barrel of Ext.22 and another cartridge had been fired A
from the left barrel of the same gun. Both the eye witnesses said Jagjit was
driving the truck. He alighted from the driver's side of the truck viz. the right
of the truck. Amar Singh' s body was found shot at close range near the right
rear end of the truck. The wounds found on Amar Singh' s body by PW I
thus sustain the eye witnesses' version. B

No doubt, the particular empty cartridge cases found could not be
related to Jagjit Singh' s licensed gun which had been handed over to the
police by his father, three months after the incident, but there was evidence
that the gun had been fired.
c
The appellants contention that because the eye witnesses' account of
the involvement of Mittar Pal was not accepted by either of the Courts,
therefore their evidence was suspect, is a non-sequitur. Merely because one
portion of the evidence of PW 3 and PW 4 is disbelieved does not mean that
the Courts were bound to reject all of it. Besides Mittar Pal's acquittal by D
the Trial Court is unsupported by any reason. The High Court, in its turn,
held that it was unlikely that the eye witnesses would have remained on the
spot after Jagjit Singh had shot Amar Singh killing him instantaneously. The
High Court also said that "their version that Mittar Pal Singh alias Lovely
... accused had snatched the gun of his father and fired two gun shots is not
believable being highly un-natural because if Jagjit Singh accused was bold E
enough to fire first gun shot hitting the neck of Amar Singh deceased, then
there was no question of his not repeating gun shots, especially when the
medical evidence shows that the injuries on the dead body of Amar Singh
were caused with gun shOt from close range. Thus, it cannot be said that the
medical evidence corroborates the participation of Mittar Pal Singh alias F
Lovely accused in this occurrence".

It is not necessary for us to question this reasoning as no appeal has
been preferred against Mittar Pal's acquittal but in the case of the accused
the medical evidence corroborates their participation.
G
Regarding the time of the occurrence, it may be that PW I has stated
in cross-examination that both the deceased could have met their death at
..)ll about 4.00 P.M. on 24.4.86, but this does not by itself establish the fact that
the deceased were killed at 4.00 P.M. The evidence of PW 1 in-chief was
that the deaths could have been caused within 24 hours prior to the post- H
I
j

584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A mortems. Therefore, PWl's evidence is equally consistent with the case of
the prosecution that the incident took place at 7.45 P.M. PW l's evidence
regarding Satish Kumar in fact supports the prosecution's case. Satish Kumar
was examined on 24.4.1986 at 11.20 P.M. In cross-examination he said that
the injury had been caused " within six hours". This statement means that
B the injury did not take place at 4.00 P.M. Besides, if Satish Kumar had been
injured at 4.00 P.M., as claimed by the accused, there is no explanation why
he should have been admitted to the hospital at 9.20 P.M. more than five
hours later and that too by the police. The chronology of the series of
occurrences shows that the crime had taken place at about 7 .30 p.m. as
claimed by the prosecution and testified to by the eye witnesses. That being
c so, the lodgment of the F.l.R by PW 3 promptly with a detailed account of
the incident, renders improbable the possibility of the fabrication of the
involvement of the appellants.

Given these unambiguous confirmatory circumstances, we see no rea-
D son to interfere with the reliance placed by both the Courts on PWs 3 and
4's direct evidence of the part placed by the appellants in the perpetration
of the crime. On the other hand, the appellants' version of the incident has
not been substantiated at all ..
I
The fact that the deceased had gone to make inquiries about the
E employmen~ of purbias from Dilbagh Singh is peripheral to the case and the
credibility of the eye witnesses' account of the incident can in no way be
affected by Dilbagh Singh not being produced in support of the prosecution
case. In any event, as recorded by the Trial Court, "Dilbagh Singh PW had ·~
been given up as he was won over by the accused. For similar reasons, the
F P.P. for the State could not produced Dilbagh Singh' s mother". The appellants
also conte!lded that the evidence of PW 5 was discrepant. The appellants have
emphasised that PW 5 had incorrectly stated that he had not gone out of the
police station prior to recording of the FIR. He had also incorrectly stated
that he had found Satish at the scene of the crime at 11.45 p.m. and sent him
to the hospital whereas Satish had in fact already been taken to the hospital
G by some other police personnel at 9.20 p.m. None of the discrepancies are
sufficient to discard the case of the prosecution or to throw doubt on the eye
witnesses' testimony. Furthermore the trial commenced about three years after
the incident. In the meanwhile PW 5 bad been transferred in April 1987 from
Samrala. PW 5 was called to give evidence in 1990. In the circumstances it
H is not unlikely that he would not remember the details of the investigation.
S. SINGH ETC. ETC. v. STATE [D.P. WADHWA, J.] 585

These are the adverse effects of a delayed trial. This aspect has been dealt A
with at length by my Learned Brother and I am in respectful agreement with
his opinions' on the matter.

Having found no lacunae in the reasoning of the High Court either
on facts or law, we dismiss the appeals. If the accused are on bail, they
B
shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentences imposed on
them.

D.P. WADHWA, J. I agree with the judgment pronounced by my noble
and learned sister Ruma Pal, J. I however, wish to add a few lines.
c
The First Information Report was lodged within 2~ hours of the
occurrence and the case registered against four persons, namely, Shamsher
Singh, Jagjit Singh, Amrik Singh Mittarpal Singh @ Lovely. These four
accused were named in the FIR. While Shamsher Singh surrendered a day
following the lodging of the FIR, no steps were taken to apprehend other
D
named accused. The case was not only investigated by Sub-inspector Kamai}
Singh, S.H.O. of the Police Station concerned but also by Mohinder Singh,
DSP, Baldev Singh, DSP Sanjiv Gupta SP (Detective) and B.P. Tiwari, DIG
(Crime). When challan was put up, it was only against Shamsher Singh. A
criminal complaint was filed by the complainant and all the accused were
committed to stand their trial in the Court of Sessions for various offences. E
In the course of the trial, more than 50 prosecution witnesses were given
up having been won over and the case hinged on the statements of seven
witnesses which led to the conviction of Shamsher Singh and Jagjit Singh
by the trial couit, upheld by the High Court and now affirmed by this Court.
The questions that arise for consideration are as to why the Police did not F
challan the accused Jagjit Singh and why over 50 witnesses should have been
given up. It only shows that the criminal justice system is in doldrums. There
has to be honest investigation uninfluenced by any political or other pressure.

A criminal case is built on the edifice of evidence, evidence that is
admissible in law. For that witnesses are required whether it is direct evidence G
or circumstantial evidence. Here are the witness<;s who are a harassed lot. A
witness in a criminal trial may come from a far-off place to find the case
adjourned. He has to come to the court many times and at what cost to his
own self and his family is not difficult to fathom. It has become more or less
a fashion to have a criminal case adjourned again and again till the witness H
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A tires and he gives up. It is the game of unscrupulous lawyers to get
adjournments for one excuse or the other till a witness is won over or is tired.
Not only that a witness is threatened; he is abducted; he is maimed; he is

B
done away with; or even bribed. There is no protection for him. In adjourning
the matter without any valid cause a court unwittingly becomes party to
miscarriage of justice. A witness is then not treated with respect in the court.
-- '

He is pushed out from the crowded courtroom by the peon. He waits for the
whole day and then he finds that the matter adjourned. He has no place to
sit and no place even to have a glass of water. And when he does appear
in Court, he is subjected to unchecked and prolonged, examination and cross-
examination and finds himself in a hapless situation. For all these reasons and
c others a person abhors becoming a witness. It is the administration of justice
that suffers. Then appropriate diet money for a witness is a far cry. Here again
the process of harassment starts and he decides not to get the diet money at
all. High Courts have to be vigilant in these matters. Proper diet money must

D
be paid immediately to the witness (not only when he is examined but for
every adjourned hearing) and even sent to him and he should not be left to
.... -
be harassed by the subordinate staff. If the criminal justice system is to be
put on a proper pedestal, the system cannot be left in the hands of unscru-
pulous lawyers and the sluggish State machinery. Each triai should be
properly monitored. Time has come that all the courts, district courts,
subordinate courts are linked to the High Court with a computer and a proper
E
check is made on the adjournments and recording of evidence. The Bar
Council of India and the State Bar Councils must play their part and lend
their support to put the criminal system back on its trial. Perjury has also
become a way of life in the law courts. A trial judge knows that the witness
is telling a lie and is going back on his previous statement, yet he does not '
F wish to punish him or even file a complaint against him. He is required to
sign the complaint himself which deters him from filing the complaint.
Perhaps law needs amendment to clause (b) of Section 340(3) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure in this respect as the High Court can direct any officer
to file a complaint. To get rid of the evil of perjury, the court should resort
G .to the use of the provisions of law as contained in Chapter XXVI of the Code
of Criminal Procedure.

S.V.K. Appeals dismissed.

H