Holding

Both Tejinder Singh and Darshan Singh are convicted under s.304(Part I) read with s.34 IPC, with motive irrelevant and eye‑witness testimony deemed reliable.

Summary

The State of Punjab charged Tejinder Singh (A‑1) and Darshan Singh (A‑2) with murder of Jasbir Singh after a boundary dispute, alleging that both approached the victim with gandasas and assaulted him, leading to his death. The Special Court convicted A‑1 under s.302 IPC and acquitted A‑2, prompting A‑1 to appeal his conviction and the State to appeal A‑2’s acquittal. The Court held that the eye‑witness testimony of the victim’s father and mother was reliable and that lack of motive for A‑2 could not defeat the prosecution case, as motive is immaterial when the witnesses’ account sustains the charge. Considering the nature of the injuries—both blunt and sharp, on non‑vital parts—the offence was held to be culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s.304(Part I) read with s.34 IPC, not murder under s.302. Consequently, both accused were convicted under s.304(Part I) with s.34 and sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment each, the sentence being reduced due to the lapse of over eleven years since the offence.

Issues considered

The credibility of eye‑witness testimony and whether it can be disregarded for one accused on the ground of lack of motive.
Whether the offence constitutes murder under s.302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s.304(Part I) read with s.34 IPC.
Whether both accused can be convicted under s.304(Part I) read with s.34 despite the trial court’s acquittal of one.
The appropriateness of reducing the sentence due to the delay in adjudication.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 304(Part I), s. 34

Subjects

culpable homicide not amounting to murdercommon intentioneye‑witness testimonymotives.304 IPCs.34 IPCs.302 IPCspecial courtsentence reductionpost‑mortem evidence

Judgment

~
,,.
A THE STATE OF PUNJAB
v.
TEJINDER SINGH AND ANR.

AUGUST 21, 1995
·--
B [M.K. MUKHERJEE AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.)
~
Indian Penal Code, 1860:

S. 304(Part-I) read with s.34-Victim assaulted by two accused-Death
c cause~Trial by Special Court-Motive-Nature of Injuries-Conviction of
one accused u/s. 302-Acquittal of other for lack of motive and on prob-
abilities of injuries being handiwork of one person-Held, if eye witness
account sustains the prosecution case, motive pales into insignificance-
Evidence. of eye witnesses supported by medical evidence and other factors
establishing participation by both-Accused in the crime-Accused not in-
D tending to commit murder-Both convicted u/s. 304(Part-I).
~
Legal Maxims: 'Falsus in uno Falsus in omnibus'-Discussed. ".-
Accused no. 1 and 2 were charged under s.302 IPC for committing
murder of the son of PW.4 who possessed land adjoining to that A.1. The
E prosecution case was that four days prior to the incident an altercation
took place between the son of P.W. 4 and A.1 over the boundary of their
plots. On the fateful day, at about 8.45 a.m. P.W. 4, his wife (P.W.S), and
son were in their field. P.W. 4 was at the handpump when he saw A.1 and
A.2 armed with gandasasa approaching towards his son from the nearby
F plot shouting that would not spare him. Both. the accused started asS'ault-
ing the son of P.W. 4 with their gandasasa, as a result of which the latter
fell down. PWs.4 and 5 raised alarm and both the accused ran away. The
victim was taken to the hospital where be succumbed to bis injuries in the
afternoon. The investigation led to the arrest of A.l and A.2 and to their
trial before the Special Court. The trial Court convicted A.1 under s.302
G
IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. A.2 was acquitted. Ag-
grieved, A.1 filed the appeal against his conviction, where the State filed
the other appeal against acquittal of A.2.
,.../-
Dismissing the appeal of A.1 and allowing that of the State, this
H Court
856
STATE v. TF.JINDER SINGH 857

HELD : 1.1. The trial Court was right in fully relying upon the A
evidence of the two eye witnesses, PWs. 4 and 5, as against A.1 and was fully
justified in concluding that A.I. had assaulted the deceased with a gandasa
- ..' causing injuries on his person. But disregarding the evidence of P.Ws. 4
and 5 as against A.2 on the ground that he had no motive does not stand
to any reason and militates against one of the postulates of criminal trial
that if the eye-witnesses' account of an incident sustain the prosecution B
case, question of motive pales into insignificance. The finding of the trial
court that all the injuries found on the person of the deceased could be the
handiwork of one person is a speculative one. [860-H; E-F]

1.2. PWs.4 and 5 unequivocally stated that both A-1 and A-2 inflicted C
gandasa blows on the deceased, which necessarily meant that similar in-
juries would be caused thereby. Inspite of searching cross-examination the
defence could not succeed in eliciting any favourable answer so as to indi-
cate that the evidence of PWs. 4 and 5 was unworthy of credit. On the
contrary, the injuries found on the person of the deceased on post mortem
examination fit in with the evidence of the two eye witnesses. Besides, D
presence of human blood on the earth collected from the spot and on the
gandasasa seized fl,"om A.l and A.2 as disclosed by the report of chemical
examination, lends assurance to the evidence of PWs. 4 and 5.
[859-G-H; 860-A-B]
1.3. It is true that in a given case ocular version may be believed E
against one and not against others arraigned for justifiable reasons as the
maxim "Falsus in uno, Falsus in omnibus" is not appl!cable in criminal
trials but in the instant case, the reasons given by the trial Court for
disbelieving the evidence of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 so far as A-2 is concerned,
being patently wrong, he is also liable to be convicted along with A-1 for F
assaulting the deceased withgandasa resulting in his death. [860-H; 861-A]
,.
2.1. The evidence of P.W. 4 and P.W.5 and the nature of injuries
indicate that the deceased was assaulted both with the sharp edge and blunt
edge ofthegandasas. If the appellants had intended to commit murder, they G
would not have used the blunt edge when the task could have been expedited
and assured with the sharp edge. Further, except one· injury on the head, all
...... i' other injuries were on non-vital parts of the body. Post-mortem report also
shows that even the injury on the head was only muscle deep. In these
circumstances, the offence committed by the appellants is one under Sec-
tion 304 (Part I) IPC and not under Section 302 IPC. [861-B-D] H
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
~

~
A 2.2. The acquittal of A.2 and the conviction of A-1 under s.302 IPC are
set aside, and both of them are convicted under s.304 (Part-I) read with s.34
IPC. As more than 11 years having elapsed since the offence was committed,
a lesser sentence of 7 years of imprisonment is awarded. [861-E]
.. _
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
B 533 of 1985 etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.5.85 of the Special Court,
Ferozepure, in Case No. 345 of 1984.

Ms. Arnita Gupta, for R.S. Suri, for the Appellant in Crl. A No.
c 533/85 & for Respondent in Crl A. No. 481/85.
M.S. Gujral, Kuldip Singh and P.N. Puri for the Respondent in Crl.
A. No. 533/85 & for theAppellants in Crl. A. No. 481/85.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
M.K. MUKHERJEE, J. Tejinder Singh and Darshan Singh
(hereinafter referred to as A-1 and A-2 respectively) were tried by the {.
Judge, Special Court, Ferozepore for the murder of Jasbir Singh. The trial .:.r
ended in the conviction of A-1 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
('IPC' for short) with a sentence of imprisonment for life and the acquittal
E
of A-2. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence A-1 has filed one of these
two appeals (Criminal Appeal No. 481 of 1985) while the other one
(Criminal Appeal No. 533 of 1985) has been filed by the State of Punjab
against the acquittal of A-2 and for enhanceinent of sentence imposed
upon A-1. Both the appeals have been heard together and this judgment
F will dispose of them. Shorn of details the prosecution case is as under : '{

A-1 and Jagjit Singh (PW-4), father of the deceased, own and possess
adjoining plots of cultivable lands. Four days prior to the incident in
question, an altercation took place between the deceased and A-1 over the
watt (boundary line) of their respective plots. On July 19, 1984, at or about
G 6.45 A.M. the deceased accompanied by his father had gone to cultivate
their plot. Daljit Kaur, wife of the deceased also reached there at or about
8.30 A.M. carrying breakfast for her husband and son. On seeing Daljit
"r ,..-
Kaur (P.W. 4) coming P.W. 4 went to the hand-pump to bring water in a
pitcher when he saw A-1 and A-2 coming from the side of the nearby field
H armed with gandasas, shouting that Jasbir Singh would not be spared.
... STATE v. TEJINDER SINGH [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.] 859
....

Immediately thereupon both of them started assaulting Jasbir Singh with A
their respective gandasas as a result whereof Jasbir Singh fell down. On
alarms being raised by PW 4 and PW 5 both the accused ran away. Jasbir
Singh was then put in a trolley and taken to hospital at Raman. Dr. Mittal
(PW-1), the Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Raman, found the
condition of J asbir Singh serious and, therefore, referred him to Civil
B
Hospital, Bhatinda and simultaneously sent a written information to Station
House officer, of Raman police Station. Accordingly Jasbir Singh was
taken to the Bhatinda hospital, where he expired in the afternoon.

In the meantimes ASI Harbhajan Singh (PW-6) had reached the
hospital at Raman on receipt of the written information from the doctor. c
As Jasbir Singh was not in a position to make a statement he recorded the
statement of J agjit Singh (Ex.P9) and sent it to police station for registra-
tion of the case. While in the hospital he also recorded the statement of
Daljit Kaur and then left for the spot. He prepared a rough site plan,
collected some blood stained earth from the spot and after preparing a
sealed parcel made arrangement to forward the same for chemical ex-
D
amination. From there he went to Civil Hospital, Bhatinda only to learn
II( that Jasbir Singh had already expired. He then prepared inquest report
upon his dead body and sent it for post-mortem examination. Thereafter
the investigation of the case was taken by Inspector Rattan Singh (PW 8).
During the course of investigation he arrested A-1 and A-2 on July 22, 1984 E
and seized from their possession two blood stained gandasas. He made two
separate parcels in respect of the gandasas, sealed them and forwarded to
the Chemical Examiner for examination and report. On completion of
investigation, he submitted charge sheet against both the accused and in
• due course the case was committed to the Special court for trial.
F
Both the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against
them and contended that they had been falsely implicated. A-1, however,
admitted that their field and that of Jasbir Singh adjoined but denied that
there was any altercation over its boundary.
G
,, Jagjit Singh (PW 4) and Daljit Kaur (PW 5), who were the two eye
witnesses produced by the prosecution to prove its case, narrated the
prosecution case as detailed earlier. On a careful perusal of their evidence
we find that inspite of searching cross- examination the defence could not
succeed in eliciting any favourable answer so as to persuade us to hold that H
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. ,#--..

t'
A their evidence was unworthy of credit. On the contrary, we find that the
injuries found on the person of the deceased on post-mortem examination
by Dr. Subhash Chander (PW 3) fit in with the evidence of the two eye
. witnesses. Besides, the presence of human blood on the earth collected
from the spot and on the gandasa seized from A-1 & A-2 as disclosed by
the report of chemical examination (Ext. P-15) lends assurance to the
B evidence of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5. The trial Judge was there fore fully justified
in concluding that the prosecution had succeeded in proving that Tajinder
Singh had assaulted with a gandasa causing injuries on his person.

The next question that falls for our determination is whether the trial
c Court was justified in recording the impugned order of acquittal in favour
of A-2 on the basis of the following findings:

"However, a look at the injuries would show that the same could
be the handiwork of one person. The fact that the prosecution has
not been able to bring motivat1.ng force which might have com-
D
pelled Darshan Singh accused to join the crime or that Darshan
Singh accused was friendly with Tejinder Singh accused makes the <
case of the prosecution against Darshan Singh accused doubtful.
Giving "the benefit of doubt I would acquit Darshan Singh accused."
..,..
.

E In our considered view neither of the above findings can be sus-
tained. So far as the first finding is concerned P.W.4 and P.W. 5 unequivo-
cally stated that both A-1 and A-2 inflicted gandasa blows on .the deceased,
which necessarily meant that similar injuries would be caused thereby.
Considered in that perspective the finding of the trial Court that all the
F injuries found on the person of the deceased could be the handiwork of
one person must be held to be a speculative one. The other finding that
A-2 had no motive to commit the crime militates against one of the
postulates of criminal trial that if the eye-witnesses account of an incident
sustains the prosecution case, question of motive pales into insignificance.
In the instant case the learned trial Judge has fully relied upon the evidence
G of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 - and in our view rightly - as against A-1 and,
therefore, to disregard their evidence as against A-2 on the ground that he
had no motive does not stand to any reason. It is undoubtedly true that in
a given case ocular version may be believed against one and not against
,... -
others arraigned for just~fiable reasons as the maxim "Falsus in uno, Falsus
H in omnibus" is not applicable in criminal trials, but then as in the instant
"'(.
STATE v. TEJINDER SINGH [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.] 861
y
case the reasons given by the trial Court for disbelieving the evidence of A
P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 so far as A-2 is concerned are patently wrong he is also
liable to be convicted along with A-1 for assaulting Jasbir Singh (the
deceased) with gandasa resulting in his death.
...... \

In view of our above findings we have now to ascertain whether for
acts A-1 and A-2 are liable to be convicted under Section 302 read with B
Section 34 IPC. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 that
the deceased was assaulted both with the sharp edge and blunt edge of the
._ gandasas and the nature of injuries al,so so indicates. If really the appel-
lants had intended to commit murder, they would not have certainly used
the blunt edge when the task could have been expedited and assured with c
the sharp edge. Then against we find that except one injury on the head,
all other injuries were on non-vital parts of the body. Post-mortem report
further shows that even the injury on the head was only muscle deep.
Taking these facts into consideration we are of the opinion that the offence
committed by the appellants is one under Section 304 (Part I) IPC and not
under Section 302 IPC. D

For the foregoing discussion we set aside the acquittal of Darshan
,,,. , Singh (A-2) and the conviction of Tejinder Singh (A-1) under Section 302
IPC and convict both of them under Section 304 (Part I) read with Section
34 IPC. Having regard to the fact that since the offence was committed
E
more than 11 years have elapsed we feel inclined to pass a lesser sentence
than they would have normally deserved. Accordingly, we sentence each of
them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.

Both the criminal appeals are allowed to the extent indicate above.,
Darshan Singh (A-2) should be now taken into custody to serve out the F
f
sentence imposed by us and Tejinder Singh (A-1) who is on bail will now

... surrender to his bail bond to serve out the sentence as modified by us .

R.P. Appeal dismissed.