AMAR SINGHversusTHE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

                        [2020] 8 S.C.R. 751                            751


                          AMAR SINGH                                   A
                                 v.
                  THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 2015)
                       OCTOBER 12, 2020                                B
       [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
             AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
       Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w. s. 34 – Murder – Prosecution
case is that when the victim/deceased along with his two brothers,
                                                                       C
PW-1 and PW-11 was moving on foot towards a taxi stand at about
10.00 pm. – Three accused persons attacked the victim with hockeys
and a knife – When PW-1 and PW-11 tried to rescue their brother,
all the three accused persons brandished their hockeys and knife
and warned that whosoever will come to save victim will also be
killed – Later, victim was taken to hospital and he was declared       D
dead by the doctor – The trial Court convicted the accused persons
u/s.302 IPC r/w. s.34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment
– Before the High Court, inter-alia, it was contended that the
prosecution case was based on eye witness on account of the
incident, however, PW-11 and PW-5 did not support the prosecution
                                                                       E
case and thus it was not safe to rely upon the solitary evidence of
the sole remaining eye witness PW-1 – However, the High Court
found that the trial Court did not suffer from any infirmity or
perversity and dismissed the appeal – On appeal, held: PW-11 and
PW-5 turned hostile – The finding of guilt of the accused appellants
is based on sole testimony of eye witness PW-1 – The assailants        F
were only armed with hockey sticks and a knife and not with any
firearms – The two brothers (PW-1 and PW-11) present on the spot
did not make slightest attempt to intervene and save their brother
when he was getting assaulted – This unnatural conduct against
natural human behaviour casts a serious doubt of shadow on the
                                                                       G
presence of eye witness on the spot at the time of occurrence –
Further, doctor who prepared the MLC stated in his evidence that
one dead body was brought in the casualty of hospital by a head
constable, which casts doubts on the prosecution story that two
brothers of deceased accompanied him to the hospital – Also, there
is material discrepancy between ocular testimony and medical           H
                                751
752            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2020] 8 S.C.R.


A     evidence – As there were 15 injuries inflicted on the victim as per
      medical report and PW-1 stated that whole incident lasted 5 minutes
      – It is practically impossible to inflict 15 injuries within a short
      span of 5 minutes – This fact coupled with the fact that two
      brothers remained mute spectators when the third brother-victim was
      being assaulted in clear indication that PW-1 was not present on
B
      the spot and not an eye-witness to the incident – Therefore, the
      reasons given by the Courts below for convicting the appellants
      for the alleged offences are not convincing – The appellants must
      be given benefit of doubt – Thus, the impugned orders of the Courts
      below are set aside.
C           Allowing the appeals, the Court
            HELD:1. The assailants were only armed with hockey
      sticks and a knife and not with any firearms. It seems very
      unnatural that two brothers present on the spot will not even
      make slightest attempt to intervene and try to save the other
D     brother being assaulted, merely on the threat extended by the
      assailants armed with hockey sticks and a knife. This unnatural
      conduct totally against natural human behaviour casts a serious
      doubt of shadow on the presence of eye witness on the spot at
      the time of occurrence. Moreover, the facts stated by PW-1 in
E     this regard, as already discussed above, has not been
      corroborated by the other brother PW-11. [Para 20][761-E-F]
             2. The other unnatural conduct of two brothers PW-1 and
      PW-11 just after the incident again makes their presence on the
      spot extremely doubtful. There was a medical clinic just nearby
F     the place of incident and the first endeavour of the two brothers
      would have been to take injured brother to the clinic for
      immediate medical aid or try and get some medical aid from the
      clinic. Admittedly, according to the statement of PW-1 PCR Van
      arrived after about 15 minutes. During this period no effort was
      made to either take the injured brother to the clinic or to call
G     the doctor for some first aid. This is totally against normal human
      behaviour. [Para 21][761-G-H; 762-A-B]
          3. According to the prosecution story the two brothers,
      PW-1 and PW-11 accompanied the injured to the Hospital in the
      PCR Van and were present during his medical examination.
H
        AMAR SINGH v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                        753


However, a perusal of the MLC Ex. PW-17/A filed in Volume-            A
II of additional document goes to show that in the column meant
for recording name initially unknown is mentioned and
subsequently name of the victim has been recorded. Likewise
in the column made for recording the name of relative or friend
initially the name of a Head Constable is entered and after
                                                                      B
recording the words ‘V/C’ V-89 PCR No. 1008/PCR in the
second line words ‘and brothers’ appears to have been added.
[Para 23][762-E-F]
      4. This in itself casts serious doubts of shadow on the
prosecution story that two brothers of the deceased, PW-1 and
PW-11 were present on the spot and accompanied the injured            C
in PCR Van to AIIMS. Had it been so, naturally, they would have
given the name of the deceased and their own names which
would have been recorded in the MLC Ex. PW-17/A at the first
instance. Doctor-PW-17/A who prepared the MLC stated in his
evidence that one dead body was brought in the casualty of            D
AIIMS by Head Constable having multiple sharp deep injuries
all over the body and he prepared the MLC PW-17/A. [Para
24][762-G-H; 763-A]
       5. Further, there is material discrepancy between ocular
testimony and medical evidence. Thus, there are total 15 injuries     E
inflicted by three assailants, two having hockey sticks and one
knife as per prosecution story. PW-1 emphatically stated that
whole incident barely lasted five minutes. It would be practically
impossible to inflict 15 injuries of the type by three assailants
simultaneously attacking the deceased within a short span of 5
minutes particularly when the victim being a normal healthy           F
person naturally must have offered resistance. Inflicting 15
injuries on the body of the deceased by three accused persons
would require a considerable amount of time. This itself suggests
that the three accused had sufficient time at their disposal to
conduct the crime and the entire incident could not have taken        G
place within five minutes as stated by eye witness PW-1. This
fact coupled with the fact that two brothers of the deceased
remained mute spectators when the third brother was being
assaulted is clear indication of the fact that PW-1 was not present
on the spot and not an eye witness of the incident. [Paras 26
and 27][763-C; 765-B-E]                                               H
754              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2020] 8 S.C.R.


A             Kartarey and Ors. v. State of U.P. (1976) 1 SCC 172
              : [1976] 2 SCR 199 ; Ishwar Singh v. State of U.P.
              (1976) 4 SCC 355 – relied on.
              Sunil Kumar v. State Government of NCT of Delhi
              (2003) 11 SCC 367 : [2003] 4 Suppl. SCR 767 ;
B             Selvaraj v. The State of Tamil Nadu (1976) 4 SCC 343
              – referred to.
                           CASE LAW REFERENCE
      [2003] 4 Suppl. SCR 767              referred to            Para 16

C     [1976] 2 SCR 199                     relied on              Para 30
      (1976) 4 SCC 355                     relied on              Para 31
      (1976) 4 SCC 343                     referred to            Para 32
            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
      No. 335 of 2015.
D
            From the Judgment and Order dated 09.05.2014 of the High
      Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. Appeal No. 544/1998.
              With
              Criminal Appeal No. 336 of 2015.
E
            Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Dushyant Dave, Sr.Adv., Nikhil Goel,
      Ms. Naveen Goel, Dushyant Sarna, Vinay Mathew, Rishi Malhotra,
      Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Sachin Sharma, S.K.Tyagi for B. V. Balaram
      Das, V.K.Malik, Rahul Raj Malik, Aftab Ali Khan, Advs. for the
      appearing parties.
F
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
              KRISHNA MURARI, J.
            1. These two appeals are directed against the impugned judgment
      and order dated 09.05.2014 passed by the High Court1 dismissing the
G     criminal appeal filed by the appellants challenging the order of conviction
      against them whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 302
      IPC r/w Section 34 IPC. One of the accused–appellant, Inderjeet Singh,
      was also held guilty and convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act
      and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of
      1
H         High Court of Delhi
         AMAR SINGH v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                             755
                 [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

Rs.5000/- each, in default of payment to undergo Simple Imprisonment        A
for 3 months. Accused–appellant, Inderjeet Singh, was also sentenced
to Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under Section 27 of the Arms
Act and this sentence was to run concurrently with the sentence already
awarded to him under Section 302 IPC.
       2. In brief the prosecution case is that on 03.08.1990, on receipt   B
of DD No. 18-A, SI Joginder Singh along with SI Gian Singh, Constable
Jai Singh and Constable Narender Pal reached Sukhdev Market on the
street which goes to Qumayun Restaurant, where near House No. H-
801 a crowd was gathered and they came to know that injured had
been removed to AIIMS in a PCR vehicle. Leaving Constable
Narender Pal at the spot, SI Joginder Singh along with other police         C
officials reached AIIMS, where he came to know that injured Devinder
Singh @ Ladi was declared as ‘brought dead’. Two brothers of the
deceased, namely, Parminder Singh and Amar Singh, were found
present in the hospital. Parminder Singh gave his statement to SI
Joginder Singh to the effect that he has six brothers and his three         D
brothers, namely, Harinder Singh, Ravinder Singh and Rajinder Singh
reside with his mother Smt. Prakash Wati at House No.826/5, Arjun
Nagar. His eldest brother Amar Singh resides at House No.15/88, Geeta
Colony along with his family and he along with his family resides at
53/F, D-12 Area, Sector 4, Bangla Sahib Marg, New Delhi. His sister
Saroj resides at 98-A Baba Kharak Singh Marg along with her family.         E
About three years ago, one person namely Khazan Singh had been
murdered and his brother Devinder Singh @ Ladi had been arrested
for his murder and a case for murder was pending against him. He
was released on interim bail from the Court and used to reside with
his sister Saroj. On 3.8.1990 Devinder Singh @ Ladi came to the house       F
of his mother and his other brother Amar Singh also reached there and
they had their meals together. At about 10:00 PM, Parminder Singh along
with his brothers, Devinder Singh@ Ladi and Amar Singh left the house
for going to their respective houses. They were moving on foot towards
taxi stand situate in Sukhdev Market. He and Amar Singh were about
ten paces ahead of Devinder Singh @ Ladi . At about 10:10 PM, when          G
they reached near the corner of Sukhdev Market, they heard Devinder
Singh @ Ladi raising an alarm ‘Bachao-Bachao’ and on turning back,
they saw that Amar Singh, S/o Likhi Chand and Shiv Charan, S/o Pooran
Chand were giving hockey blows and one Inder Singh, S/o Khazan
Singh was giving knife blows to Devinder Singh @ Ladi. His brother          H
756            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2020] 8 S.C.R.


A     Devinder Singh@ Ladi fell on the ground and Inderjeet Singh gave him
      many knife blows. When they tried to rescue their brother, all the above
      three accused persons brandished their knife and hockeys and warned
      that whosoever will come to save Devinder Singh, they will also kill
      him. Thereafter all of them ran towards Bhisham Pitamah Marg, his
      brother Devinder Singh became unconscious. Many persons including
B
      Sujan Singh, S/o Ram Singh assembled there. After sometime, PCR
      van came and removed Devinder Singh to AIIMS, where he was
      declared dead by the Doctor.
            3. On this statement, a case was got registered and investigation
      was conducted by Inspector Richpal Singh. During investigation,
C     Inspector got the spot photographed, prepared site plan, seized one
      broken piece of hockey, one pair of dirty white shoes, one steel strip,
      sample blood, blood stained earth, sample earth from the spot. Inspector
      also seized the blood stained clothes of Amar Singh and Parminder
      Singh, got conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased,
D     recorded the statement of witnesses and collected the post mortem
      report. Inspector arrested the accused persons and recorded the
      disclosure statement of accused Inderjeet Singh @ Inder, who got
      recovered the knife, which was used to commit the murder. Inspector
      also recorded the disclosure statements of accused Amar Singh and
      Shiv Charan, who got recovered the hockeys, used in commission of
E     offence. The recovered items were sealed separately in pulandas and
      were sent to CFSL. After completion of investigation, challan under
      Section 302/506/34 IPC was filed in the Court of concerned
      Metropolitan Magistrate, who committed this case to the Court of
      Sessions. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge
F     framed against them and claimed trial. Accused Inderjeet Singh was
      separately charged for an offence under Section 25 and 27 of Arms
      Act.
            4. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution had examined
      27 witnesses in all. All the incriminating evidence was put to the
G     accused persons while recording their statements under Section 313
      Cr.P.C., wherein they totally denied the case of the prosecution.
            5. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution
      had brought home the guilt of the accused persons and accordingly
      convicted them for murder punishable under Section 302 IPC r/w
H     Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to Life Imprisonment. Aggrieved
         AMAR SINGH v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                              757
                 [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

by the same, the accused appellants filed an appeal before the High          A
Court. However, during the pendency of the appeal before the High
Court, appellant Shiv Charan, expired on 12 th April, 2008 and
accordingly the proceedings against him were abated.
        6. The case set up by the appellants before the High Court was
that there was unexplained delay not only in the lodging of the First        B
Information Report but also in despatching a copy of the same to the
jurisdictional magistrate. In the absence of any cogent and acceptable
explanation for the delay, the prosecution case was rendered doubtful.
It was further contended that although prosecution case is alleged to
be based on eye witness on account of the incident, however, Amar
Singh PW-11, and PW-5, did not support the prosecution case and thus         C
it was not safe to rely upon the solitary evidence of the sole remaining
eye witness Parminder Singh PW-1. It was further pleaded that the
conduct of Parminder Singh PW-1 is highly unnatural which makes his
presence on the spot at the time of the incident doubtful. It was pointed
out that no effort was made to take his injured brother to the clinic of     D
Doctor Bhardwaj, which was just nearby. Amar Singh PW-11, who was
declared hostile stated in his evidence that there was darkness at the
time of the incident and nobody recognised the accused persons who
have been falsely implicated. It was also contended that another eye
witness Sujan Singh PW-5 has also not supported the prosecution case
at all. The defence also drew the attention of the Court to MLC of the       E
deceased Ex. PW-17/A to show that first the name of the injured was
written as unknown and thereafter the name of Devinder Singh has
been written by overwriting and in the column maintained for recording
the name and relation of who brought the injured, name of Head
Constable, Dharam Singh PCR is mentioned and again later on                  F
‘brothers’ has been added. It was also submitted that the solitary eye
witness is a close relation of a deceased and thus it is not safe to rely
upon his sole testimony which is not corroborated.
      7. It was further submitted that father of the appellant Inderjeet
Singh was murdered and deceased Devinder Singh was facing trial for          G
the murder and was out on bail and since the victim was accused of
murdering the father of the appellant, the brothers of the deceased victim
had clear motive to falsely implicate the appellants in this case.
       8. Arrest of the accused persons and subsequent recovery at
their instance was also challenged on the ground that there is no            H
758            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 8 S.C.R.


A     independent witness to the recovery and police officials are giving
      different versions. The defence also pointed out that the knife which
      was recovered had a blunt tip, as such, the injuries as mentioned in the
      post mortem report were not possible to be caused by the said knife.
      Even, this knife was not shown to the doctor to seek his opinion whether
      injuries were possible by the said blunt knife or not. Recovery of hockey
B
      at the instance of the appellant was not even believed by the Trial
      Court.
             9. However, the High Court finding that the impugned judgment
      does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity which calls for
      interference, dismissed the appeal.
C
            10. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned
      counsel for the State-Respondent and learned counsel for the
      respondent.
            11. Shri Dushyant Dave, Learned Senior Counsel for the
D     appellants submitted that the entire incident appears to be inherently
      improbable. It is also pointed out that conduct of PW-1 alleged eye
      witness either at the time of the incident or immediately thereafter is
      not natural and does not inspire confidence which makes his presence
      on the spot extremely doubtful. The other two eye witnesses have
      turned hostile and nothing could be elicited from their cross-examination
E     by the prosecution. It was further submitted that the conviction and
      sentence of the appellants based upon the sole testimony of one eye
      witness, whose conduct was unnatural and inconsistent with the ordinary
      course of human nature making his presence at the site of incident
      extremely doubtful, is highly unsafe without corroboration from other
F     piece of evidence.
             12. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for
      the State vehemently contended that two Courts have recorded
      concurrent finding of guilt of the accused appellants based on the
      testimony of an eye witness which they found to be reliable and there
G     exists no legal impediment for conviction on the basis of the same. She
      further submitted that evidence of a hostile witness is not to be
      discarded as a whole and relevant parts thereof which are admissible
      in law can be relied upon by the prosecution. She further submitted
      that the conviction cannot be assailed merely because of some lacuna
      in investigation and any failure or omission of the investigating officer
H     cannot render the prosecution case doubtful or unworthy of belief, in a
         AMAR SINGH v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                             759
                 [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

case where the prosecution case is fully established by direct testimony    A
of eye witness duly corroborated by medical evidence.
      13. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully
perused the record.
       14. The prosecution apart from other formal witnesses produced
three eye witnesses in support of its version, namely, Parminder Singh      B
PW-1, Amar Singh PW-11, the two brothers of the deceased and Sujan
Singh PW-5. PW-11 and PW-5 turned hostile. PW-11 was cross-
examined by the prosecution. He simply denied having seen the accused
persons giving blows to his brother. He also denied having stated to
the police that he saw accused appellant Inderjeet Singh inflicting knife   C
blows. He also denied having stated to the police that he ran to rescue
his brother. He also stated that he was not able to see the faces of the
culprits because of the darkness and thus cannot say, if, the accused
persons are the same person, who killed his brother. This alleged eye
witness specifically denied having told the police that the three accused
had murdered his brother and he had identified them as culprits.            D

       15. Similarly, the other eye witness PW-5 produced by the
prosecution denied having seen two boys armed with hockey sticks and
one boy holding knife attacking another boy. He also denied having
identified the three accused. He stated that while he was passing outside
the house of Doctor Bhardwaj there were 4-5 persons standing there          E
and it was from them he came to know that person outside the house
of Doctor Bhardwaj was dead. This eye witness also denied having
seen the incident. He was cross-examined by the prosecution but nothing
could be elicited therefrom.
       16. Thus the finding of guilt of the two accused appellants          F
recorded by the two Courts below is based on sole testimony of eye
witness PW-1. As a general rule the Court can and may act on the
testimony of single eye witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is
no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a
single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act,       G
1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony Courts will insist on
corroboration. It is not the number, the quantity but quality that is
material. The time honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed
and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of
the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth,
                                                                            H
760             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2020] 8 S.C.R.


A     is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise (see Sunil Kumar V/
      s State Government of NCT of Delhi)2.
             17. This case primarily hinges on the testimony of sole eye
      witness, Parminder Singh PW-1, brother of the deceased. As already
      discussed above conviction can be based on the testimony of a single
B     eye witness so long he is found to be wholly reliable. In the light of the
      settled legal principles we proceed to examine the testimony of
      Parminder Singh PW-1 and also his conduct at the time of the incident.
             18. According to his own testimony on the fateful night at about
      10:00 PM, the three brothers (Parminder Singh PW-1, Amar Singh
C     PW-11 and deceased Devinder Singh @ Ladi) left the Mother’s house
      for their respective houses. Parminder Singh and Amar Singh were
      walking a few paces ahead of Devinder Singh @ Ladi when they heard
      him shouting ‘Bachao-Bachao’ when they turned around they found
      three persons attacking their brother Devinder Singh @ Ladi. Accused
      Inderjeet Singh was armed with a knife while accused Amar Singh and
D     Shiv Charan were armed with hockey sticks. He further stated that he
      recognised all the three accused from before and when they try to
      intervene all the three persons aimed their weapons at them and
      threatened to kill. Due to assault Devinder Singh @ Ladi fell down on
      the ground and became unconscious and thereafter the accused persons
      fled from the place. He also stated that while they were taking care of
E
      the injured brother the police van arrived at the spot in which Devinder
      Singh @ Ladi was removed to the Hospital where he was declared
      brought dead. During the cross-examination he stated that entire
      incident barely lasted five minutes and they did not make any complaint
      to the police but the police came of its own after about 15 minutes of
F     the incident. He had also admitted in the cross-examination that he did
      not inform his mother though she was living nearby. He also stated that
      he and his brother Amar Singh went to the Hospital with injured
      Devinder Singh @ Ladi in the PCR van. He also stated that he informed
      the Doctor who examined Devinder Singh @ Ladi as to the manner in
      which he sustained injuries. He also stated that Devinder Singh @ Ladi
G     sustained injury on his head on account of hockey blows however he
      did not bleed from his head.
            19. The unnatural conduct of Parminder Singh PW-1 and Amar
      Singh PW-11 the two brothers of the deceased which we have noticed
      2
H         (2003) 11 SCC 367
         AMAR SINGH v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                               761
                 [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

from record is that though they claim to be present at the time of            A
occurrence no attempt was made by them to save their brother from
assault. Though PW-1 has tried to explain in his examination in chief
that when they tried to intervene and save their brother Devinder Singh
@Ladi all the three accused persons aimed their weapons at them and
threatened that in case they intervened they would also be killed. It
                                                                              B
may be relevant to notice that Amar Singh PW-11 neither in statement
in chief nor in his cross-examination by the prosecution after being
declared hostile stated about any efforts made either by him or by PW-
1 Parminder Singh to save their brother Devinder Singh @ Ladi when
he was attacked. On the contrary PW-11 stated in his examination in
chief that he was not able to run because of his spinal injury. In the        C
cross-examination he categorically stated that he never told the police
that when they tried to rescue Accused Inderjeet Singh brandished the
knife and accused Amar Singh and Shiv Charan brandished hockey
towards them threatening to kill anyone who comes to rescue Devinder
Singh @ Ladi. He also denied in the cross-examination having ever
                                                                              D
being given any statement to the police that he had identified the culprits
or accused Inderjeet Singh has stabbed with knife and accused Amar
Singh gave hockey blows and the front portion of the hockey had broken
because of assault and the 3rd accused Shiv Charan also gave hockey
blows.
       20. The assailants were only armed with hockey sticks and a            E
knife and not with any fire arms. It seems very unnatural that two
brothers present on the spot will not even make slightest attempt to
intervene and try to save the other brother being assaulted, merely on
the threat extended by the assailants armed with hockey sticks and a
knife. This unnatural conduct totally against natural human behaviour         F
casts a serious doubt of shadow on the presence of eye witness on
the spot at the time of occurrence. Moreover the facts stated by
PW-1 Parminder Singh in this regard, as already discussed above, has
not been corroborated by the other brother Amar Singh PW-11.
      21. The other unnatural conduct of two brothers PW-1 and PW-            G
11 just after the incident again makes their presence on the spot
extremely doubtful. There was a medical clinic of Doctor Bhardwaj
just nearby the place of incident and the first endeavour of the two
brothers would have been to take injured brother to the clinic for
immediate medical aid or try and get some medical aid from the clinic
                                                                              H
762             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 8 S.C.R.


A     of Doctor Bhardwaj. Admittedly, according to the statement of
      Parminder Singh PW-1 PCR Van arrived after about 15 minutes. During
      this period no effort was made to either take the injured brother to the
      clinic or to call Doctor Bhardwaj for some first aid. This is totally against
      normal human behaviour.
B            22. Further no effort is alleged to have been made to either shift
      the injured to any hospital or even inform the police. It is highly unnatural
      that two real brothers made no efforts to save the life of third brother
      who was severely injured if they were present at the place of the
      incident. The PCR van is stated to have arrived after 15 minutes on
      the basis of information given by some unknown person regarding a
C     person lying injured in front of Qumayun Hotel. PW-20 lady constable
      Renu in her evidence stated that on the fateful night she was posted at
      PCR Van when at about 10:27 PM an unknown person made a call to
      inform that one man was lying unconscious near Qumayun Hotel,
      Defence Colony which was registered as DD No.-493. It was on the
D     information given by an unknown, the PCR Van reached at the site of
      the incident and shifted the injured to AIIMS where he was declared
      brought dead.
             23. According to the prosecution story the two brothers, namely,
      Parminder Singh PW-1 and Amar Singh PW-11 accompanied the injured
E     to the Hospital in the PCR Van and were present during his medical
      examination. However, a perusal of the MLC Ex. PW-17/A filed in
      Volume-II of additional document goes to show that in the column meant
      for recording name initially unknown is mentioned and subsequently
      Devinder Singh @ ladi has been recorded. Likewise in the column made
      for recording the name of relative or friend initially Head Constable
F     ‘Dharam Singh’ is entered and after recording the words ‘V/C’ V-89
      PCR No. 1008/PCR in the second line words ‘and brothers’ appears
      to have been added.
            24. This in itself casts serious doubts of shadow on the
      prosecution story that two brothers of the deceased, namely, Parminder
G     Singh PW-1 and Amar Singh PW-11 were present on the spot and
      accompanied the injured in PCR Van to AIIMS. Had it been so,
      naturally, they would have given the name of the deceased and their
      own names which would have been recorded in the MLC Ex. PW-17/
      A at the first instance. Doctor Romesh Lal PW-17/A who prepared
H     the MLC stated in his evidence that one dead body was brought in the
         AMAR SINGH v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                           763
                 [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

casualty of AIIMS by Head Constable Dharam Singh having multiple          A
sharp deep injuries all over the body and he prepared the MLC PW-
17/A.
       25. The facts discussed hereinabove makes the presence of eye
witness at the place of occurrence all the more doubtful and highly
improbable. Since there are serious doubtful aspects in the conduct of    B
PW-1 Parminder Singh and his conduct does not appear to be natural
it would not be safe to accept his evidence without corroboration more
particularly when two other eye witnesses, one being a real brother of
the deceased has turned hostile.
      26. Further, there is material discrepancy between ocular           C
testimony and medical evidence. Post-Mortem on the dead body of the
deceased Devinder Singh @ ladi was conducted by Doctor M. S. Sagar
PW-21. On external examination following anti mortem injuries were
noticed:-
            1. Multiple contusions and abraded contusions over both       D
               forearms, both arms and dorsum of both hands.
            2. CLW on right periauricular region of size 3 cm x 2 cm
               x 0.5 cm.
            3. Contusions right mandibular region extending to neck of
               size 6 cm x 3 cm.                                          E
            4. Incised wound on the right side of forehead 1 cm below
               hairline ofsize 1.5 x 1 cm superficial.
            5. Incised wound left upper limb vertically placed of size
               1.5 x 1 cm xmuscle deep with clean cut inverted
                                                                          F
               margins.
            6. Incised wound left knee of size 5 cm x .5 cm x bone
               deep with cleancut inverted margins.
            7. Incised wound left forearm round elbow of size 1 cm x
               1 cm marginsclean cut and everted.                         G
            8. Incised wound left forearm placed 6 cm below elbow
               joint of size 2.5x lx bone deep, with clean cut inverted
               margins, with cutimpressions present on the
               olecraenon.
                                                                          H
764   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2020] 8 S.C.R.


A       9. Incised wound left forearm anterio-medical aspect
           placed 5 cmbelow cubital fossa of size 1.5cm x 1cm x
           muscle deep with clean cut inverted margins underline
           subcutaneous tissue and muscle clean cut.
       10. Incised wound right side of abdomen placed 10 cm
B          below coastalmargins in mid axillary plane 3 cm x 1 cm
           into muscle deep obliquely placed, margins clean cut, not
           penetrating the abdominal cavity.
       11. Stab wound right side of chest anterior axillary plane
           obliquelyplaced of size 3.5 cm x 1 cm, 22 cm below
C          cavicular with clean cut everted margins passing
           through 7th intercoastal plane entering into left lower lobe
           of lung going into pericardium with presence of hemo-
           pericardium and incised wound left pentricle around apex
           of size 2 cm x 1.5 cm x whole thickness of ventricle.
D      12. Stab wound of size 4 cm x 1 cm x skin deep placed
           transversely 8 cm below injury no. 11.
       13. Incised wound 1 cm x 1 cm with clean cut inverted
           margins placed 2cm lateral and 1.5 cm below injury no.
           12.
E      14. Stab wound left side of abdomen in posterior axillary
           line placed 25 cm below clavicular margins of size 4 cm
           x 1 cm going into abdominal cavity producing multiple
           incised wound of small and large intestines.
       15. Incised wound of size 4 cm x 1.5 cm in left side of
F          abdomen 6 cmbelow and 2 cm medial to injury no. 14.
           Internal examination of the deceased revealed:-
           There were homo-thorax on left side with about 500 cc
           of blood beingpresent. There was stab wound of left
           lung lower lobe of size 3 cm x 1.5 cm x 4 cm. Hemo-
G          cardium was also present with 400 cc of blood and blood
           clots. There was stab wound of heart over apex of size
           2.5 cm x 1cm x whole thickness of left ventricular wall
           with cutting of cordae- tendenae. In the abdominal
           cavity, there was hemo-periteneum about 400 cc of blood
H          and blood clots with multiple incised wound of small and
           large intestines.
          AMAR SINGH v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                                 765
                  [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

                 It was opined that cause of death was shock as a result         A
                 of multipleantemortem injuries produced by sharp edged
                 weapon.
                 Injury no.11 and 14 are sufficient to cause death in the
                 ordinary courseof nature individually as well as
                 collectively.                                                   B
       27. Thus, there are total 15 injuries inflicted by three assailants,
two having hockey sticks and one knife as per prosecution story.
Parminder Singh PW-1 emphatically stated that whole incident barely
lasted five minutes. It would be practically impossible to inflict 15 injuries
of the type by three assailants simultaneously attacking the deceased            C
within a short span of 5 minutes particularly when the victim being a
normal healthy person naturally must have offered resistance. Inflicting
15 injuries on the body of the deceased by three accused persons would
require a considerable amount of time. This itself suggest that three
accused had sufficient time at their disposal to conduct the crime and
the entire incident could not have taken place within five minutes as            D
stated by eye witness Parminder Singh PW-1. This fact coupled with
the fact that two brothers of the deceased remained a mute spectator
when the third brother was being assaulted is clear indication of the
fact that PW-1 Parminder Singh was not present on the spot and not
an eye witness of the incident.                                                  E
       28. Dr. M.S. Sagar in his Post-Mortem report has opined that
the cause of death was due to shock due to multiple ante mortem injuries
caused by sharp edged weapon and injuries No. 11 and 14 were
individually and collectively sufficient to cause death in ordinary course
of nature. He further opined in his statement that injuries have been            F
caused by sharp edged weapon and since no weapon was shown to
him, he has not given any opinion. Admittedly the tip of knife which
was recovered on the disclosure statement of accused appellant
Inderjeet Singh was broken and it was not pointed but blunt. Whether
the type of stab and incised wound found on the body of the deceased
could have been inflicted by a knife with a broken tip, is in our opinion,       G
extremely doubtful. The opinion of the Doctor has not been obtained
as to whether such injuries could have been caused by knife with a
broken tip by showing him the same.
      29. In the facts and circumstances of the case this was serious
lapse on the part of the investigating officer. Though normally minor            H
766               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2020] 8 S.C.R.


A     lapses on the part of the investigating officer should not come in the
      way of accepting eye witness account, if otherwise reliable. But in the
      circumstances of the case at hands where the conduct of sole eye
      witness is unnatural and there are various other surrounding
      circumstances which make his presence at the site of incident doubtful,
      such a lapse on the part of the investigating officer assumed significance
B
      and is not liable to ignored.
           30. While emphasizing the importance of eliciting the opinion of
      medical witness in such circumstances this Court in the case of
      Kartarey and Ors. V/s State of U.P.3
C              has observed as under:-
               “We take this opportunity of emphasizing the importance of
               eliciting the opinion of the medical witness, who had
               examined the injuries of the victim, more specifically on this
               point, for the proper administration of justice particularly
D              in a case where injuries found are forensically of the same
               species, example stab wound, and the problem before of the
               Court is whether all or any those injuries could be caused
               with one or more than one weapon. It is the duty of the
               prosecution, and no less of the Court, to see that the alleged
               weapon of the offence, if available, is shown to the medical
E              witness and his opinion invited as to whether all or any of
               the injuries on the victim could be caused with that weapon.
               Failure to do so may sometimes, cause aberration of the
               course of justice”.
           31. The same has been again asserted by this Court in Ishwar
F     Singh V/s State of U.P.4 by observing as under:-
               “It is the duty of the prosecution, and no less of the Court,
               to see that the alleged weapons of the offence, if available,
               is shown to the medical witness and is opinion invited as to
               whether all or any of the injuries on the victim could be
G              caused with that weapon. Failure to do so sometimes, cause
               aberration of the course of justice. On the basis of the
               evidence on record it is difficult to say whether the injury to
               the deceased was caused by the knife with a broken tip which
      3
          (1976) 1 SCC 172
      4
H         (1976) 4 SCC 355
            AMAR SINGH v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                            767
                    [KRISHNA MURARI, J.]

         was ceased. These variations relate to vital parts of the            A
         prosecution case, and cannot be dismissed as minor
         discrepancies. In such a case, the evidence of the eye witness
         “cannot be accepted at its face value”, as observed by this
         Court in Mitter Sen and others V/s State of U.P.”5
       32. The conviction of the appellants rests on the oral testimony       B
of PW-1 who was produced as eye witness of the murder of the
deceased. Both the Learned Sessions Judge, as well as High Court have
placed reliance on the evidence of PW-1 and ordinarily this Court could
be reluctant to disturb the concurrent view but since there are inherent
improbabilities in the prosecution story and the conduct of eye witness
is inconsistent with ordinary course of human nature we do not think it       C
would be safe to convict the appellants upon the incorroborated testimony
of the sole eye witness. Similar view has been taken by a Three Judge
Bench of this Court in the case of Selvaraj V/s The State of Tamil
Nadu6. Wherein on an appreciation of evidence the prosecution story
was found highly improbable and inconsistent of ordinary course of
                                                                              D
human nature concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two Courts
below was set aside.
       33. On the facts of the present case it can be said without
hesitation that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the alleged
offences beyond doubt by adducing cogent and trustworthy evidence.
                                                                              E
      34. In view of the forgoing discussions, we are not able to
appreciate the reason given by the Courts below for convicting the
appellants for the alleged offences. On the contrary, we are of the
considered view that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. The incident does not appear to have
happened in the manner in which the prosecution wants the Court to            F
believe it had happened.
       35. Since, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt
of the accused beyond doubt the appellants therefore must be given
benefit of doubt. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned
orders of the Courts below and allow these appeals. The appellants
                                                                              G
are directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.


Ankit Gyan                                                 Appeals allowed.

5
    (1976) 1 SCC 723
6
    (1976) 4 SCC 343                                                          H