Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s conviction, holding that the prosecution evidence was reliable and the High Court was justified in overturning the acquittal.

Summary

Balbir Singh and Inderjit Singh, brothers, were charged with murder of their relative Onkar Singh under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC. The Sessions Judge acquitted them, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court, on appeal by the State, convicted them and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, contending that the trial court’s dismissal of eyewitness and medical evidence was reasonable and that the High Court erred in overturning the acquittal. The Supreme Court examined the prosecution evidence, found the eyewitness testimony consistent, the medical findings compatible with the alleged weapons, and the FIR filed within a reasonable time, concluding that the evidence was reliable. It also held that the acquittal of the co‑accused did not affect the liability of the appellants. Accordingly, the Court upheld the High Court’s conviction and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

The High Court’s power to overturn a Sessions Court acquittal on appreciation of evidence.
Whether the prosecution evidence, including eyewitness testimony and medical findings, is reliable despite alleged delays and inconsistencies.
Whether the acquittal of a co‑accused (Mehar Singh) influences the conviction of the appellants.
The effect of alleged delay in filing the FIR and absence of blood at the scene on the credibility of the evidence.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34
Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970s. 2

Subjects

murderSection 302 IPCSection 34 IPCappellate jurisdictionevidentiary appraisaleyewitness testimonyFIR delayacquittal reversalcriminal appeal

Judgment

BALBIR SINGH AND ANR. A
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB

OCTOBER 1, 1991

[ S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.] B

Supreme Cowt (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act,
1970-:-Section 2--Appeal-Ciarge under ss. 302134, /PC-Acquittal order
..A__ of trial Court-Conviction by High Court-Appreciation of evidence -Find- C
ings of High Court approved-Acquittal of companion accused-Whether
affects the case of appella11ts.
The appellants along with another were tried of the charge of mur·
der under Section 302, I.P.C., read with Section 34, I.P.C.

The prosecution case was that the appellants as well as the
D
deceased's brother and his son were residing in a village. The· deceased
came to the village on 6.7.1974. On 8.7.1974 at about 10.30 a.m., the
'f deceased's brother along with his wife and his son had gone to the mango
grove across the choe to collect mangoes to give to the deceased. While
they were returning home along the pathway, the deceased was seen com· E
Ing in the opposite direction. The two appellants along with another ac·
cosed, emerged on the scene and ·attacked the deceased. Appellant No. 1
had a datar and Appellant No. 2 had a sua and their companion had a
lathi. After inflicth1g injuries with the weapons the appellants escaped•
.,; The deceased was removed to the house of one Darbara Singh for being F
rushed to the hospital, but within a short time, he breathed his last.

The· first information was lodged at the police station, around 7.00
P.M.; and the crime was registered and investigated and finally char·
gesheeted. The post-mortem examination of the dead body revealed that
the deceased had sustained lacerated injuries and three stab wounds and G
that he died on account of the shock and hemorrhage as a result of the
injudeii.

The motive alleged was that th~re had been some grouse on account
of ~he tr.msfer of agricultural land that belonged to the family, among the H
239
240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991) SUPP. 1 S. C.R.

A children of the three brothers.
_The Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of the charge. The High
Court, in appeal preferTed by the State convicted the appellants and sen·
tenced them to undergo imprisonment for life, against which, this appeal
B under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appel·
late Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 was filed.

The appellants contended that the view taken by the trial court was
reasonable and there was no justification for upsetting the judgment even ~
if a different view could have'been taken by the appellate court on reap-
C praisal or the evidence; that the High Court did not dislodge the various
reasons given by the trial court for discarding the evidence and that the ·
conclusion drawn by the High Court on the evidence on record was wrong.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
D HELD: 1. The prosecution evidence in the case is wholly reliable and
it leads to irresistible conclusion that the appellants had intentionally
caused the death of the deceased. The occurrence took place in broad day
light at a place close to the residence of the witnesses. The appellants are
the near relations of the deceased and the witnesses and It has happened
E in ·the background of the family fued. The first information has been
recorded within a few hours which in the circumstances of the case cannot
be considered as unreasonably delayed. The versionI
given In the F.I.R. Is
substantially the same as the one spoken to by the witnesses before the
Court. (243 C·Di
·F ,.
2. The eye witnesses have given consistent account of the role played
by each of the appellants. There would not have been any difficulty for the
witnesses to identify the appellants from a distance and across the reeds
even If they could get only a glimpse of them In the course of their action,
G and the medical evidence is not Inconsistent. [243 E·F]
3. The fact that the acquittal of the companion of the appellants had y
.not been Interfered with by the High Court cannot advance the case of the _
appellants. The High Court has given him the benefit of doubt on the
materials that emerged In the evidence. That is no reason to discard· the
H evidence of the witnesses so far as the appellants.are concerned when such
BALBIRSINGH v. SfATE [ FATHIMA BEEVI, J.) 241
evidence does not suffer from any serious in(irmity. (243 H; 244 A] A
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
214of 1979. ,~
:?~--;~~
-
- ...

~ <;>; ....
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.1978 of the Punjab and -
Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 701 of 1975. B
A.N, Molla, 0.P. Sharma and R.C. Gubrele for the Appellants.

Ms. Arnita Gupta and R.S. Suri for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
FATHIMA BEEVI, J. Balbir Singh and Inderjit Singh, the appel·
lants, are brothers. Onkar Singh, brother of Brijinder Singh, the father of
the appellants, died of multiple injuries on 8.7.1974. The appellants along
with Mehar Singh, were tried on the charge of murder under Section 302,
I.P.C. read with Section 34, l.P.C. The Sessions Judge acquitted the ac- D
cosed of the charge. The High Court, in appeal preferred by the State,
convicted these appellants and sente~ced them to undergo imprisonment
for life under Section 302, 1.P .C.

The appeal being one under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlar-
gement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, the appellants' E
learned counsel persuaded us to go through the entire evidence maintain-
ing that the High Court has erred in interfering with the order of acquittal.
According to the learned counsel, the view taken by the trial court is
reasonable and there was no justification for upsetting the judgment even if
a different view could have been taken by the appellate court on reap- F
praisal of the evidence. It was contended that the High Court has not
effectively dislodged the various reasons given by the trial Court for dis-
carding the evidence and that the conclusion drawn by the High Court on
the evidence on record is clearly wrong .
.
In order to appreciate these arguments, it is necessary to set out G
1
briefly the facts of the case and summarize the relevant evidence. The
~ deceased, Onkar Singh, 'at the time of his death was employed in govern-
ment service and was residing in Chandigarh. His brother, Darbara Singh,
and his son lswardial Singh, as well as these appellants were residing in the
village. Onkar Singh came to the village on 6th July, 1974. On 8th July, H
242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991) SUPP. 1 S. C.R.

A 1974, at· about 10.30 A.M., Darbara Singh, along with his wife, Surjit Kaur,
and son Ishwardial Singh had gone to·the mango grove across the choe to
collect mangoes for being given to Onkar Singh. While they were returning
home along the pathway, Onkar Singh was seen coming in the opposite
direction. These two appellants along with their companion emerged on
B the scene and attacked Onkar Singh. Balbir Singh had a datar and Indefjit
Singh had a sua and Mehar Singh had a lathi. After inflicting injuries with
the weapons the appellants escaped. The deceased, Onkar Singh, was
removed to the house of Darbara Singh for being rushed to the hospital but
within a short time, he breathed his last.

C The first information was lodged at the police station around 7.00
P.M., and the crime was registered and investigated and finally char-
gesheeted. The post-mortem examination on the dead body revealed that
Onkar Singh had sustained besides lacerated injuries three stab wounds
and that he died on account of the shock and hemorrhage as a result of the
injuries. The motive alleged was that there had been som_e grouse on ac-
. D - count of the transfer of agricultural land that belonged to the family,
among the children of the three brothers. The land stood in the name of
the deceased's son under cultivation of Darbara Singh at the material time.
The land was originally gifted to the appellants in 1964 out was reconveyed
to the deceased.

E The learned Sessions Judge found that the motive had been proved.
The two eye-witnesses to the occurrence were Darbara Singh and his son
Ishwardial Singh. They narrated the incident. Their evidence was dis-
carded by the trial court for the reasons that there was a thick growth of
reeds on either side of the pathway which was running zigzag and it was not,
therefore, possible for the witnesses even if they were present in the vicinity
F · to observe the assault and identify the assailants. Another reason was that
the medical evidence was in distinct conflict with the oral testimony and
the nature of injuries were such that the same could not be attributed to
the use of the weapons mentioIJed by the witnesses. Yet another reason
was that there· had been no trace of blood either on the pathway or on the
G clothes worn by the deceased. The time of death of t:ihe deceased as dis-
closed by the medical evidence did not agree with the version of the wit-
nesses. There had been inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. The first
information report did not inspire confidence. The witnesses had no con-
sistent cdse regarding the role played by Mehar Singh and the evidence was
H interested and 'unconvincing. The learned Judge, therefore, rejected the
BALBIRSINGH i•. STATE [.FATHIMA BEEVI, J.] 243

.... · same and recorded the order of acquittal.

The High Court had cautioned itself on the limited scope of inter-
A

ference while analysing and appreciating the evidence and arriving at its
own conclusion. The High Court has given very cogent reasons to establish
that the whole approach by the trial court was wrong and reasons for
rejecting the evidence did not stand scrutiny. B
Havin~ heard the counsel on both sides, we agree with the High
~ Court that tne prosecution evidence in the case is wholly reliable and it
leads to irresistible conclusion that these appellants had intentionally
caused the death of Onkar Singh. The occurrence took place in broad day
light at a place close to the residence of the witnesses. The appellants are
c
the near relations of the deceased and the witnesses and it has happened in
the background of the family fued. The first information has been recorded
within a few hours which in the circumstances of the case cannot be con-
sidered as unreasonably delayed. The version given in the F.I.R., is sub-
stantially the same as the one spoken to by the witness~s before the court. D
There had not been any acceptable suggestion why Darbara Singh should
foist a case against the appellants. It is most unlikely that these witnesses
would allow the real culprits to escape and their near relations to be impli-
cated on the happening of such a tragedy in the family. Both the father and
the son have given consistent account of the role played by each of the E
appellants. There would not have been any. difficulty for the witnesses to
identify the appellants from a distance and across the reeds even if they
l;ould get only a glimpse of them in the course of their action. The evidence
-· y' is also clear that there had not been thick growth of reeds to cause com-
plete obliteration of the scene. It could not, therefore, be assumed that the
place of occurrence was out of bounds and that the witnesses have weaved F
a story of their own. As rightly pointed out by the High Court, the medical
evidence is not inconsistent. The witnesses are clear that the appellants
used the datar on the wrong side and that accou!lts for the lacerated in-
juries. Incised wounds may be produced by using the sua on that part of the
body. We do not find any material to infer that the death could not have G
'\' happened at the time spoken to by the witnesses. Since there had been
internal hemorrhage and the injured person was immediately lifted from
-
the place of occurrence, the absence of blood at the scene is not strange.
The fact.that the acquittal of Mehar Singh had not been interfered with by
the High Court cannot advance the case of the appellants. The High Court
H
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991] SUPP. 1 S. C.R.

A has given him the benefit of doubt on the materials that emerged in the ""
evidence. That is no reason to discard the evidence of the witnesses so far
as these appellants are concerned when such evidence does not suffer from
any serious infirnlity.

We fmd that the High Court bad given weighty reasons in accepting
B the evidence and finding chat the view taken by the trial court was clearly
wrong. We reject the contentions of the appellants. There is no reason to
interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The appeal is accordingly
dismissed.

V.P.R. Appeal dismissed.

• I