Supreme Court of India
BHAJAN SINGH @ HARBHAJAN SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 422
- Decided
- 4 July 2011
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- B S CHAUHAN
Holding
All six accused are liable under Section 149 IPC for the murders and attempted murder, and the High Court's conviction is upheld; the alleged procedural delays and evidentiary discrepancies do not invalidate the prosecution's case.
Summary
Six accused, armed with deadly weapons, entered the complainant's house and killed two of his sons while seriously injuring his grandson. The trial court convicted three of them under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC and acquitted the other three, but the High Court convicted all six under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 IPC, invoking the doctrine of common object. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's acquittal was perverse, that the delay in lodging the FIR and sending the special report under s.157 CrPC was not fatal, that minor discrepancies between medical and ocular evidence did not undermine the prosecution, and that the self‑defence claim was untenable. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court's conviction of all six accused.
Issues considered
- The effect of a three‑hour delay in lodging the FIR and sending the special report under s.157 CrPC on the prosecution's case
- Whether contradictions between medical evidence and eye‑witness testimony warrant acquittal
- The relevance of the absence of independent eyewitnesses
- The applicability of s.149 IPC (common object) to hold all six accused liable for murder and attempted murder
- The validity of the self‑defence plea advanced by one accused
- The scope of appellate court interference with a trial court's acquittal
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 154, s. 157, s. 159
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 149, s. 302, s. 307, s. 34
Subjects
common objectSection 149 IPCmurderattempt to murderFIR delayevidentiary valueinjured witnessappellate reviewacquittalself-defence
Judgment
--
[2011) 7 S.C.R. 1
BHAJAN SINGH @ HARBHAJAN SINGH & ORS. A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal No. 562 of 2007)
JULY 4, 2011
B
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
ss. 3021149 and 3071149 - Double murder and attempt c
to murder - Six accused armed with deadly weapons went to
the house of complainant and attacked his family members
resulting in death of two of his sons and serious injuries to his
grandson - Conviction by trial court of three accused ulss 3021
34 and 307134 and acquittal of the other three - High Court
0
convicting all the six u/ss 3021149 and 3071149- HELD: High
Court has rightly held that the judgment of trial court in
acquitting three of the accused was perverse, as it was a clear
case of common object which all the six accused shared and
by application of s. 149 all the six were liable for inflicting E
injuries on the two victims which resulted in their death and
serious injuries to the other- Judgment of High Court affirmed
- Appeal against acquittal - Scope of interference by
appellate court -Reiterated.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: F
ss. 154 and 157 - Recording of FIR and sending of
special report to Magistrate - Delay- Effect of- HELD: Every
delay is not fatal, unless prejudice to the accused is shown -
In the instant case, two sons of the complainant were done to
death by accused and his grand son seriously injured and was G
shifted to hospital - After making all the required
arrangements, the complainant made his way to police station
which was 6 km from the v!llage - In the circumstances, there
1 H
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R.
A was no delay in lodging the FIR nor in sending the special
report to Magistrate.
s. 157 - Sending of report of commission of offence to
jurisdictional Magistrate - Delay - HELD: The expression
'forthwith' in the section does not mean that prosecution is
8
required to explain delay of every hour in sending copy of FIR
to Magistrate - In the given case, if number of dead and
injured is high, delay in dispatching the report is natural -
Purpose of s. 157 - Explained.
C Evidence:
Testimony of eye-witness and injured witness vis-a-vis
medical evidence - Legal position - Explained - HELD: In
the instant case, two persons died on the spot and other
o received grievous injuries - In such a fact situation the witness
is not supposed to give exact account of the incident, and
minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the
core of prosecution case, may not prompt the court to reject
the evidence in its entirety - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3021149
E and 3071149.
Witness:
Testimonies of injured witness and related witness -
Evidentiary value of - Explained.
F
The six accused-appellants were prosecuted for
committing offences punishable u/ss 302/149 and 307/149
IPC. The prosecution case as narr.ated by the
complainant (PW-9) was that at 5.00 P.M. on 6.11.2002, the
accused armed with swords, spear, 'gandasa' and
G 'mogra' and accompanied by two ladies, came to his
house and exhorted that they would teach them a lesson
for tethering their cattle in the street, and attacked his
family members resulting in the death of two of his sons
('GS' and 'NS') at the spot and grievous injuries to his
H
---
BHAJAN SINGH @ HARBHAJAN SINGH & ORS. v. 3
STATE OF HARYANA
grand-son (PW-10) who was taken to the hospital and A
had to be operated upon the following day. The accused
were· arrested and upon their disclosure statements;
weapons of crime, namely, -two swords, one spear, one
'gandasa' and one 'mogra', were recovered. The two
ladies were discharged and the six accused-appellants B
were put to trial. Accused 'JS' in his statement u/s 313
CrPC stated that he was called from his house, -which
was nearby, by PW-10 and when he came out, 'GS', 'NS'
and PW-10 pounced upon him and in order to save
himself, he took out his 'kirpan' and welded it at random c
in self-defence and the three opponents suffered injuries.
The trial court convicted three accused u/ss 302/34 and
307/34 IPC and acquitted the remaining three giving them
the benefit of doubt. The convicts filed appeals against
their conviction; whereas the State appealed against
0
acquittal of three accused. The High Court convicted all
the six accused u/ss 302/149 and 307/149 IPC and
sentenced them to imprisonment for life and to .pay a fine
of Rs.10,000/- each.
In the instant appeals filed by all the six accused, it E
was contended for the appellants that there was three
hours delay in lodging the FIR and again there was three
hours delay in sending the special report u/s 157 CrPC
to the Magistrate; that the injuries attributed to the
deceased and PW-10, did not tally with the medical F
evidence; that no independent witness was examined;
and that the High Court committed an error in setting
aside the acquittal of three accused.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court G .
HEl-D: t.1. Prompt and early reporting of the
occurrence by the informant with all its vivid details gives
an assurance regarding its true version. In case, there is
some delay in filing the FIR, the complainant must give
H
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R.
--
A explanation for the same. Undoubtedly, delay in lodging
the FIR does not make the complainant's case
improbable when such delay is properly explained.
However, deliberate delay in lodging the complaint may
prove to be fatal. [para 9] [18-F-G]
B
1.2. In the instant case, the occurrence took place at
about 5 p.m. on 6.11.2002. PW.9 was going to Police
Station, when PW.18, the Sub Inspector, met him along
with other police officials on the way. Statement of PW.9
was recorded there by PW-18. The evidence on the file
C proves that the special report was received by the llaqa
Magistrate at 10.45 p.m. on 6.11.2002. The occurrence had
taken place in the village, which was about 6 Km. from
the Police Station. Two sons of PW.9 had died in the
occurrence. His grandson, P.W.10, was seriously injured
D and was shifted to the hospital. So, after making all these
arrangements, PW.9 had made his way to the Police
Station to lodge the report. In the circumstances, there
is no delay'in lodging the FIR. [para 10] [19-D-F]
E Sahib Singh v. State of Haryana, weapon of crime 1997
(3) Suppl. SCR 95 =AIR 1997 SC 3247; G. Sagar Suri &
Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2000 (1) SCR 417 = AIR 2000
SC 754; Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. & Ors., 2008 (12)
SCR 623 = (2008) 12 SCC 531; and Kishan Singh (dead)
F thr. Lrs. v. Gurpa/ Singh & Ors. 2010 (10) SCR 16 = AIR
201 O SC 3624 - referred to.
1.3. The expression 'forthwith' mentioned in s. 157
CrPC does not mean that the prosecution is required to
explain delay of every hour in sending copy of the FIR
G to the Magistrate. It is not that as if every delay in sending
the report to the Magistrate would necessarily l~d to the
inference that the FIR has not been lodged af"the time
stated or has been anti-timed or anti-dated or
investigation is not fair and forthright. Every such delay
H
-- BHAJAN SINGH @ HARBHAJAN SINGH & ORS. v. 5
STATE OF HARYANA
is not fatal unless prejudice to the accused is shown.I n A
a given case, if number of dead and injured persons is
very high, delay in dispatching the report is natural. Of
course, the same is to be sent within reasonable time in
the prevalent circumstances. Thus, a delay in dispatch of
the copy of the FIR by itself is not a circumstance which B
can throw out the prosecution case in its entirety,
particularly, when the prosecution furnishes a cogent
explanation for the delay in dispatch of the report or
prosecution case itself is proved by leading
unimpeachable evidence. Ho·wever, an un-explained C
inordinate delay in sending the copy of FIR to the
Magistrate may affect the prosecution case adversely. In
the instant case, the High Court has rightly held that there
was no delay either in lodging tli"e FIR or in sending the
copy of the FIR to the Magistrate. It may be pertinent to
point out that defence did not put any question on these D
issues while cross-examining the Investigating Officer,
providing him an opportunity to explain the delay, if any.
[para 15-16] (21-G-H; 22~A-D]
Shiv Rar:n & Anr. v. State of U.P., 1997 (4) Suppl. E
SCR 531 =AIR 1998 SC 49; Munshi Prasad & Ors. v. State
of Bihar, 2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 25 =AIR 2001 SC 3031; Pala
Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, 1973 (1) SCR 964 =AIR
1972 SC 2679; and State of Kamataka v. Moin Patel & Ors,
1996 (2) SCR 919 =AIR; 1996 SC 3041; Rajeevan & Anr. F
v. State of Kera/a, (2003) 3 SCC 355; Ramesh Baburao
Devaskar& Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (11) SCR 197
= (2007) 13 SCC 501, State of Rajasthan v. Teja Singh &
Ors., AIR 2001 SC 990; and Jagdish Murav v. State of U.P.
& Ors., 2006 (5) Suppl. SCR 219 = (2006) 12 SCC 626; G
Sarwan Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab AIR 1976 SC 2304:
State of U.P. v. Gokaran & Ors. AIR 1985 SC 131; Gurdev
Singh & Ant v. State of Punjab 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 80 =
(2003) 7 SCC 258; State of Punjab v. Kamai/ Singh 2003 (2)
Suppl. SCR 593 = (2003) 11 SCC 271; State of J & K v. H
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011J 7 S.C.R.
--
A Mohan Singh & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1410; N.H. Muhammed
Afras v. State of Kera/a, (2008) 15 SCC 315; Sarvesh Narain
Shukla v. Daroga Singh & Ors., 2007 (11) SCR 300 AIR =
2008 SC 320; and Arun Kumar Sharma v. State of Bihar
=
2009 (14) SCR 1023 (2010) 1 SCC 108 - referred to.
B
2.1. As regards the plea of contradiction in medical
evidence and ocular evidence, the position of law can be
crystallised to the effect that though the ocular testimony
of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-a-vis
medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the
C ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant
factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence.
However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it
completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence
being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved. [para
D 17 and 23) (22-E-F; 26-B]
2.2. PW.11 along with another doctor conducted the
post-mortem examination on the two bodies and found
incised wounds and stab wounds on the vital parts of
E the bodies. The witness further opined that the cause of
death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of
injuries which were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient
to cause death in the normal course of nature. On the
same day at about 10.30 AM, PW.10 was examined and
F one incised wound on his left shoulder 6 x 3 cm x muscle
deep; one sword injury in stomach, and one injury on his
neck were noted. He was operated upon with repair of
liver tear. [para 7) (16-G-H; 17-A-H; 18-A-D]
2.3. The testimonies of PW.9 and PW.10 are fully
G reliable. There is no contradiction between their
statements which rather corroborate each other. Their
depositions fully corroborate the medical reports. PW.10
is an injured witness in the same occurrence and his
testimony cannot be ignored. The High Court has dealt
H with the injuries found on the person of PW.10. The
- BHAJAN SINGH @ HARBHAJAN SINGH & ORS. v. 7
STATE OF HARYANA
evidence of the stamped witness must be given due A
weightage as his presence on the place of occurrence
cannot be doubted. "Convincing evidence is required to
discredit an injured witness". Thus, the evidence of an
injured witness should be relied upon unless there are
grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of B
major contradictions and discrepancies therein. [para 18
and 21] [23-C-Fi 25-D-G]
Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010 (13)
SCR 311 = (2010) 10 SCC 259i Kai/as·& Ors. v. State of
Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 793i Durba/ v. State of Uttar C
Pradesh, (2011) 2 SCC 676i and State of U.P. v. Naresh &
Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 324; and State of U.P. v. Hari Chand 2009
(7) SCR 149 (2009) 13 SCC 542 - relied on
2.4. In an alike case, where two persons died on the D
spot and other received grievous injuries, the eye. (
witnesses also make an attempt to save themselves and
rescue the persons under attack. In such a fact-situation,
the witness is not supposed to be a perfectionist to give
the exact account of the incident. Some sort of E
contradiction, improvement, embellishment is bound to
occur in his statement. [para 24] [26-D]
2.5. It is a settled legal proposition that while
appreciating the evidence .of a witness, minor
discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the F
core of the prosecution case, may not prompt the court
to reject the evidence in its entirety. Thus, an undue
importance should not be attached to omissions,
contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the
heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the G
prosecution witness. In the instant case, there is no major
contradiction either in the evidence of the witnesses or
any conflict in medical or ocular evidence which may tilt
the balance in favour of the appellants. [para 30-31] [29-
~~ H
8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 7 S.C.R.
-
A Vijay@ Chinee v. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 191; and
Brahm Swaroop & Anr. v. State of U.P., 2010 (15) SCR 1 =
AIR 2011 SC 280 - referred to.
3.1. So far as the plea that no independent witness
has been examined by the prosecution is concerned, in
8
a case like this where without having any substantial
cause two persons had been killed and one had been
seriously injured, no neighbour, even if he had witnessed
the incident, would like to come forward and depose
against the assailants. More so, the defence did not ask
C the Investigating Officer (PW 18) to explain for not
examining any independent witness. The appellants are,
therefore, not entitled to take any benefit out of it. [para
25] [26-F-H]
D 3.2. Evidence of a related witness can be relied upon
provided it is trustworthy. Such evidence is carefully
scrutinised and appreciated before reaching to a
conclusion on the conviction of the accused in a given
case. [para 26] [27-A-B]
E
MC. Ali & Anr. v. State of Kera/a, AIR 2010 SC 1639;
and Himanshu @ Chintu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 2
. sec 36 - referred to. .
4.1. This Court time and again has laid down the
F guidelines for tf:te High Court to interfere with the
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court.
While dealing with a judgment of acquittal, the appellate
court has to consider the entire evidence on record, so
as to arrive-at a finding as to whether the views of the trial
G court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. The
appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving
at a finding of fact, the trial court had failed to take into
consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into
consideration the evidence brought on record contrary
H to law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may
--
BHAJAN SINGH @ HARBHAJAN SINGH & ORS. v. 9
STATE OF HARYANA
also be a subject matter of scrutiny by the appellate court. A
Where it is possible to take only one view i.e. the
prosecution evidence points to the guilt of the accused
and the judgment is on the face of it perverse, the
appellate court may interfere with an order of acquittal.
[para 28] [27-C-H; 28-A] B
Sanwat Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 1961 SCR
120 =AIR 1961 SC 715; Suman Sood alias Kama/jeet Kaur
v. .State of Rajasthan 2007 (6 ) SCR 499 = (2007)·5 SCC
634; Brahm Swaroop & Anr. v. State of U.P., 2010 (15 ) C
SCR 1 = AIR 2011 SC 280; V. S. Achuthanandan v. R.
Balakrishna Pillai & Ors., (2011) 3 SCC 317; and Rukia
Begum & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 4 SCC 779 -
referred to.
4.2. In the instant case, the High Court has rightly D
reached the conclusion that the judgment of the trial
court was perverse, as it was a clear cut case of common
object, which the three accused convicted by the trial
court shared with the three accused acquitted by it; and
by application of. s.149 IPC all the six were liable for E
inflicting injuries on two victims which resulted in their
death and brutal injuries to PW-10. [para 29] [28-E-H; 29-
A]
5. The theory of self-defence put forward by accused
'JS' that he caused the injuries to the complainant party F
to save himself, is most improbable and not worthy of
acceptance and the High Court has rightly rejected the
same. [para 32] [29-G-H] ··
Case Law Reference: G
1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 95 referred to para 9
2000 (1) SCR 417 referred to para 9
H
--
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 7 S.C.R.
A 2008 (12) SCR 623 referred to para 9
2010 (10) SCR 16 referred to para 9
1997 (4) Suppl. SCR 531 referred to para 11
2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 25 referred to para 12
B
1973 (1) SCR 964 referred to para 12
1996 (2) SCR 919 referred to para 12
2003 (3) sec 355 referred to para 13
c
2007 (11) SCR 197 referred to para 14
2001AIR990 referred to para 14
2006 (5) Suppl. SCR219 referred to para 14
D 1976 AIR 2304 referred to para 14
1985 AIR 131 referred to para 14
2003 (2) Suppl. SCR80 referred to para 14
E 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 593 referred to para 14
2006 AIR 1410 referred to para 14
2007 (11) SCR 300 referred to para 14
2009 (14) SCR 1023 referred to para 21
F
2011 (1) sec 793 referred to para 21
2011 (2) sec 676 referred to para 21
2011 (4) sec 324 referred to para 21
G
2009 (7) SCR 149 referred to para 22
AIR 2010 SC 1639 referred to para 26
c2011) 2 sec 36 referred to para 26
H
-
--"""-
BHAJAN SINGH @ HARBHAJAN SINGH & ORS. v.
STATE OF HARYANA
11
1961 SCR 120 referred to para 28 A
2007 (6) SCR 499 referred to para 28
2010 (15) SCR 1 referred to para 28
2011 (3) sec 317 referred to para 28
8
2011 (4) sec 779 referred to para 28
(2010) 8 sec 191 referred to para 30
CRIMINAL APPELALTE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 562 of 2007. c
From the Judgment & Order dated 15.12.2006 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal
No. 360-DBA of 2005.
D
WITH
Crl. A. Nos. 982 & 983 of 2008.
Amit Kumart, Ritesh Ratnam, Jawahar Lal for the
Appellants. E
Rajeev Gaur Naseem, Kamal Mohan Gupta for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
Dr. 8;5. CHAUHAN, J. 1. All the aforesaid three appeals
have been filed against the common judgment and order dated
15.12.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal Nos. 17-DB of 2005; and 360-
DBA of 2005. The High Court partly affirmed the judgment and G
order dated 25/26.11.2004 of the Sessions Court in Sessions
Trial No. 97 of 2003 convicting three appellants, namely, Joga
Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Nishabar Singh under Sections 302
and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
(hereinafter called 'IPC'), and sentenced them to undergo H
-
12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R.
A rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-
. Further, the High Court convicted accused/appellants, namely,
Bhajan Singh, Puran Singh and Gurdeep Singh who had been
acquitted of all th~ charges by the trial court and awarded the
sentences similar to the other accused.
B
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals
are as under:
A. Prosecution version as mentioned in the complaint of
Trilok Singh (PW.9) is that, at 5.00 PM on 6.11.2002, he was
C present in his house alongwith his sons, namely, Gian Singh
(deceased), Nishan Singh (deceased), his wife Swaran Kaur1
daughter Harbhajan Kaur, grandson Harbhajan Singh and
maternal grandson Ajaib Singh (injured) (PW.10). Bhajan Singh
armed with Neja (Spear), Gurdeep Singh armed with Mogra
D (Pestle), Puran Singh armed with Gandasa, Joga Singh armed
with sword, Nishabar Singh armed with Gandasa and Mukhtiar
Singh armed with sword, accompanied by two ladies, namely,
Chinder K~ur and Manjit Kaur, entered his house and raised
Lalkara that they would teach them a lesson for tethering their
E cattle in th~ street. All the accused attacked Gian Singh
(deceased) and Nishan Singh (deceased). Gurdeep Singh
opened the attack by giving Mogra blow on the head of Gian
Singh and Mukhtiar Singh inflicted a sword blow on the waist
of Gian Singh, as a result of which he fell down. Joga Singh
F inflicted a sword blow on Nishan Singh's chest, Bhajan Singh
inflicted Neja blow on his waist, Puran Singh inflicted Gandasa
blow on his right elbow, Nishabar Singh inflicted Gandasa blow
on his waist and, as a result, Nishan Singh fell down on the
ground. Joga Singh inflicted a sword blow on the stomach of
G Ajaib Singh (PW.10), Mukhtiar Singh inflicted sword blow on
the neck of Ajaib Singh, and as a result, he fell down. All the
assailants then fled away from the spot with their respective
we~pons. Gian Singh and Nishan Singh died on the spot due
to injuries. Ajaib Singh (PW.10), injured, was taken to the
H hospital.
-
BHAJAN SINGH @ HARBHAJAN SINGH & ORS. v. 13
STATE OF HARYANA [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
B. On the basis of the complaint, an FIR was lodged a11d A
registered (Ex.PB-1). SI Prakash Chand (PW .18)
accompanied by Surinder Kumar, Photographer and other
police officials reached the place of occurrence at about 8.15
P .M. Photographs of the dead bodies etc., were taken, inquest
reports were prepared on the dead bodies of Gian Singh and B
Nishan Singh and blood stained earth was picked up from the
place of occurrence. It was sealed in separate parcels. Dead
bodies were sent for post-mortem examination and site plan
etc. were prepared. Post-mortem was conducted on 7 .11.2002
by Or. Rajesh Gandhi (PW.11), who opined that the cause of c
death of both the persons was shock and haemorrhage as a
result of injuries. Ajaib Singh (PW.10), injured, was also
examined on 6.11.2002 with diagnosis of multiple stab injuries
in chest and abdomen. He was operated upon on 7.11.2002
and was discharged from the hospital on 20.11.2002.
D
C. Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh was arrested on
10.11.2002, and on his disclosure statement, Neja (Spear) was
recovered from his residential house. On the disclosure
statement of Puran Singh - appellant, the Gandasa __was/
recovered from underneath his box at his residential house, and E
on the same day, on the disclosure statement of Joga Singh -
appellant, that he had kept concealed sword underneath his
bed in his residential house, the sword was recovered. On
11.11.2002, Gurdeep Singh made a disclosure statement, on
the basis of which, Mogra alleged to have been used in the F
crime was recovered from his residential house. On the same
day, Mukhtiar Singh also got the concealed sword recovered
from the house of Bhajan Singh. On completion of the
investigation, challan was put up in the court.. Charges were
framed against all the six appellants for the offences punishable G
under Sections 148, 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC.
The two ladies, namely, Chinder Kaur. and Manjit Kaur were
discharged. As all of the accused pleaded not guilty to the
charges and claimed trial, they were put on trial.
H
--
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 7 S.C.R.
A D. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as
many as 19 witnesses including injured Ajaib Singh (PW.10),
and Trilok Singh (PW.9), the complainant. All the appellants
were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called 'Cr.P.C.'). Joga Singh,
B appellant, pleaded that at the time of the incident, he was
present in his house which was adjoining to the house of the
complainant. Ajaib Singh (PW.10) came to his house and
called him saying that he was being called by someone at the
'Phirni' of the village. When he came out, Gian Singh and
c Nishan Singh (both deceased) and Ajaib Singh (PW.10)
pounced upon him and tried to drag him towards their house
forcibly. Apprehending and suspecting that they would take him
inside their house and kill him, he pushed Gian Singh, as a
result of which, his head was struck against the wall. The other
0 persons, namely, Nishan Singh (deceased) and Ajaib Singh
(PW.10) in order to save him and to wriggle out of this situation,
took out kirpan and wielded the same at random in self
defence. It was in this background that Gian· Singh, Nishan Singh
and Ajaib Singh suffered injuries. The other accused simply
E denied the allegations and complained of their false implicity
in the case. However, none of the appellant/accused adduced
any evidence in defence.
E. On conclusion of the trial, the trial court held that
appellants Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh, Puran Singh and
F Gurdeep Singh were entitled to benefit of doubt and acquitted
them of all the charges. However, the other remaining three
appellants, namely, Joga Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Nishabar
Singh were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34,
and Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, and "were sentenced
G to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/-, each
under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and seven years
imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 307 read
with Section 34 IPC; in default of payment of fine, they would
further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. However,
H they were acquitted of charges under Section 148 l.P.C.
-
BHAJAN SINGH @ HARBHAJAN SINGH & ORS. v. 15
STATE OF HARYANA [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
3. Being aggrieved, the three appellants convicted by the A
trial court filed Criminal Appeal No. 17-DB of 2005, while
against the order of acquittal of the other three appellants, the
State of Haryana filed Criminal Appeal No. 360-DBA of 2005.
The High Court heard both the appeals together and disposed
of the same by a common judgment and order dated B
15.12.2006, maintaining the conviction of appellants in Criminal
Appeal No. 17-DB of 2005. It also reversed the judgment and
order of the trial oourt which acquitted the other three appellants,
,and convicted them for the same offence. The High Court
awarded them same sentence as one awarded to the persons C
convicted by the trial court. Hence, these appeals.
4. Shri Amit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants has submitted that no independent eye-witness has
been examined. The High Court has placed a very heavy
reliance on the evidence of Trilok Singh, complainant (PW.9) D
and his grandson Ajaib Singh (PW.10). In spite of the fact that
a large number of persons had witnessed the incident, none
of them has been examined. It is evident from the depositions·
of Trilok Singh (PW.9) and Ajaib Singh (PW.10) and judgments
of the courts below that the place of occurrence has been E
tempered with by the prosecution and thus, the prosecution
failed in its duty to disclose the correct facts. Injuries attributed
to the deceased persons as well as Ajaib Singh (PW.10) by
the witnesses do not tally with the medical evidence. There had
been inordinate delay of 3 hours in lodging the FIR, though the F
Police Station was in close vicinity of the place of occurrence.
Information of offence was sent to the lllaqa Magistrate as
required under Section 157 Cr.P.C. after inordinate delay of 3
hours. Weapons used in the commission of the crime had not
been shown to the medical experts fortheir opinion to ascertain G
whether the injuries on ttie persons of the deceased and Ajaib
Singh (PW.10), injured, could be caused by those weapons.
The High.Court committed an error in interfering with the order
of acquittal so far as the three appellants are concerned. Thus,
the appeals deserve to be allowed.
H
·~
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 7 S.C.R.
A 5. On the contrary, Shri Rajeev Gaur "Naseem", learned
counsel appearing for the State of Haryana has opposed the
appeals with vehemence contending that it was pre-planned
attack by the appellants as Gurdeep Singh and Bhajan Singh
@ Harbhajan Singh had come to the house of the complainant
B on that day at 7.00 A.M. and told him not to tether the catties in
the street, otherwise the complainant's family would face the
dire consequences. It was in pursuance of the common object
of teaching the lesson to the family, the attack was made on
the same day at 5.00 P.M. The appellants committed gruesome
C murder of two innocent persons and caused grievous injuries
to Ajaib Singh (PW.10). The weapons had been recovered on
the disclosure statements of the appellants, and were sent to
Forensic Science Laboratory for report and the report was
positive. Law does not prohibit to place reliance upon the
evidence of closely related persons, rather the requirement is
0 that evidence of such persons must be scrutinised with caution
and care. However, evidence of an injured witness has to be
relied upon, unless the injuries are found to be superfluous or
self-inflicted just to create evidence against the other party.
There is no material discrepancy in the medical and ocular
E evidence. In case the common object stands proved, such
trivial discrepancies become immaterial and insignificant. The
High Court was right in reversing the order of acquittal of three
appellants as the High Court came to the conclusion that the
findings of fact so recorded by the trial court were perverse.
F Thus, the appeals lack merit and are liable to be dismissed.
6. We have considered the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Injuries:
G
I. Dr. Rajesh Gandhi (PW.11) along with Dr. R.N. Boora
conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of Gian .
Singh and found following injuries:-
H (1) A stab wound was present on the back at level of
-- BHAJAN SINGH @ HARBHAJAN SINGH & ORS. v. 17
STATE OF HARYANA [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
T5 vertebra, 2 cm. lateral to mid line on right side. A
Horizontally placed. Wound was 3 x 2 cm. On
opening rupture of right lung was present. Fluid
blood approximately 250 ml. was present in cavity.
On further extending the dissection an incised
wound was present on the posterior surface of liver B
which was 2 x 1 cm. Fluid blood approximate 700
ml. was present in abdominal cavity.
(2) On opening skull a haematoma of size 5 x 2 cm.
was present on right parietal side.
c
The witness further opined that the cause of death was due
to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries described
above which were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause
death in normal course of nature.
D
II. On the same day at about 10.30 AM, Dr. Rajesh Gandhi
(PW.11) and other Doctors conducted autopsy on the dead-
body of Nishan Singh and found following injuries on his
person:-
(1) Incised wound was present in front of neck 2 cm. E
lateral to mid line on left side, obliquely placed and
on opening there was hole in trachea and
oesophagus. The size of wound was 6 x 3 cm.
External carotid artery was also punctured.
F
(2) Incised wound was present on anterior lateral
.aspect of right elbow. Size was 6 x 3 cm. x muscle
deep~
(3) Stab wound was present on the back on the right G
side 4 cm. below scapula, 6 cm. medial to mid
axillary line obliquely placed and size was 3 x 2 cm.
and· deep upto lung. On opening the. lung was
sharply cut.
(4) Stab wound was present in the mid epigastric H
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 7 S.C.R.
A region 6 cm. inferior to xiphisternum. Spindle
shaped obliquely placed size was 4 x 2 cm.
Omentum was lying outside. On opening there was
incised wound on the interior surface of liver whose
size 2 x 2 cm. There was collection of 800 ml. of
B fluid blood in abdominal cavity.
Ill. Ajaib Singh (PW.10) was examined and following
injuries were found on his person:
(1) Incised wound on left shoulder 6 x 3 ems x muscle
c deep.
(2) Sword injury in stomach.
(3) Injury on the neck.
D
He was operated upon exploratory laprotomy with restion
ananstomosis with repair of liver tear with bilateral intercostals
tube drainage with peritoneal lavage.
8. Shri Amit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
E appellants has submitted that there has been delay in lodging
the FIR and sending the copy of the FIR to the court. Therefore,
the prosecution failed to give a fair picture with regard to
genesis of the crime.
F 9. Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the
informant with all its vivid details gives an assurance regarding
its true version. In case, there is some delay in filing the FIR,
the complainant must give explanation for the same.
Undoubtedly, delay in lodging the FIR does not make the
complainant's case improbable when such delay is properly
G explained. However, deliberate delay in lodging the complaint
may prove to be fatal. In such case of delay, it also cannot be
presumed that the allegations were an after thought or had given
a coloured version of events. The court has to carefully examine
the facts before it, for the reason, that the complainant party may
H initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the other side with
--
BHAJAN SINGH @ HARBHAJAN SINGH & ORS. v. 19
STATE OF HARYANA [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
mala fide intentions or with ulterior motive of wreaking A
vengeance. The court proceedings ought not to be permitted
to degenerate into a weapon ofharassment and persecution.
In such a case, where an FIR is lodged clearly with a view to
spite the other party because of a private and personal grudge
and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal 8
proceedings, the court may take a view that it amounts to an
abuse of the process of law. (Vide: Sahib Singh v. State of
Haryana, AIR 1997 SC 3247; G. Sagar Suri & Anr. v. State
of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 754; Gorige Pentaiah v. State of
A.P. & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 531; and Kishan Singh (dead) C
thr. Lrs. v'. Gurpal Singh & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3624)
10. In the instant case, the occurrence took place at about
5 p.m. on 6.11.2002. Trilok Singh (PW.9) was going to Police
Station, Safidon, when Prakash Chand (PW.18), Sub Inspector
met him along with other police officials in old bus stand, D
Safidon. Statement of Trilok Singh (PW.9) was recorded there
by Prakash Chand, Sub Inspector. The evidence on the file
proves that the special report was received by the llaqa
Magistrate at 10.45 p.m. on 6.11.2002. The occurrence had
taken place in village Chhapar, which is about 6 Kms. from E
Police Station Safidon. Two sons of Trilok Singh (PW.9),
namely, Gian Singh and Nishan Singh had died in this
occurrence. Ajaib Singh (P. W.10) was seriously injured. He was
shifted to the hospital. So, after making all these arrangements,
Trilok Singh (PW.9) had made his way to the Police Station to F
lodge report with the police. In view of the above, we reach an
inescapable conclusion that there is no delay in lodging the FIR
with the police in this case.
DELAY IN SENDING THE COPY OF FIR TO COURT
G
. 11. In Shiv Ram & Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 1998 SC 49,
this_ Court considered the provisions of the Section 157,
Cr.P.C., which require that the police officials would send a
copy of the FIR to the lllaqa Magistrate forthwith. The court held
that ifthere is a delay in forwarding the copy of the FIR to the H
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R.
A lllaqa Magistrate, that circumstance alone would not demolish
the other credible evidence on record. It would only show how
in such a serious crime, the Investigating Agency was not
careful and prompt as it ought to be.
B 12. In Munshi Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 2001
SC 3031, this Court considered this issue again and observed:
"While it is true that Section 157 of the Code makes it
obligatory on the officer in charge of the police station to
send a report of the information received to a Magistrate
c ·forthwith, but that does not mean and imply to denounce
and discard an otherwise positive and trustworthy evidence
on record. Technicality ought not to outweigh the course
of justice - if the court is otherwise convinced and has
come to a conclusion as regards the truthfulness of the
D prosecution case, mere delay, which can otherwise be
ascribed to be reasonable, would not by itself demolish the
prosecution case."
While deciding the said case, this Court placed relied upon
E its earlier judgments in Pala Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab,
AIR 1972 SC 2679; and State of Kamataka v. Moin Patel &
Ors, AIR, 1996 SC 3041.
13. In Rajeevan & Anr. v. State of Kera/a, (2003) 3 SCC
355, this Court examined a case where there had been
F inordinate delay in sending the copy ofthe FIR to the lllaqa
Magistrate and held that un-explained inordinate delay may
adversely affect the prosecution case. However, it would
depend upon the facts of each case.
G 14. A similar view was reiterated in Ramesh Baburao
Devaskar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 13 SCC 501,
wherein there had been a delay of four days in sending the copy
of the FIR to the lllaqa Magistrate and no satisfactory
explanation could be furnished for such inordinate delay. While
H deciding the said case, reliance had been placed on earlier
-- BHAJAN SINGH@ HARBHAJAN SINGH & ORS, v. 21
STATE OF HARYANA [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
judgments in State of Rajasthan v. Teja Singh & Ors., AIR A
2001 SC 990; and Jagdish Murav v. State of U.P. & Ora.,
(2006) 12 sec 626.
[See also Sarwan Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab AIR
1976 SC 2304: State of U.P. v. Gokaran & Ors. AIR 1985 SC
131; Gurdev Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab (2003) 7 SCC B
258; State of Punjab v, Kamai/ Singh (2003) 11 SCC 271;
State of J & K v. Mohan Singh & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1410;
N.H. Muhammed Afras v. State of Kera/a, (2008) 15 SCC
315; Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh & Ors., AIR
2008 SC 320; and Arun Kumar Sharma v. State of Bihar C
(201 O) 1 sec 108J.
15. Thus, from the above it is evident that the Cr.P.C
provides for internal and external checks: one of them being
the receipt of a copy of the FIR by the Magistrate concerned. It o
serves the purpose that the FIR be not anti-timed or anti-dated.
The Magistrate must be immediately informed of every serious
offence so that he may be in a position to act. under Section
159 Cr.P.C., if so required. Section 159 Cr.P.C. empowers the
Magistrate to hold the investigation or preliminary enquiry of the E
offence either himself or through the Magistrate subordinate to
him. This is designed to keep the Magistrate informed of the
investigation so as to enable him to control investigation and,
if necessary, to give appropriate direction. It is not that as if
every delay in sending the report to the Magistrate would F
necessarily lead to the inference that the FIR has not been
lodged at the time stated or has been anti-timed or anti-dated
or investigation is not fair and forthright. Every such delay is not
fatal unless prejudice to the accused is shown. The expression
'forthwith' mentioned therein does not mean that the prosecution G
is required to explain delay of every hour in sending the FIR to
the Magistrate. In a given case, if number of dead and injured
persons is very high, delay in dispatching the report is natural.
Of course, the same is to be sent within reasonable time in the
prevalent circumstances. However, un-explained inordinate
H
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R.
A delay in sending the copy of FIR to the Magistrate may affect
the prosecution case adversely. An adverse inference may be
drawn against the prosecution when there are circumstances
from which an inference can be drawn that there were chances
of manipulation in the FIR by falsely roping in the accused
B persons after due deliberations. Delay provides legitimate
basis for suspicion of the FIR, as it affords sufficient time to
the prosecution to introduce improvements and embellishments.
Thus, a delay in dispatch of the FIR by itself is not a
circumstance which can throw out the prosecution's case in its
c entirety, particularly when the prosecution furnishes a cogent
explanation for the delay in dispatch of the report or prosecution
case itself is proved by leading unimpeachable evidence.
16. In view of the above, we are in agreement with the High
Court that there was no delay either in lodging the FIR or in
D sending the copy of the FIR to the Magistrate. It may be
pertinent to point out that defen1.::e did not put any question on
these issues while cross-examining the Investigating Officer,
providing him an opportunity to explain the delay, if any. Thus,
we do not find any force in the submissions made by the learned
E counsel for the appellants in this regard.
17. It has further been submitted on behalf of the appellants
that there is contradiction in medical evidence and ocular
evidence. The trial Court has examined this issue and in para
F 22 of the impugned judgment, observed as under:
" ....... that accused Joga Singh and accused Mukhtiar
Singh had attacked their victims with swords whereas
accused Nishabar Singh had used 'Gandasa' for the
purpose resulting in the deaths of Gian Singh and
G Nish an Singh and brutal attempt on the life of P. W Ajaib
Singh. The trial court had further observed that the skull
injury attributed to accused Gurdeep Singh does not
receive corroboration from the medical evidence on
record because such forceful blow was bound to leave
H
- BHAJAN SINGH @ HARBHAJAN SINGH & ORS. v. 23
STATE OF HARYANA [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
some external mark of injury at the site of the impact but A
. no such mark was seen there by the doctor."
The trial court reached the conclusion that it seems that
accused Puran Singh was· also implicated in this case along
with his father Bhajan Singh alias Harbhajan Singh because he
8
is a brother of prime accused Joga Singh. Thus, the
involvement of accused Puran Singh in the incident is also
doubtful.
18. This has to be examined in the light of the evidence of
two eye witnesses, namely, Trilok Singh (PW.9) and Ajaib Singh C
(PW.10). There is no contradiction between their statements
which rather corroborate each other. Ajaib Singh (PW.10)
corroborates the version of Trilok Singh (PW.9). He also
deposed that Gurdeep Singh was armed with 'Mogra'. Joga
Singh and Mukhtiar Singh were armed with swords. Puran D
Singh and Nishabar Singh were armed with 'Gandasas'.
Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh was armed with 'Neja'.
Gurdeep Singh inflicted a 'Mogra' blow on the head of Gian
Singh while Mukhtiar Singh inflicted a 'sword' blow on the waist
of Gian Singh. He fell down on the ground. Then Joga Singh E
inflicted a sword blow on Nishan Singh's chest . Bhajan Singh
@ Harbhajan Singh inflicted a 'Neja' blow on his waist. Puran
Singh inflicted a 'Gandasa' blow on his right elbow. Nishabar
Singh inflicted a 'Gandasa' blow on his waist and as a result,
Nishan Singh fell down on the ground. Ajaib Singh (PW.10) F
further deposed that when he tried to rescue Gian Singh and
Nishan Singh, Joga Singh inflicted a sword injury in his
stomach. Mukhtiar Singh inflicted a sword injury on the back of
his neck. Nishabar Singh inflicted a 'Gandasa' injury on his left
shoulder.
G
19. Depositions of Trilok Singh (PW.9) and Ajaib Singh
(PW.10) fully corroborate the medical reports. The High Court
correctly appreciated this issue as under:
H
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R.
A "So, according to their testimonies two injuries were
caused to Gian Singh (deceased), four injuries were
caused to Nishan Singh (deceased) and three injuries
were caused to Ajaib Singh (PW.10). In medical evidence
also, two injuries were found on the body of Gian Singh
8 (deceased) and four injuries were found on P.W.10 Ajaib
Singh as per copy of medico legal report Exhibit P.AA.
There is some conflict about the seat of the injuries .as
stat!!!d by P.W.9 Trilok Singh and P.W. 10 Ajaib Singh."
C The testimonies of Trilok Singh (PW.9) and Ajaib Singh
(PW.10) are fully reliable. Ajaib Singh (PW.10) is an injured
witness in the same occurrence and his testimony cannot be
ignored.
20. The High Court has dealt wit~ the injuries found on the
D person of Ajaib Singh (PW.10) and held as under:
"Regarding injuries to PW.10, Ajaib Singh, it can be
said that these were dangerous to life. He was operated
upon for small gut perforation and liver laceration. He
E remained admitted in PGI MS Rohtak, from 6, 11.2002 to
20.11.2002. PW.17 Dr. Paryesh Gupta and PW.19 Dr.
Satish Bansal proved the nature of the injuries of PW. Ajaib
Singh. The appellants and their acquitted co-accused had
the intention or knowledge to cause his death.
Determinative question is intention and knowledge, as the
F
case may be, and .not nature of the injury. Bodily injury may
· not be sufficient to cause death. An accused may be
convicted under Section 307 of the Code if he had
intention to cause death.
G After scrutinizing the testimonies of P.W.11 Dr.
Rajesh Gandhi, PW.17 Dr. Paryesh Gupta and PW.19 Dr.
Satish Bansal, we are of the considered opinion that the
trial court over depended on their opinion evidence. The
trial court should not have rejected the direct evidence of
H P.Ws Trilok Singh and Ajaib Singh on the strength of the
BHAJAN SINGH @ HARBHAJAN SINGH & ORS. v. 25
STATE OF HARYANA [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
uncanny opinion expressed by the doctors. This makes us A
to interfere in the impugned judgment for setting aside the
acquittal of Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh, Puran
Singh and Gurdeep Singh. They are vicariously liable with
appellants Nishabar Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Joga
Singh on· the principle of vicarious liability enunciated B
under Section 149 of the Code. Conviction of appellants
Nishabar Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Joga Singh on the
basis of direct evidence and medical evidence is well
founded and we do not find any infirmity in the impugned
judgment in this regard." c
21. The evidence of the stamped witness must be given
due weightage as his presence on the place of occurrence
cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to
be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual
assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The 0
testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and
efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of
occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was
present at the time of occurrence. Thus, the testimony. of an
injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Such a E
witness comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the
scene of the crime and is unlikely to "spare his actual
assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing
evidence is required to discredit an injured witness". Thus, the
evidence of an injured witness should be relied upon unless F
there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis
of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. (Vide: Abdul
Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259;
Kai/as & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1· SCC 793;
Durbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 2 SCC 676; and State G
of U.P. v. Naresh & Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 324).
22. In State of U.P. v. Hari Chand, (2009) 13 SCC 542,
this Court re-iterated the aforementioned position of law:
"In any event unless the oral evidence is totally H
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 7 S.C.R.
-
A irreconcilable with the medical evidence, it has primacy."
23. Thus, the position of law in such a case of contradiction
between medical and ocular evidence can be crystallised to the
effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater
8 evidentiary value vis-a-vis medical evidence, when medical
evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that
becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of
evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes so far
that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence
C being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved. [Vide:
Abdul Sayeed (Supra)].
24. In a case like at hand, where two persons died on the
spot and other received grievous injuries, the eye witnesses
also make an attempt to save themselves and rescue the
D persons under attack. In such a fact-situation, the witness is not
supposed to be perfectionist to give the exact account of the
incident. Some sort of contradiction, improvement,
embellishment is bound to occur in his statement.
E Thus, in view of the above, we have no hesitation to hold
that submission of the learned counsel for the appellants in this
regard is preposterous.
25. It has further been submitted that a large number of
persons had gathered at the place of occurrence but no
F independent witness has been examined by the prosecution for
the reasons best known to it. In a case like this where without
having any substantial cause two persons had been killed and
one had been seriously injured, no neighbour, even if he had
witnessed the incident, would like to come forward and depose
G against the assailants. More so, the defence did not ask SI
Prakash Chand (PW.18), the Investigating Officer as to why he
could not have furnished the explanation for not examining the
independent witness. In view thereof, we are of the considered
opinion that the appellants are not entitled to take any benefit
H of doubt.
BHAJAN SINGH @ HARBHAJAN SINGH & ORS. v. 27
STATE OF HARYANA [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
26. Evidence of a related witness can be relied upon A
provided it is trustworthy. Such evidence is carefully scrutinised
and appreciated before reaching to a conclusion on the
conviction of the accused in a given case. (Vide: ·M. C. Ali &
Anr. v. State of Kera/a, AIR 2010 SC 1639; and Himanshu@
Chintu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 2 SCC 36). B
27. It has further been submitted that the High Court had
no justification to reverse the judgment of acquittal so far as the
three appellants are concerned.
28. This Court time and again has laid down the guidelines C
for the High Court to interfere with the judgment and order of
acquittal passed by the Trial Court. The appellate court should
not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where
two views are possible, though the view of the Appellate Court
may be more probable one. While dealing with a judgment of D
acquittal, the appellate court has to consider the entire evidence
on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views
of the trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable.
Interference with the order of acquittal is permissible only in
"exceptional circumstances" for "c9mpelling reasons". The E
appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a
finding of fact, the trial Court had failed to take into
consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into
consideration the evidence brought on record contrary to law.
Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also be a F
subject matter of scrutiny by the appellate court.
The expressions like 'substantial and compelling reasons',
'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances',
'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc., are not intended
to curtail the extensive powers of an appellate court in an G
appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the
nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasise the reluctance
of an appellate court to interfere with the acquittal. Thus, where
it is possible to take only one view i.e. the· prosecution
H
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2011] 7 S.C.R.
A evidence points to the guilt of the accused and the judgment is
on the face of it perverse, the appellate Court may interfere with
an order of acquittal.
The appellate court should also bear in mind the
presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the
8
trial Court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence.
Interference in a routine manner where the other view is
possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for
interference.
C (See: Sanwat Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan AIR
1961 SC 715; Suman Sood alias Kama/jeet Kaur v. State of
Rajasthan (2007) 5 SCC 634; Brahm Swaroop &Anr. v. State
of U.P., AIR 2011 SC 280; V. S. Achuthanandan v. R.
Ba/akrishna Pillai & Ors., (2011) 3 SCC 317; and Rukia
D Begum & Ors. v. State of Kamataka, (2011) 4 SCC 779).
29. The High Court has reached the conclusion that the
judgment of the trial Court was perverse as the trial Court held
that it was a clear cut case of commor1 ubject. The High Court
E has decided the issue as under:
"There was common object which appellants
Nishabar Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Joga Singh shared
with their acquitted co-accused Bhajan Singh alias
Harbhajan Singh, Puran Singh and Gurdeep Singh. They
F entered the courtyard of the house of P.W. Trilok Singh by
raising 'Lalkara' that they would teach a lesson for
tethering cattle in the street. By application of Section 149
of the Code, they all the six were liable for inflicting injuries
to Gian Singh and Nishan Singh, which resulted in their
G deaths and brutal injuries to P.W. Ajaib Singh. The trial
court was not justified in acquitting Bhajan Singh alias
Harbhajan Singh, Puran Singh and Gurdeep Singh on
hypothetical medical evidence, by ignoring the reliable
direct evidence of P.Ws. Trilok Singh and Ajaib Singh."
H
BHAJAN SINGH @ HARBHAJAN SINGH & ORS. v. 29
STATE OF HARYANA [DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
In view of the above, we do not find any reason to accept A
'the submissions so made on behalf of the appellants.
30. It is a settled legal proposition that while appreciating
the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial
matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution's case, .. 8
may not prompt the Court to reject the evidence in its entirety.
"Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the
credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or
contradictions." Difference in some minor detail, which does not
otherwise affect the core of the prosecution case, even if C
present, would not itseif prompt the court to reject the evidence
on minor variations and discrepancies. After exercising care
and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth
from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court comes
to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient
to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not D'
be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies
which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic
version of the prosecution witness. As the mental capabilities
of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb
all the details, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the E
statements of witnesses. [Vide: Vijay @ Chinee v. State of
M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 191; and Brahm Swaroop {Supra)].
31. In the instant case, we could not find any major
contradiction either in the evidence of. the witnesses or any F
conflict in medical or ocular evidence which may tilt the balance
in favour of the appellants. There had been minor improvement,
embellishment etc., which remain insignificant and have to be
ignored.
32. The theory of self-defence put torward by Joga Singh, G
appellant, that he caused the injuries to the complainant party
to save himself, is most improbable and not worthy of
acceptance. The High Court has rightly rejected the same;
observing that Joga Singh, appellant, could not even suspect
H
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R.
A that the complainant party was nurturing a sinister design
against him when he was called from his house initially.
33. In view of above, we do not find any force in either of
these appeals. The same are dismissed. The judgment of the
8 High Court dated 15.12.2006 is affirmed in its totality. The
appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 562 of 2007, namely, Bhajan
Singh, Puran Singh and Gurdeep Singh have been enlarged
on bail by this Court vide orders dated 2.8.2007 and 22.7.2009.
Their bail bonds are cancelled, they are directed to surrender
C within a period of two weeks from today, failing which, the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Jind, (Haryana) shall ensure to take them
into custody and send them to jail to serve their remaining part
of the sentence. A copy of this judgment and order be sent to
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, (Haryana) for
information and-00mpliance.
D
R.P. Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "common object"Sign in to search