Supreme Court of India
DILAWAR SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA
- Citation
- 2014 INSC 634
- Decided
- 16 September 2014
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- T S THAKUR
Holding
The Supreme Court upheld the convictions of Dilawar Singh, Yash Pal and Shamsher Singh, finding PW‑6's testimony reliable and the FIR delay explained, and dismissed all appeals.
Summary
The case involved the murder of Narinder Singh, for which nine persons were charged under Sections 302, 149 and 148 of the IPC. The prosecution's case hinged on the testimony of the victim's father (PW‑6) and his brother (PW‑7), who identified Dilawar Singh (A‑1), Yash Pal (A‑3) and Shamsher Singh (A‑7) as the assailants; the other accused were acquitted. The appellants challenged the conviction on the grounds that PW‑6 was not an eye‑witness, that the delay in lodging the FIR indicated unreliability, and that the witnesses' behaviour was abnormal. The Supreme Court held that a witness's reaction to a murder can vary, that the delay was satisfactorily explained by the father's efforts to obtain medical aid, and that PW‑6's testimony was corroborated by PW‑7, medical evidence and recovered weapons. Consequently, the Court found no miscarriage of justice, upheld the convictions of A‑1, A‑3 and A‑7, and dismissed the appeals both against the convictions and the acquittals of the other accused.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution's case.
- Whether the behaviour and reaction of PW‑6 affect his credibility as an eye‑witness.
- Whether the evidence of PW‑6 can be relied upon despite alleged inconsistencies.
- Whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial and High Courts can be disturbed under Article 136.
- Scope of appellate interference in an order of acquittal.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 149, s. 218, s. 302
Subjects
murderIPC 302Section 149witness credibilitydelay in FIRArticle 136concurrent findings of factappeal against acquittalappellate jurisdiction
Judgment
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 844
A DILAWAR SINGH & ORS.
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1362 OF 2010)
SEPTEMBER 16, 2014
B
[T.S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 rlw s. 149 - Fatal attack - Nine
accused -Conviction of A-1, A-3, A-7 and acquittal of rest of
C · accused - Conviction challenged on the ground that PW-6,
the father of the victim-deceased was not present at the spot
and thus was not an eye-witness; that there was delay in
lodging FIR which drew cloud of suspicion on the prosecution
version - Held: Every person who witnesses a murder reacts
o in his own way - The sequence of events clearly showed that
PW-6 was taking all steps to save life of his son - Thus
evidence of PW-6 cannot be disbelieved simply because he
did not react in a particular manner - Delay in lodging FIR
was satisfactorily explained - PWs 6 and 7 spoke in one voice
E against A-1, A-3 and A-7 - Their evidence was also
corroborated by the medical evidence which strengthened the
prosecution case - Based on their confessional statements
of the disclosure, crime weapons were recovered - Concurrent
findings of fact recorded by courts below qua A-1, A-3 and A-
F 7 were based on evidence and, therefore, the judgment of the
High Court is not to be disturbed in exercise of discretion
under Article 136 of the Constitution - Evaluation of the
evidence by High Court while recording an order of acquittal,
also did not suffer from any infirmity - No interference with the
order of acquittal of A-4, A-6 and A-8 called for. '
G
Witness: Behaviour/reaction of witnesses - Held:
Behaviour of the v.titnesses or their reactions differ from
situation to situation and individual to individual - Expectation
H 844
DILAWAR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 845
of uniformity in the reaction of witnesses would be unrealistic A
and no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the uniformity
of the human reaction.
Appeal against acquittal - Scope of interference -
Discussed.
B
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1 PW-6 was busy in arranging medical aid to
save his son and, therefore, delay in lodging the FIR
cannot be said to be fatal. Expectation of uniformity in the c
reaction of witnesses is unrealistic and no hard and fast
rule can be laid down as to the uniformity of the human
reaction. From the very beginning the condition of injured
was very serious and he was struggling for existence and
his father PW-6 and uncle were concerned about the 0
welfare of the injured. While so, they .could not have
thought of approaching the police first and informing
them about the incident and the assailants. Since delay
in lodging FIR was satisfactorily explained, there was no
ground for disbelieving the prosecution evidence
E
particularly when it was accepted by the courts below.
[Paras 20, 21] [856-B-E]
1
I Rana Pratap and Ors. v. State of Haryana (1983) 3 SCC
1327; State of H.P. v. Mast Ram (2004) 8 SCC 660: 2004 (4)
i·suppl. SCR 269; Lahu Kamlakar Patil and Anr. v. State of F
1Maharashtra (2013) 6 SCC 417: 2012 (9) SCR 1173; Ganga
Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Bihar (2005) 6 SCC 211;
Charanjit & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2013) 11 SCC
163 - relied on.
G
2. The power of this Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution is very wide. But in criminal appeals, this
Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of
,fact save in exceptional circumstances. PWs 6 and 7 have
H
846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 7 S.C.R.
A spoken in one voice against A-1, A-3 and A-7. Their
evidence was also corroborated by the medical evidence
which strengthened the prosecution case. Based on their
confessional statement of the disclosure, cutters were
recovered and detection of human blood in those cutters
B also lent credence to the prosecution case. There was no
miscarriage of justice by the courts below while arriving
at the said findings and the impugned judgment of the
High Court is not disturbed in exercise of discretion
under Article 136 of the Constitution. [Paras 24 to 26, 28,
C 31) [857-G; 858-D-F; 861-B-C]
3. The court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere
with the order of acquittal unless the approach is vitiated
by manifest illegality. In an appeal against acquittal, this
Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely
D because on the evaluation of the evidence, a different
plausible view may arise and views taken by the courts
below is not correct. The evidence by the High Court while
recording an order of acquittal did not suffer from any..
Infirmity. There is no reason to interfere with the order of
E acquittal of A-4, A-6, A-8. [Paras 35 to 37) [862-D-E; 863-D]
Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4
SCC 415: 2007 (2) SCR 630; State of Rajasthan v. Shera
Ram (2012) 1 SCC 602: 2011 (15) SCR 485 - relied on.
F Case Law Reference:
(1983) 3 sec 327 Relied on Para 15
2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 269 Relied on Para 16
G 2012 (9) SCR 1173 Relied on Para 16
(2005) 6 sec 211 Relied on Para 29
(2013) 11 sec 163 Relied on Para 30
2007 (2) SCR 630 Relied on Para 36
H
DILAWAR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 847
2011 (15) SCR 485 Relied on Para 36 A
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No(s).1362 of.2010 ·
From the Judgment and order dated 13.10.2000 of the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. in .Criminal B
Appeal No. 561-DB/200.
WITH
Crl. Appeal. Nos. 826 & 830 of 2010.
c
Anil K. Chopra, Balbir Singh Gupta, Rao Ranjit, Kamal
Mohan Gupta, Vikas Sharma, Ramesh Kumar, Tulika Prakash
for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was d~livered by
0
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Appellants Dilawar Singh {A-1),
Yash Pal (A-3) and Shamsher Singh (A-7) in Criminal Appeal
No.1362/2010 challenge the legality of their conviction for the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section
149 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment and imposition E
of fine of Rs.5,000/- each and also challenge their conviction
for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC and sentence
of imprisonment for two years. Being aggrieved by the acquittal
of Balkar Singh (A-4), Ranbir Singh (A-6) and Charan Singh
{A-8), State of Haryana and Chanda Singh - father of 'the F
decea~ed Narinder Singh have preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.
826/2010 and 830/2010.
2. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that deceased
Narinder Singh was running a shop for the sale of fertilizers at G
. the Ladwa Town and he was residing near Veterinary Hospital.
On 22.8.1998 at about 8.45 p.m. Narinder Singh_was driving
his· motor cycle and when he turned towards Babain Road, in
Ladwa little ahead of the veterinary hospital, Dilawar Singh {A-
1), Gurdev Singh {A-2) and Yash Pal (A-3) and other accused
848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 7 S.C.R.
A persons namely Ba/kar Singh (A-4), Ashok Kumar (A-5)
Ranbir Singh (A-6), Shamsher Singh (A-7), Charan Singh (A-
8) and Dalbir Singh(A-9) intercepted him. Dilawar Singh (A-
1), Yash Pal (A-3) and Shamsher Singh (A-7) gave blow on
the head of deceased Narinder Singh with their respective
8 cutter and Narinder Singh fell down along with his motor cycle
and shouted Bachao Bachao. At that time Chanda Singh-father
of the deceased along with his brother Hakam Singh came
nearby in their car and saw the accused being attacked.
Chanda Singh and Hakam Singh cried for help and shouted
C 'NA MARO NA MARO'. Gurdev Singh (A-2) and Charan
Singh (A-8) caused sword blows on the left leg and right leg
of Narinder Singh. Ranbir Singh (A-6) gave gandasi blow on
the right hand of Narinder Singh whereas Balkar Singh (A-4)
gave gandasi blow to Narinder Singh on his left arm. Two other
assailants namely Ashok Kumar (A-5) and Dafbir Singh (A-9)
D attacked Narinder Singh with hockey sticks and caused injuries
to Narinder Singh. In the meanwhile, Sham Singh (PW-7) also
reached there and he too shouted at the accused not to kill
Narinder Singh. All the accused fled away from the spot with
their respective weapons in their motor cycles. Chanda Singh
E (PW-6), Hakam Singh and Sham Singh (PW-7) cha~d the
assailants in their respective vehicles but they could nOt'l;atch
hold of them.
3. Further case of prosecution is that on 22.8.1998 at about
F 9.00 p.m. ASI Charan Dass (PW-11) who was on patrolling duty
received message about an injured person lying near
Veterinary Hospital, Ladwa and PW-11 and police party went
to the scene of occurrence and shifted injured Narinder Singh
to Community Health Centre, Ladwa where Dr. Ashwini Kumar
G (OW-t), Medical Officer of the Health Centre examined him and
found him not fit to make statement. In the meanwhile, Chanda
Singh and Hakam Singh reached the spot and found that
injured Narinder Singh had already been shifted to the hospital
by the police.Chanda Singh (PW-6) went to the Ladwa Hospital
H and Hakam Singh went to the village to inform the family
DILAWAR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 849
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]
members of Narinder Singh about the incident. When Chanda A
Singh reached Community Health Centre at Ladwa, injured
.Narinder Singh was, in the process of being referred to the Lok
Nayak Jai Prakash Hospital, Kurukshetra as his condition was
very serious. In the hospital at Kurukshetra, Dr. S.C.Grover
(PW-1) examined the injured-Narinder Singh and opined that B
Narinder Singh was unfit to make any statement.Since the
condition of Narinder Singh was serious, he was immediately
referred to PGI Chandigarh and Chanda Singh shifted injured
Narinder Singh to PGI Chandigarh. Dr. Munish Kumar (PW-
9) of PGI Chandigarh admitted Narinder Singh in the hospital c
on 23.8.1998 at about 2.30 a.m. and intimation was sent to the
police post located nE;!ar the hospital. On receipt of information
from the hospital, ASI Karam Chand (PW-4) went to the hospital
and on his application Dr. Kanya Rejangam (PW-8) opined
that injured Narinder Singh was unfit to make statement. Injured D
Narinder Singh succumbed to injuries at about 5.30 a.m. on
23.8.1998 and death intimation was sent to the Police Post,
PGI Chandigarh. On the same day Chanda Singh came back
to La.dwa and went to the police station and lodged the
complaint on the basis of which FIR was registered at Ladwa
Police Station, ASI Charan Dass (PW-11) went to PGI E
Chandigarh and conducted the inquest on the dead body of
deceased Narinder Singh. In PGI, Dr. Surinder Singh (PW-10)
conducted autopsy on the body of Narinder Singh and noted
18 incised injuries and other injuries all over the body of the
deceased and issued the Post Mortem Certificate. Dr. Surinder F
Singh (PW-10) opined that the deceased died of cut injuries
on the head and due to haemorrhage from multiple incised
wounds. The accused surrendered before the court on various
dates and on information of their surrender, Inspector Jagdish
Ram (PW-12) took the accused to police custody and based G
on their confession the weapons and motor cycles were seized.
After completion of investigation, the accused were charge
sheeted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC.
4. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has H
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 7 S.C.R.
A examined PWs 1to16 and placed reliance on documents and
material objects. The accused were questioned under Section
313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence and
circumstances and they denied all of them. Accused Ranbir
Singh took a plea of alibi by stating that he is practising as an
B advocate at Kurukshetra and was not present at the spot on
the date of occurrence. Gurdev Singh (A-2) also took the plea
of alibi and stated that he was posted as a Naib Tehsildar and
in connection with his official ~ork had gone to village
Sardhaheri on the date of occurrence. The accused examined
c DWs 1to 6 as witness on their side.
5. Upon consideration of the evidence, the trial court
convicted and sentenced Dilawar Singh (A-1), Yash Pal (A-
3), Balkar Singh (A-4), Ranbir Singh (A-6), Shamsher Singh
(A-7) and Charan Singh (A-8) under Section 302 IPC read with
D Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default
clause and also convicted them for the offence punishable
under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years. The trial court acquitted Gurdev
E Singh (A-2), Ashok Kumar (A-5) and Dalbir Singh(A-9).
6. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence,
convicted accused 1,3,4 and 6 to 8 preferred appeal before
the High Court. The High Court confirmed the conviction of
F Dilawar Singh (A-1), Yash Pal (A-3) and Shamsher Singh (A-
7) and acquitted Balkar Singh (A-4), Ranbir Singh (A-6) and
Charan Singh (A-8). Being aggrieved by the conviction,
Dilawar Singh (A-1), Yash Pal (A-3) and Shamsher Singh (A-
7) have filed Criminal Appeal No. 1362/2010. Being aggrieved
G by the acquittal of Balkar Singh (A-4), Ranbir Singh (A-6) and
Charan Singh (A-8), State has preferred Criminal Appeal
No.82612010 and Chanda .Singh (PW-6)-father of the
deceased Narinder Singh has filed Criminal Appeal No. 830/
2010. I
H
DILAWAR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 851
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]
7. Mr. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the A
convicted accused Dilawar Singh (A-1 ), Yash Pal (A-3) and
Shamsher Singh (A-7) submitted that serious doubts arise as
to the presence of Chanda Singh (PW-6) in the scene of
occurrence and trial court as well as High Court ought not to
have based the conviction on the evidence of PW-6 and 8
conviction of the aforesaid accused is not sustainable.
8. Mr. Rao Ranjit, learned counsel, appearing for the State
has taken us through the evidence of Chanda Singh (PW-6)
and Sham Singh (PW-7) and other evidence and submitted
that evidence of PW-6 is corroborated by evidence of PW-7, C
recovery of weapons and Serology Report and courts have
recorded concurrent findings of fact that PW-6 is a reliable
witness and the same does not warrant interference. •The
learned counsel further submitted that when the learned courts
have believed the evidence of PWs 6 and 7 qua Dilawar D ·
Singh(A-1), Yash Pal(A-3) and Shamsher Singh(f'.-7), the
courts ought not to have disbelieved the case of prosecution
qua Balkar Singh (A-4), Ranbir Singh (A-6) and Charan Singh
(A-8) for reversal of acquittal.
E
9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
accused 4, 6 and 8 who were acquitted and also Mr. Shishpal
Later, learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Chanda
Singh.
10. The prosecution case revolves around the ocular F
version of Chanda SingH (PW-6) father of deceased Narinder
Singh who witnessed the occurrence along with his brother
Hakam Singh and Sham Singh (PW-7). PWs 6 and 7 have
spoken about the attack on the deceased and overt act of
accused Dilawar Singh (A-1),. Yash Pal (A-3) and Shamsher G
Singh (A-7) and others. Hakam Singh ·was not
examined.Evidence of Sham Singh (PW-7) corroborates the
version of thanda Singh (PW-6). Learned courts below found
the evidence of PW-6 trustworthy and recorded respective
findings for convicting Dilawar Singh (A-1), Yash Pal (A-3) and H
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 7 S.C.R.
A Shamsher Singh (A-7) and acquitting other accused.
11. Contending that Chanda Singh (PW-6) could not have
witnessed the occurrence and the learned courts erred in
placing reliance upon version of PW-6, evidence of PW-6 is
B interalia assailed on various grounds :- (i) PW-6 had no reason
to be present in Babain Road near Veterinary Hospital, Ladwa;
(ii) Conduct of PW-6 is not natural that on witnessing the attack
on his son, he had not naturally reacted in trying to save his son
but he is alleged to have chased the accused; (iii) PW-6 had
he been the witness, he would have given statement to the
C police immediately after the occurrence and there would not
have been an inordinate delay in registration of FIR i.e. on
23.8.1998 at 11.00 A.Mand the delay in registration of FIR
falsifies his evidence.
o 12. Insofar as the contention of the appellants that Chanda'
Singh (PW-6) had no reason to be present in the place of
occurrence, deceased Narinder Singh was dealing in fertilizers
at Ladwa and was residing in a house near the veterinary
hospital of the town. PW-6 has stated that their home place
E Mehra is at a distance of 5 kms from Ladwa and is connected
by a pakka road which leads towards Babain from Ladwa.
Village Mehra is connected with this Ladwa - Babain road by
a link road and when this link road is connecting PW-6's home
village Mehra, there is nothing unusual about Chanda Singh
F going through Babain Road and his presence in the place of
occurrence. It is unreasonable to contend that Chanda Singh
(PW-6) had no compelling reason to be present in the place
of occurrence.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
G conduct of Chanda Singh (PW-6) is unnatural and being father
of the deceased and on seeing his son belaboured, PW-6 had
not swiftly acted to save his son and neither PW-6 nor Haka_m
Singh or Sham Singh ( PW-7) took the deceased to the hospital
and Chanda Singh and other witnesses are alleged to have left
H the injured at the place of incident and proceeded to chase the
DILAWAR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 853
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]
assailants and such unnatural conduct of PW-6 only shows that A
he was not present at the place of occurrence.
14. We find no merit in the submission that Chanda Singh
(PW-6) is to be disbelieved on the ground that he has not acted
in a particular manner to save his son. Every person who
8
witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. On seeing Narinder
Singh being attacked, PW-6 and Hakam Singh might have
, been shocked and stunned. Being two together, PW-6 and
Hakam Singh might have perhaps thought of catching the
assailants and appear to have chased them by following them C
in the car.
15. In Rana Partap and Ors. vs. State of Haryana (1983)
3 sec 327, while dealing with the behaviour of the witnesses,
this Court opined thus:
D
"6 .... Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his
own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and
stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start
wailing. Some start shouting for help. Others run away to
keep themselves as far removed from the spot as E
possible. Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even
going to the extent of counter-attacking the assailants.
Every (me reacts in his own special way. There is no set
rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a
witness on the ground that he did not react in any
particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly F
unrealistic and unimaginative way."
16. In State of H.P. v. Mast Ram (2004) 8 SCC 660 it has
been stated that there is no set rule that one ~ust react in a
particular way, for the natural reaction of man is unpredictable. G
Everyone reacts in his own way and, hence, natural human
behaviour is difficult to prove by credible evidence. It has to be
appreciated in the context of given facts and circumstances of
the case. Similar view has been reiterated in Lahu Kamlakar
Patil and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 6 SCC 417. H
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 7 S.C.R.
A 17. Behaviour of the witnesses or their reactions would
differ from situation to situation and individual to individual.
Expectation of uniformity in the reaction of witnesses would be
unrealistic and no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to
the uniformity of the human reaction. The evidence of PW-6 is
B not to be disbelieved simply because he did not react in a
particular manner. PW-6 explained how he happened to be
there in the place of occurrence and had cogently spoken about
the occurrence and his evidence remained unscathed despite
searching cross examination.
c 18. In his evidence Chanda Singh (PW-6) stated that they
have chased the assailants for about 300 - 400 meters and
then abandoned the chase and returned to the place of
occurrence after fifteen minutes. In the meanwhile, injured
Narinder Singh was shifted to Community Health Centre, Ladwa
D by ASI Charan Dass (PW-11). Sham Singh (PW-7) stated that
after chasing the assailants they have returned to the place of
occurrence within 5-7 minutes. On behalf of the appellants, it
was contended that chasing the accused to a distance of 200-
300 meters would have taken only about 5-7 minutes and the
E fact that Narinder Singh was shifted to the hospital by the time
PW-6 returned to the place of occurrence only shows that PW-
6 was not present at the, time of occurrence and that he has
been planted as an eye-witness subsequently. Version of PW-
6 that they have chased the assailants and came back after
F about 15-20 minutes, does not affect his credibility nor the
prosecution case. It is brought on record that on the date of
occurrence i.e. 22.8.1998 there was solar .eclipse and Solar
Eclipse Fair was going on in Kurukshetra and large number of
people congregated and the place of occurrence and nearby
G place was crowded with temporary bazaars and exhibitions
and therefore PW-6 could come back to the place of
occurrence only after 15 minutes and in the meanwhile injured
Narinder Singh was shifted to Community Health Centre, Ladwa
by ASI Charan Dass (PW-11 ). The alleged time taken in
H chasing the accused and the fact that in the meanwhile
DILAWAR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 855
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]
Narinder Singh was shifted to the Community Health Centre, A
Ladwa, in our view, does not militate against the credibility of
PW-6.
19. Learned counsel for the appellants then contended that
police station in Ladwa is situated within a short distance from B
the place of occurrence and yet no information was given to
the police immediately. It was submitted that Chanda Singh
(PW-6) had not given statement to police either at Ladwa or
at Kurukshetra or atleast to PW-4, ASI Karam Chand of Police
Post at PGI Chandigarh who came to the hospital on receipt
of information of admission of injured Narinder Singh in PGI C
Chandigarh and FIR was registered only on 23.8.1998 at 11.00
A.M. and the inordinate delay in giving information to the police
and registration of FIR raises serious doubts about the
credibility of prosecution case and trustworthiness of PW-6.
D
20. We find no merit in the submission that delay in
registration of FIR is fatal to the prosecution case for the reason .
that delay is satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. Let us
briefly recapitulate the sequence of events. After chasing the
assailants for few minutes, PW-6 came to Community Health E
Centre, Ladwa at 9.00 - 9.15 P.M. Hakam Singh went to village
Mehra to inform the family members and for arranging money.
By the time PW-6 arrived in the Ladwa Hospital, the hospital
·authorities were making arra~gementto refer the injured to
Kurukshetra as his condition was very serious. By the time PW- F
6 went to Ladwa Hospital, PW-11 left to village Mehra to inform
the family members of injured Narinder Singh. Evidently in
Ladwa Hospital, PW-6 could not have met ASI Charan Dass
(PW 11 ). PW-6 shifted the injured to Kurukshetra Hospital at
10.30-11.00 P.M. and then shifted Narinder Singh from G
Kurukshetra Hospital to PGI Chandigarh. They left Kurukshetra
between 11.30-12.00 P.M. for PGI and reached PGI
Chandigarh at 2.30 A.M. on 23.8.1998. ASI Charan Dass (PW
11) reached Kurukshetra Hospital at about 11.30 P.M. and
moved an application to the doctor regarding fitness of the H
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 7 S.C.R.
A injured to make a statement. Again in Kurukshetra there was
hardly any time for PW-6 to meet PW-11, ASI Charan Dass.
There is nothing on record showing that PW-6 met PW-11 either
at Ladwa or at Kurukshetra. When PW-6 was busy in arranging
medical aid to save his son, delay in lodging the FIR cannot
s be said to be fatal. The sequence of events clearly show that
PW-6 was taking all steps to save the life of his son and making
arrangements for money, ambulance etc.
21. Whether the delay is so long as to draw a cloud of
C suspicion on the prosecution case will depend upon variety of
factors which will vary from case to case. As pointed out by the
learned courts, from the very beginning the condition of injured
Narinder Singh was very serious and he was struggling for
existence and his father PW-6 and uncle Hakam Singh were
concerned about the welfare of the injured. While so, they could
D not have thought of approaching the police first and informing
them about the incident and the assailants. Where delay in
lodging complaint and registration of FIR has been
satisfactorily explained, the delay by itself was no ground for
disbelieving the prosecution evidence particularly when it had
E been accepted both by the Sessions Court and the High Court.
22. Coming to the further contention of the appellants
raising doubts about the credibility of PW-6 in not making any
statement at least to ASI Karam Chand (PW-4) of Police Post
F PGI Chandigarh, on receipt of the information regarding
admission of injured Narinder Singh, ASI Karam Chand (PW-
4) went to the PGI Hospital to record the statement of injured
Narinder Singh. At that time, Chanda Singh (PW-6) was
attending his son. The contention of the appellants is that PW-
G 6 had the occasion to inform the police about the incident at
least to ASI Karam Chand (PW-4) but the same was not done
which raise serious doubts. about the presence of Chanda
Singh (PW-6) at the scene of occurrence. By perusal of the
evidence of PW-4, it is seen that on receipt of intimation (rukka)
H from PGI Chandigarh, PW-4 rushed to the hospital for recording
DILAWAR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 857
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]
the statement of injured Narinder Singh. Since Chanda Singh A
(PW-6) did not offer any statement to ASI Karam Chand (PW-
4), since Narinder Singh was then alive, there was no occasion
for recording the statement of Chanda Singh. It is also brought
in evidence that after the death of Narinder Singh ASI Karam
Chand (PW-4) did not go to PGI for the second time. In our view, 8
there is no merit in the submission that PW-6 is to be
disbelieved on the ground that he did not choose to give any
statement at least to ASI Karam Chand (PW-4).
23. Narinder Singh died at 5.30 A.M. on 23.8.1998 and
thereafter Chanda Singh (PW-6) went to Ladwa Police Station C
on 23.8.1998 at 11.00 A.M. and lodged the complaint and FIR
was registered as Ext PE No. 314/1998 at Ladwa Police
Station. Sequence of events clearly show that PW-6 was
attending his son and was taking steps to shift injured Narinder
Singh from Community Health Centre Ladwa to Lok Nayak Jai D
Parkash Hospital, Kurukshetra and from Kurukshetra to PGI ·
Chandigarh and PW-6 was busy in arranging for money,
medical aid and ambulance etc. The delay of about 15 hours
and 15 minutes in lodging the FIR, in our view, cannot be said
to be fatal. Learned courts have recorded concurrent finding E
that the delay in registration of FIR has been satisfactorily
explained and the delay is not fatal to the prosecution case.
24. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the
approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read F
as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression
is formed it is necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence,
to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the
prosecution case. Learned courts below found evidence of PW-
6 reliable and accepted the same. The power of this Court
under Article 136 of the Constitution are very wide. But in G
criminal appeals this Court does not interfere with the
concurrent findings of fact save in exceptional circumstances.
When the learned courts below found the evidence of PW-6
reliable and acceptable, we do not find any perversity in the
H
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 7 S.C.R.
A approach of the learned courts in accepting the evidence of PW-
6 warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article
136 of the Constitution of India.
25. Evidence of Chanda Singh (PW-6) is corroborated by
the evidence of Sham Singh (PW-7). Credibility of PW-7 is
8
-assailed on the ground that he was also challaned along with
Narinder Singh in criminal case in 1994 and that PW-7 has
animosity against the accused persons. The mere fact that
PW-7was also challaned along with Narinder Singh and that
he was inimical towards the accused would not result in
C mechanical rejection of evidence of such a witness; but would
only make the court cautious while evaluating the testimony of
the witness and we do not find any infirmity in the appreciation
of evidence of PW-7 by the courts and relying upon the same
as corroborative evidence.
D
26. PWs 6 and 7 have spoken in one voice against
Dilawar Singh (A-1), Yash Pal (A-3) and Shamsher Singh (A-
7). Their evidence is also corroborated by the medical evidence
of Dr. Surinder Singh (PW-10) who conducted the autopsy on
E the body of Narinder Singh. As per Post-Mortem Certificate,
18 incised wounds were found on the body of the deceased
which strengthen the prosecution case as to the overt act of the
accused 1, 3 and 7. Based on the confessional statement of
the disclosure of Dilawar Singh (A-1), Yash Pal (A-3) and
Shamsher Singh (A-7) cutters were recovered and detection
F
of human. blood in those cutters also lends credence to the
prosecution case.
27. Placing reliance on the evidence of DW-1, Dr. Ashwini
Kumar feeble attempt was made to contend that serious doubts
G arise about the prosecution case. Of course, according to DW-
1, Dr. Ashwini Kumar who admitted injured Narinder Singh in
Ladwa Hospital, he found only five injuries on the person of the
injured and he opined that the same had been caused by blunt
weapon. As per Post Mortem Certificate as many as 18 incised
H
DILAWAR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 859
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]
wounds were found on the body of Narinder Singh. As held by A
the learned courts DW-1 did not examine the injuries on the
person of the injured in right perspective ana did not correctly
record the injuries on the person of Narinder Singh. Opinion of
ow-·1 that the injuries were the result of blunt weapon is false
and for that reason he has been rightly challaned by ttie police B
for the offence punishable under Section 218 IPC on the ground
that he had prepared the wound certificate falsely. Reasonings
contained in paragraphs 44 and 45 in the judgment of the
Sessions Court sufficiently answer the arguments advanced on
behalf of the appellant and the evidence of DW-1 is of no c
assistance to the accused.
28. The trial court and the High Court recorded concurrent
findings holding that the appellants accused Dilawar Singh (A-
1), Yash Pal (A-3) and Shamsher Singh (A-7) have committed
the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC read with D
Section 149 IPC and under Section 148 IPC. It has been
repeatedly held by this Court that even though powers of this
Court under Article 136 of the Constitution are very wide, in
criminal appeals this Court does not interfere with the
concurrent findings of fact, save in exceptional circumstances. E
29. Considering the scope of power of this Court under
Article 136 of the Constitution in criminal appeals, in the case
of Ganga Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Bihar (2005) 6
SCC 211, it is observed: F
"From the aforesaid series of decisions of this Court on
the exercise of power of the Supreme Court under Article
136 of the Constitution of India following principles \..
emerge:- CS
(i) The powers of this Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution are very wide but in criminal appeals this
Court does not interference with the concurrent findings of
fact save in exceptional circumstances.
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 7 S.C.R.
A (ii) It is open to this Court to interfere with the findings of
fact given by the High Court, if the High Court has acted
perversely or otherwise improperly.
(iii) It is open to this Court to invoke the power under Article
136 only in very exceptional circumstances as and when
B
a question of law of general public importance arises or a
decision shocks the conscience of the Court.
(iv) When the evidence adduced by the prosecution fell
short of the test reliability and acceptability and as such it
c is highly unsafe to act upon it.
(v) Where the appreciation of evidence and finding is
vitiated by any error of law or procedure or found contrary
to the principles of natural justice, errors of record and
D misreading of the evidence, or where the conclusions of
the High Court are manifestly perverse and unsupportable
from the evidence on record."
30. In the case of Charanjit & Ors. vs. State of Punjab and
Anr. (2013) 11 sec 163, i_t was observed as under:-
E
"26. Thus, the trial court and the High Court have recorded
concurrent findings of facts holding the appellants guilty of
the offences under Sections 323/3~. 504/34, 376(2) (a)
and 376 (2) (g) IPC and the appellant Radha Krishan guilty
F of the offence under Section 342 IPC also. It has been
repeatedly held by this Court that even though the powers
of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution are very
wide, in criminal appeals this Court does not interfere with
the concurrent findings of facts, save in exceptional
circumstances where there has been grave miscarriage
G
of justice {Sambhu Das v. State of Assam (2010) 10 SCC
374}. As we have found that the concurrent findings of facts
recorded by the trial court and the High Court in this case
are based on legal evidence and there is no miscarriage
of justice as such by the two courts while arriving at the
H
DILAWAR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 861
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]
said findings, we are not inclined to disturb the impugned A
judgment of th~ High Court in exercise of our discretion
under Article 136 of the Constitution."
31. As we have found that the concurrent findings of fact
recorded by the trial court and the High Court qua Dilawar Singh
(A-1), Yash Pal (A-3) and Shamsher Singh (A-7) are based on 8
evidence, in our view, there is no miscarriage of justice by the
learned courts while arriving at the said findings and we are
not inclined to disturb the impugned judgment of the High Court
in exercise of our discretion under Article 136 of the
Constitution. The appeal preferred by the Dilawar Singh(A-1), C
Yash Pal (A-3) and Shamsher Singh (A-7) fails and is liable to
be dismissed.
32. Appeals against Acquittal qua Balkar Singh (A-4),
Ranbir Singh (A-6) and Charan Singh (A-8):- Being aggrieved, D
by the acquittal of Balkar Singh (A-4), Ranbir Singh (A-6) and
Charan Singh (A-8), State and Chanda Singh have preferred
Criminal Appeal No. 826/2010 and Criminal Appeal No. 830/
·2010. r
33. A-6, Ranbir Singh has put forth defence plea of alibi. E
A-6, Ranbir Singh was a practising lawyer at Kurukshetra and
he was working as a junior advocate in the office of Senior
Advocate, Mr. S.C. Sharma. Mr. Yudhvir Singh, advocate was
examined as DW-6, who was also practising with Mr.
S.C.Sharma. He stated that on the date of occurrence A-6, F
Ranbir Singh was in the office of Senior Advocate and not at
the place of occurrence. Trial Court has not accepted the plea
of alibi raised· by him only on the ground that the Senior
Advocate with whom A-6, Ranbir Singh was practising was not
examined. The High Court held that evidence of DW-6 canr:iot G
be doubted as there was no reason to disbelieve him and plea
of alibi taken by A-6, Ranbir Singh cannot be rejected on the
ground that his Senior Advocate Mr. S.C. Sharma was not
examined and on those findings as recorded, High Court
H
T T
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 7 S.C.R.
A acquitted Ranbir Singh, the 6th accused. We do not see any
perversity in the appreciation of evidence by High Court and
we find no substantial ground to interfere with the acquittal of
A~. .
34. Insofar as A-4, Balkar Singh and A-8, Charan Singh
8 are concerned, the case of the prosecution is that A-4 gave
gandasi blow to Narinder Singh on his left arm and A-8, Charan
Singh gave a blow with his sword on the right leg of Narinder
Singh. PW-10, Dr. Surinder Singh stated that death of the
deceased was caused by sharp edged weapon and could not
C have been caused by any blunt weapon. The High Court was
of the view that the overt act of A-4, Balkar Singh and A-8,
Charan Singh, do not find corroboration with medical evidence
and on those findings the High Court set aside the conviction
of A-4, Balkar Singh and A-8, Charan Singh and acquitted
D them.
35. The court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with
the order of acquittal unless the approach is vitiated by manifest
illegality. In an appeal against acquittal, this Court will not
E interfere with an order of acquittal merely because on the
evalyation of the evidence, a different plausible view may arise
and views taken by the courts below is not correct. In other
words, this Court must come to the conclusion that the views
taken by the learned courts below, while acquitting, cannot be
F the views of a reasonable person on the material on recor9.
36. In Chandrappa and prs. v. State of Kamataka (2007)
4 sec 415, the scope of power of appellate court dealing with
an appeal against acquittal has been considered and this
Court held as under:
G
"42 ..... (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind
that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in
favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of
innocence is available to him under the fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall
H
DILAWAR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 863
[R. BANUMATHI, J.)
be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by A
a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having
secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is
further reinforced, reaffirmed a.nd strengthened by the trial
court.
B
(5) If two reasonable conclusions.are possible on the basis
. of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal re,<(Orded by the trial court."
Unless there are substantial and compelling reasons, the
order of acquittal is not required to be reversed in appeal. It c.
has been so stated in State of Rajasthan vs. Shera Ram. (2012)
1 sec 602.
37. On evaluation of the evidence found by the Higl 1 Court
while recording an order of acquittal, in our view, does not suffer 0
from any infirmity or illegality or manifest error. We see no
reason to interfere with the order of acquittal of Accused 4, 6
and 8.
38. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal
preferred by accused (A-1, Dilawar Singh), (A3,Yash Pal), and E
(A-7, Shamsher Singh). The appeal fails and the same is ·
dismissed. The appeals against acquittal preferred by the State
and by Chanda Singh also are dismissed.
Devika Gujral Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search