Holding

The non‑examination of Narain Singh does not affect the credibility of the other witnesses, and the conviction under Sections 302 and 34 IPC stands.

Summary

Gurmej Singh, Gian Singh and Bur Singh were convicted of murdering Harnam Singh, a neighbour, based on the testimony of two close relatives who identified the accused under the light of a tubewell lamp. The defence argued that a third eye‑witness, Narain Singh, who was sleeping near the victim, was not examined and that the relatives' testimony was unreliable because they were interested witnesses. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution’s explanation that Narain Singh had been "won over" was unchallenged and that his non‑examination did not undermine the credibility of the other witnesses whose evidence was corroborated by the first information report and medical findings. The Court also rejected the contention that the identification was impossible given the alleged power failure and that the injuries could not be linked to the weapons described. Consequently, the Court found no infirmity in the trial courts' findings and dismissed the appeal, upholding the life sentences.

Issues considered

The non‑examination of an eye‑witness (Narain Singh) and whether it warrants an adverse inference against the prosecution.
The reliability of testimony of close relatives of the deceased as interested witnesses.
The impact of contradictions in statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC on witness credibility.
The plausibility of identification of the accused at a distance of 10‑15 karams under alleged electric lighting conditions.
The attribution of specific injuries to the weapons alleged to have been used.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 107, s. 151, s. 161
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34

Subjects

murderconvictioneye‑witnessinterested witnessnon‑examinationadverse inferenceSection 302 IPCSection 34 IPCCriminal Procedure Codeidentificationelectric lightingforensic evidence

Judgment

A GURMEJ SINGH AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB

JULY 16, 1991

B [A.M. AHMADI, V. RAMASWAMI AND M. FATHIMA
BEEVI, JJ.]

Indian Penal Code-Section 302 read with Section 34--Con-
viction based on the evidence of close relatives being interested testi-
mony-Whether valid.
c Non-examination of one of the eye-witnesses-Effect of.

The appellants and the deceased Harnam Singh, were neighbours
and had strained relations on account of passage of sullage water and
elections. According to the prosecution, they had quarrelled over the
D passage of sullage water a few months before the incident; the appel-
lants had diverted their sullage water towards the house of the deceased
and the latter had protested and frustrated their effort, with the result
the water collected in a pool near the house of the appellants which
infuriated them. The appellants attacked and murdered Harnam Singh
..
on the night between 6th and 7th June, 1976, while he was sleeping at
E his tubewell alongwith P. Ws 2 and 3 and one Narain Singh (not
examined); P. Ws 2 and 3 were sleeping at a distance of about 15 karams
while Narain Singh was sleeping near the deceased. The prosecution
alleged that Gurmej Singh fired a shot from close range at the deceased
while he was asleep; Gian Singh struck a Gandasi blow on the chest and
Bur Singh gave a Dang blow on the arm. After making sure that the
F victim had died, the appellants fled away. P. Ws 2 and 3 did not raise
any alarm as they were threatened by the appellants that they would be
killed in case they made any hue and cry. P. w. 2 lodged the F.I.R. and
disclosed therein the names of the appellants only as assailants. Two
other persons Socha Singh and Santokh Singh were also shown as
arrested for the commission of this crime though their names did not
G figure in the F.I.R. According to the prosecution witnesses, these
persons were falsely implicated by P. W. 8 Sub-Inspector. The appel-
lants alongwitb these two persons were put up for trial. The trial Judge
acquitted these persons as having been falsely involved and no appeal
against their acquittal was preferred. However the Trial Court relying
on the evidence of P. Ws, convicted Gurmej Singh under Secti..n 302,
H I.P.C. and the other two under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced all

966
GURMEJ SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 967

the three to imprisonment for life and also imposed token fines. The
A
appellants appealed against their conviction before the High Court but
the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed their appeal. They have
now filed this appeal against their conviction and sentence, after obtain-
ing special leave.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court B

HELD: .It is true that Narain Singh was sleeping near the deceased
when the latter was shot at Narain Singh was indeed a witness to the
occurrence and ordinarily we would have expected the prosecution to
examine him. Dropping a witness on the specious plea that he was won
over without laying the foundation therefor is generally to be frowned
upon. [973E]
c
The defence at no point of time questioned the prosecution state-
ment that Narain Singh was won over. The courts below accepted the
prosecution statement in this behalf. The judgment of both the courts
reveal that no submission was made before them regarding the non- D
·' examination of this witness. If an objection was raised at the earliest
point of time, the prosecution may have called him to the witness stand.
His presence was not required to unfold the prosecution story. That had
been done by P. Ws. 2 and 3. Therefore, the non-examination of Narain
Singh cannot reflect on the credibility of P. Ws. 2 and 3. [973G-974A]
E
Both the courts were right in coming to the conclusion that the
contradictions brought on record from the statements of PWs 2 and 3
can have no evidentiary value. [977B]

There is no substance in the criticism levelled by the learned
Counsel for the appellants that the prosecution had shifted its case at F
the trial from the one narrated to the police in the course of investiga-
tion. The prosecution version is that immediately after the incident
PW2 went to the residence of his father P. W. 4 and informed him about
the incident. This conduct of P.W. 2 is quite natural. The evidence of
>. P.W. 2 stands corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 4. P.W. 2 thereafter
hired a tempo and left for the police station and promptly lodged the G
first information report. It must be realised that P. W 2 had no time for
manipulation as he had reached the Police Station, which was at a
distance of 12 Km. before 8.30 a.m. He would not have named the
assailants if he had not seen them. There was no reason for him to
falsely implicate the appellants since he bore no grudge against them; it
was just the reverse. A copy of this report had reached the concerned H
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991] 2 S.C.R.

A Magistrate by about 11.15 a.m. This first information report also lends
corroboration to his testimony. The medical evidence tendered by P.W.
l also corroborates the version of P. Ws 2 and 3. There is, therefore, no
infirmity in the approach of the two courts below in convicting the
appellants. [977D-G]

B Sahaj Ram v. State of U.P., (1973] l S.C.C. 490; Hallu & Ors. v.
State of M.P., (1974] 4 S.C.C. 300; Nachhattar Singh & Ors. v. State of
Punjab, (1976] l S.C.C. 750; Kartarey v. State of U.P., (1976] l S.C.C.
172; lshwar Singh v. State of U.P., (1976] 4 S.C.C. 355; A.N. Rao V;
Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh, [ 1975] 4 S.C.C. 106 and State of
U.P. v. Hari Prasad & Ors., (1974] 3 S.C.C. 673, referred to.
c CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 778 of 1979.

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.6.1979 of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in Crl. A. Nos. 120 and 163 of 1977.
D
Frank Anthony and Sushi! Kumar for the Appellants.

R.S. Suri for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
AHMADI, J. Harnam Singh, Sarpanch of Village Naushera, was
murdered on the night between 6th and 7th June, 1976 while he was
sleeping at his tubewell to guard the wheat bags stacked in his field.
PW 1 Dr. Malhotra who conducted the autopsy at about 4.15 p.m. on
7th June, 1976 found four injuries on the person of the deceased,
F namely, (i) a lacerated penetrating circular would, 1/4" in diameter,
with black margins inverted on right middle back, 3"from mid-line
and 9" from iliac crest, (ii) a verticle bruise 6" x 1/2" on the front of
right forearm running downwards and outwards, (iii) beuises in the
area of 5" x l" on the front and inner aspect ofright upper-arm above
the elbow joint, running forwards, outwards and downwards and (iv)
G an abrasion 5" x 1" on the right side of the chest, 5" from mid-line
and 3" from the clavicle running downward and inward. On opening
the first wound it was found that the 8th and 9th ribs were fractured
posteriorly; the diaphram and superior surface on the left lobe of the
liver were lacerated; the heart was lacerated into pieces and the third,
fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh ribs of the left side were broken
H anteriorly. The exit wound was 8" x 4" on the left upper chest just
GURMEJ SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB (AHMADI, J.] 969

above the nipple. Death was on account of shock and haemorrhage
A
resulting from the bullet injury. This injury No. 1 was stated to be
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The other
injuries were .possible by a hard and blunt weapon and were s.imple in
nature. Death was instantaneous. Both the Courts below,, therefore,
rightly concluded that death was homicidal.
B
.. The prosecution case, briefly stated, was that the appellants and
the deceased who were neighbours in the village had quarrelled over
the passage of sullage water a few months before the incident. The
appellants had diverted their sullage water towards the house of the
deceased and the latter had protested and frustrated their effort. On
account of this obstruction the sullage water collected in a pool near
the house of the appellants which infuriated them. On account of this
c
incident as well as past election rivalries the relations between the
appellants and the deceased were so soured that on the night of the
incident the three appellants went armed with weapons to the tubewell
of the deceased where the latter was sleeping to guard his wheat
stacked in bags. Gurmej Singh was armed with a rifle, Gian Singh was D
armed with Gandasi and Bur Singh carried a Dang. The prosecution
alleged that Gurmej Singh had collcealed the rifle in the Chadar wrap-
ped around him and on reaching the place where the deceased was
sleeping on a cot he threw off the chadar and shot the deceased at point
blank range. The incident was witnessed by three persons, PW2 Swa,
ran Singh, nephew of the deceased, PW3 Fau ja Singh, a close relative E
·of the deceased and one Narain Singh (not examined) who too were
sleeping in the field. Actually Narain Singh was sleeping near the
deceased whereas PWs 2 and 3 were sleeping at a distance of approxi-
mately 10/ 15 karams therefrom. the prosecution did not examine
Narain Singh on the plea that he was .won over. The evidence of PWs 2
and 3 shows that they got up on hearing some movement in the filed F
and they saw the three appellants near the cot of the deceased. They
were able to identify them because of the existence of an electric light
at the tubewell. According to them on reaching near the cot of the
deceased Gurmej Singh fired a shot from close range at the deceased
who was still sleeping in his cot. Thereafter Gian Singh struck a
Gandasi blow on the chest of the deceased followed by a Dang blow on G
the right arm by Bur Singh. Gurmej Singh is stated to have warned
others not to get up unless they wanted to be killed. On account of this
warning PWs 2 and 3 did not run to the rescue of the deceased for fear
of being killed. After making sure that their victim was dead, the
appellants fled away. PW2 Swaran Singh then went to the house of his
father PW4 Waryam Singh and narrated the incident. PW2 accom- H
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991) 2 S.C.R.

A panied by Gurdas Singh, Lambardar, then went to the Police Station
at about 8.30 a.m. on 7th June, 1976 and lodged the first information
report. PW8 Sub-Inspector Kartar Chand Singh then reached the place
of occurrence, held an inqu~st on the dead body of the deceased, lifted
the blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and then
recorded the statements of PW3 Fauja Singh, Narain Singh and others.
B Gian Singh and Bur Singh were arrested on 2nd July, 1976 while
Gurmej Singh was arrested on 7th July, 1976. It appears that two
more persons, namely, Sucha Singh and Santokh Singh (original
accused Nos. 1and4, respectively) were also shown as arrested for the
commission of this crime on 2nd July. 1976 although their names were
not disclosed in the first information report. The allegation of the
prosecution witnesses PWs 2, 3 and 4 is that these two persons were
C falsely involved as PW8 Sub Inspector Kartar Chand Singh wanted to
save his skin as he was found to have illegally and wrongly detained
them at the police station. We will deal with this aspect later but
suffice it to say that both the courts below have come to the conclusion
that they were falsely involved in the .commission of. this crime by
D fabricating statements of PWs 2 and 3 under Section 161 of Criminal
Procedure Code ('the Code' for short). In view of this conclusion ,
reached by both the courts, the said two persons were acquitted. No
appeal was preferred challenging their acquittal. The Trial Court con-
victed Gurmej Singh under section 302 IPC and the other two under
Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced all the three to imprisonment for life
E and also imposed token fines. Against their conviction the present
three appellants filed an appeal which was dismissed by a Division
Bench of the High Court on 21st June, 1979. It is against this finding of
guilt recorded by both the courts below that the present three appel-
lants have preferred this appeal by special leave.

F Mr. Frank Anthony, counsel for the appellants, submitted that
there were three eye-witnesses to the incident even according to the
prosecution case and out of them Narain Singh was nearest to the
deceased when the incident occurred on that dark night in the field.
This Narain Singh alone was an independent witness and yet the pro-
secution did not examine him on the specious plea that he was won
G over. The other two eye-witnesses. PWs 2 and 3, are admittedly close
relatives of the deceased and out of them the presence of PW3 is
extremely doubtful being a resident of a nearby village. At any rate he
can be termed as a chance witness and in all probability he came to the

H
field from his village after learning about the incident. Besides, since
the incident occurred on a dark night and the evidence that the electric
light at the tubewell was on at that hour is extremely doubtful, it is -
GURMEJ SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB [AHMADI, J.] 971

difficult to believe that PWs 2 and 3 saw the actual incident from a
A
distance of 10/15 karams and were able to identify the assailants. Said
counsel, the conduct of both these eye-wi!nesses is not normal since
they did not raise an alarm even though they depose to have woken up
on hearing some movement in the field. They could have cautioned the
deceased and Narain Singh about the entry of third parties in the field
since they were there precisely for that purpose. They have tried to B
explain their unnatural conduct on the pica that the appellant Gurmej
Singh had raised a 'lalkara' that anyone trying to come near the
deceased would be killed. But this 'lalkara' was after the event and not
before, while the conduct of the eye-witnesses before the incident is
unnatural if they had actually got up on hearing some movement of
third parties in the field. Else it must be accepted that they got up on
hearing the gun fire and before they could go near the deceased, the
c
assailants had fled away. In this situation the evidence of Narain Singh
assumes importance as he was most competent to unfold the true
version regarding the incident, being just by the side of the deceased at
the time of the incident. The failure to call him to the witness stand
was,. counsel submitted, unfair to the defence as it deprived the D
defence of the opportunity to elicit the true version regarding the
offence. Lastly he submitted that the prosecution has not placed any
material on record nor has it stated any reason in its written report in
support of its conclusion that he had been won over. In any event, it is
hazardous to base a conviction on the highly interested testimony of
PWs 2 and 3, particularly when the motive alleged by the prosecution E
for implicating the appellants is very weak. Besides the evidence of
PWs2 and 3 suffers from several infirmities.

Counsel for the State submitted that this Court should not dis-
turb the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two cburts and the
reliance placed by them on the two eye-witnesses whose etidence is F
corroborated by PW4. He pointed out that both the courts below had
recorded a positive finding that the electric light was on at the tubewell
which provided sufficient light to enable PWs 2 and 3 to identify the
assailants even from a distance of 10/15 karams. The assailants were
not strangers to PWs 2 and 3 and, therefore, their evidence on the
question of identity cannot be doubted. The prosecution had stated G
the reason for not examining Narain Singh and if the defence had any
doubt in that behalf it could have requested the court Id examine the
said witness as a court witness rather than keeping silent and th~n
raising a belated grievance. In short he supported the line of reasoning
adopted by the two courts below.
H
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 2 S.C.R.

A It must be conceded at the outset that the prosecution case
hinges on the credibitity of PWs2 and 3. PW2. is the nephew of the
deceased. PW3 is the maternal cousin of PW2 and was closely related
to the deceased as the latter's daughter Piari was his younger brother's
wife. PW3 is a resident of a neighbouring village lying at a distance of
three miles from the village of the deceased. Ordinarily, therefore,
B PW3 would not be expected to be present at the scene of occurrence
but according to him he had gone to see P. W. 2 and after having his meals
both he and PW 2 had gone to the tubewell of the deceased. PW 3 claims
that he woke up at about 3.00 a.m. as he was to return to his village when
he saw the three persons and identified them as the appellants. He does
not speak of any 'lalkara' or to have got up on hearing footsteps as
deposed by PW2 but he too did not raise any alarm or try to caution
c the deceased and Narain Singh who were sleeping 10/15 karams away.
After the incident he went to the village to inform his younger
brother's wife about the death of her father and returned with her to
the village by which time the police has arrived. In these circumstances
the question is whether absolute reliance can be placed on PWs 2 and 3
D regarding the involvement of the appellants?

Mr. Frank Anthony, the learned counsel for the appellants,
firstly submitted that the incident occurred on a dark nig_ht in an open
field at about 3.00 a.m. when as shown by the defence through the
evidence of two independent witnesses DW 1 and DW 2 the electricity
E had tripped and, therefore, the prosecution witnesses could not have
seen the assailants from a distance of about 10/15 karams. He, there-
fore, submitted that the claim of the prosecution witnesses that they
had identified the assailants on account of the presence of electric light
at the tubewell is clearly belied by the evidence of DWs 1 and 2. DW 1
Kewal Krishan. Sub-Station Attendant, Punjab State Electricity
F Board, Gurdaspur, stated that on 7th June, 1976 the electric current
had broken down at about 2.35 a.m. and was not restored till 5.50 a.m.
In support of this statement he produced certain entries from the
register but on cross-examination he admitted that the log sheets were
not available and it was noticed that the register was not properly
bound and the threads of the previous binding were broken and fresh
G binding was done raising a suspicion about the register having been
tampered with. DW2 Inder Pal Singh, SDO, Subarban-Gurdaspur,
merely reiterated what DWI had stated. The courts below suspected
the correctness of the entry in the register. B.ut that apart, the High
Court was right in saying that the time of 3.00 a.m. was a mere esti-
mate of eye-witnesses PWs 2 and 3 and neither of them had verified
H the time with any wrist watch so as to vouch for its accuracy. PW 2 has
~ GURMEJ SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB [AHMADI, J.l 973

categorically stated that a 200 watt bulb was on at the time when the
incident in question occurred. He does not depose to have checked the A
time with his wrist watch or with the wrist watch of PW3. Infact PW3
-'
has deposed that he was not wearing a wrist watch at the time of the
incident. Therefore, the estimate of time given by PWs 2 and 3 cannot
be taken as accurate and it is quite possible that the incident occurred
before the tripping of supply of electric energy took place. We are, B
therefore, not impressed by the contention of Mr. Anthony that the
evidence of DWs 1 and 2 belies the version of PWs 2 and 3 that they
were able to identify the appellants because of existence electric light
-< at the tubewell. Besides, it must be remembered that the appellants
were no strangers to.these prosecution witnesses to make their identifi-
cation by them difficult.
c
It was next submitted by Mr. Anthony that Narain Singh, an
independent witness, was delibrately dropped for fear that he would
- reveal the truth and expose the falsehood of PWs 2 and 3. He submit-
ted, relying on the decision of this Court in Sahaj Ram v. State of UP,
[1973] 1 sec 490 that the prosecution should, in fairness,. have pro- D
duced this witness since he was one who would have unfolded the true
version regarding the incident as he was in the vicinity of the deceased.
The presence of blood at the scene of occurrence establishes, beyond
any manner of doubt that the incident occurred at the place pointed
out by PWs 2 and 3. It is true that Narain Singh was sleeping near the
deceased when the latter was shot at. Narain Singh was indeed a wit- E
ness to the occurrence and ordinarily we would have expected the
prosecution to examine him. Dropping a witness on the specious plea
} that he was won over without laying the foundation therefore is gener-
ally to be frowned upon. Counsel for the appellants, therefore, sub-
milted that an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecu-
lion for its deliberate failure to examine Narain Singh. But it must be F
remembered that the investigating officer had recorded the further
statement of Narain Singh under section 161 of the Code for involving
the two acquitted accused persons who were nowhere in the picture.
Narain Singh was, therefore, not likely to support the prosecution
,I.
version. The defence at no point of time questioned the prosecution
statement that Narain Singh was won over. The courts below accepted G
the prosecution statement in this behalf. The judgment of both the
courts reveal that no submission was made before them regarding the
non-examination of this witness. If an objection was raised at the
~ earliest point of time, the prosecution may have called him to the
;;. witness stand. His presence was not required to unfold the prosecution
story. That had been done by PWs 2 and 3. Therefore, the non- H
974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991) 2 S.C.R. :

examination of Narain Singh cannot reflect on the credibility of PWs 2
A
and3.

Counsel for the appellants next submitted that according to the .
prosecution appellant Gian Singh was armed with a Gandasi and he is
alleged to have given a blow therewith on the chest of the deceased.
B Ordinarily a Gandasi blow would cause an incised wound whereas the
deceased had an abrasion 5" x l" on the chest caused by a hard and
blunt substance. According to counsel normally when a witness
deposes to the use of a particular weapon there is no warrant for
supposing that the blunt side of the weapon was used by the assailant.
In support of this contention counsel invited our attention to two
decisions, namely, Hallu & Ors. v. State of MP, [1974) 4 SCC 300 and
c Nachhattar Singh & Ors v. The State of Punjab, [1976) 1 SCC 750. In
his .submission, therefore, the injury found on the chest could not be
attributed to Gian Singh who is stated to have used the Gandasi. We
see no merit in this contention for the simple reason that the prosecu-
tion witnesses have categorically stated that Giaq Singh used the blunt
D side of the Gandasi. If the prosecution witnesses were silent in this
behalf the submission of counsel would have carried weight. But where
the prosecution witnesses categorically state that the blunt side of the
weapon was used there is no room for believing that the sharp side of
the weapon which would be normally used had in fact been used. The
observations in the aforesaid two judgments do not lay down to the
E contrary. In fact in the first mentioned case it is clearly stated that if
the prosecution witnesses have clarified the position, their evidence
would prevail and not the normal inference. Counsel,. however, made
a grievance that. the prosecution had not tried to elicit the opinion of ;
PW l Dr. Malhotra on the question whether such an abrasion was
possible by a Gandasi blow. According to him, as held by this Court in
F Kartarey v. State of U.P., [1976) 1SCC172 and Ishwar Singh v. State of
UP, [ 1976) 4 SCC 355, it was the duty of the prosecution to elicit the
opinion of the medical-man in this behalf. PWJ clearly stated in the
course of his examination-in-chief that injuries Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were
caused by a blunt weapon. It is true that he was not specifically asked if

G
the chest injury could have been caused by the blunt side of the
Gandasi. It cannot be gainsaid that the prosecution must endeavour to .
elicit the opinion of the medical-man whether a particular injury is
possible by the weapon with which it is alleged to have been caused by
showing the weapon to the witness. In fact the Presiding Officer
should himself have elicited the opinion. However, in this case it
should not make much difference because the evidence of PWs 2 and 3
..
-<--
H is acceptable and is corroborated by the first information report as well
GURMEJ SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB [AHMADI, J.] 975

as PW 4. If the medical witness had also so opined it would have lent
A
further corroboration. But the omission to elicit his opinion cannot
render the direct testimony of PWs 2 and 3 doubtful or weak. We,
_.;, therefore, do not see any merit in this submission. In fact if we turn ·to
the cross-examination of PWl we find that the defence case was that
·these three injuries were caused by the rubbing of the body against a
hard surface, a version which has to be stated to be rejected. B

It was next contended that PWs 2 and 3 being close relatives of
the deceased could not be relied upon particularly because their version
regarding the incident is not corroborated by independent evidence
' and it is extremely doubtful if they could have identified the assailants
from a distance of about 10/15 karams. We have already dealt with the
latter part of this submission. We have no hesitation in agreeing with
c
the two courts below that they could have identified the assailants who
were no strangers to them from that distance of 10/15 karams since the
electric light at the tubewell was switched on. Once the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses regarding existence of light is accepted, there is
no difficulty in accepting their evidence regarding identification. The D
presence of PW 2 at the tubewell cannot be doubted as it was he who
went to PW 4 in the early hours and then travelled a distance of about
12 km. to the police station where he lodged his complaint. Since PW3
was visiting PW2 it was natural for him to accompany the latter to the
field. Both the courts have accepted their evidence and we see no
reason to discard the same on the specious ground that they are E
interested witnesses. Their evidence has been subjected to close
scrutiny but nothing adverse is found to doubt their credibility.
~
The next submission of counsel for the appellants is that the
evidence regarding motive is weak and, therefore, it is not possible to
believe that the appellants would kill the deceased on account of a F
minor quarrel regarding the passage of sullage water which had taken
place a few months back. In this connection he invited our attention to
. the decisions of this Court in A.N. Rao v. Public Prosecutor, Andhra
Pradesh, [1975] 4 SCC 106 and State of UP v. Hari Pra~ad & Ors.,
~
[!974] 3 SCC 673. This submission cuts both ways. If the evidence
Ji.
regarding motive is not sufficiently strong as argued by the counsel for G.
the appellants, it is difficult to believe that PWs 2 and 3 would go out
of their way to falsely involve the appellants. But it must be realised
that there were election disputes and the deceased had successfully
contested the election against Dalbeer Singh who was the candidate of
Gian Singh, Bur Singh and others. This old enmity coupled with the
incident regarding the passage of sullage water in reg_ard to which H
976 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 2 S.C.R.

A proceedings under section 107 /151 of the Code were pending is the
motive alleged by the prosecution and we do not think it is so weak
that it would not prompt the appellants to kill their rival. The decisions
on which counsel places reliance can, therefore, have no application in r-
the special facts and circumstances of the present case.

B Counsel for the appellants then submitted that the evidence of
PWs 2 and 3 which is corroborated by the evidence of PW4 to whom
the incident was narrated by PW2 cannot be believed in view of the
contradictions brought on record from their statements recorded un-
der section 161 of the Code. As stated earlier both the Courts have
come to the conclusion that these statements are a fabrication. Both
the courts below have given cogent reasons for reaching this conclu-
c sion. In particular the High Court has after examining the record of
the habeas corpus petition shown beyond any manner of doubt that
PW8 had intentionally prepared false statements of all these eye-
witnesses for falsely involving Sucha Singh and Santokh Singh since
they were wrongly and illegally detained by him in the police station, a
D fact which was noticed by the Court's Warrant Officer who had visited
the police station on 2nd July, 1976 at about 5.15 p.m. He was initially
told that no such person or persons had been detained in the police
station. The Warrant Officer, however, searched the police station
and noticed the presence of these two and other persons. It, therefore,
became necessary for PW 8 to explain their presence in the police
E station since it was alleged in the habeas corpus petition filed on 30th
June, 1976 that they were illegally detained. The Court had appointed
the Warrant Officer to verify this allegation. PW8 had, therefore, to
cover up the illegal detention of these two persons. So he substituted
statements purported to have been made by PWs 2 and 3 under section
161 of the Code involving the said two persons in the commission of
F the crime although their names did not figure in the first information
report. The courts below, therefore, rightly came to the conclusion
that the contradictions brought on record on the basis of these state-
ments cannot shake the credibility of the two eye-witnesses to the
occurrence. It must be realised that immediately after two of the
appellants were arrested on 2nd July, 1976, PW2, Swaran Singh had
G gone to the police station and had informed PW8 that the said two • ~

persons, namely, Sucha Singh and Santokh Singh were wrongly
detained. PW2 lost no time and followed it up by filing an affidavit in
the trial court on 3rd July, 1976 alleging that the investigating agency
was trying to favour Gurmej Singh and had for that purpose fabricated
his statement as also the statements of other witnesses under section
H 161 of the Code. In his evidence before the court also PW2 stated that
GURMEJ SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB [AHMADI, J.] 977

=> he had informed the police officials that Sucha Singh and Santokh A
Singh were ih no way concerned with the crime and had been wrongly
named by the police to bail out Gurmej Singh. It is also difficult to
..; believe that PW 2 would give a total go-by to his immediate version in
'
the first information report while making his statement under section
161 of the Code. We are, therefore, of the opinion that both the courts
B
were right in coming to the conclusion that the contradictions brought
on record from such statements of PWs 2 and 3 can have no eviden-
tiary value. Counsel, however, submitted that the inference drawn by
the two courts below is falsified by the fact that DSP Oujla had ver-
ified the investigation papers on 10th June, 1976 and had given a
;; -'\
direction that Gurmej Singh should be shown in column No. 2. There
is", however, nothing on record to show that Oujla had counter-signed c
these two statements which are used for contradicting the two eye-
witnesses. Therefore, the mere fact that Oujla had verified the investi-
gation record on 10th June, 1976 cannot come to the rescue of the
appellants. There is, therefore, no substance in the criticism levelled
by the learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution had
D
shifted its case at the trial from the one narrated to the police in the
course of investigation.

The prosecution version is that immediately after the incident
·PW2 went to the residence of his father PW 4 and informed him about
, the incident. This conduct of PW2 is quite natural. The evidence of
PW2 stands corroborated by the evidence of PW4. PW2 thereafter E
hired a tempo and left for the police station and promptly lodged the
first information report. It must be realised that PW2 had no time for
manipulation as he had reached the Police Station, which was at a
distance of 12 Km. before 8.30 a.m. He would not have named the
assailants if he had not seen them. There was no reason for him to
falsely implicate the appellants since he bore no grudge against them; f
it was just the reverse. A copy of this report had reached the concered
_,, Magistrate by about 11.15 a.m. This first information report also lends
corroboration to his testimony. The medical evidence tendered by
PWl also corroborates the version of PWs 2 and 3. We, therefore, do
not see any infirmity in_ the approach of the two courts below in con-
_,' ,;. victing the appellants. G

For the above reasons we see no merit in this appeal and dismiss
the same. The appellants who are on bail will surrender to their bail
forthwith.
~r
Y.Lal. Appeal dismissed.