Holding

All the accused are guilty of murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC (and where applicable Section 34 IPC), and the High Court acquittals are set aside.

Summary

The case involved the murder of Kulwant Singh and Bidhi Shankar by a group of nine accused who formed an armed unlawful assembly to avenge a prior killing. The trial court convicted all accused under Sections 302 and related provisions, but the High Court acquitted several of them, holding that their participation was not proved. The Supreme Court examined the applicability of Sections 34 and 149 IPC, held that mere membership in an unlawful assembly suffices for liability under Section 149, while Section 34 requires actual participation but was also satisfied by the evidence. The Court rejected the High Court’s reliance on the absence of specific weapon‑inflicted injuries, accepted the eyewitness testimony despite minor contradictions, and dismissed the plea of self‑defence as an afterthought. Consequently, the Court set aside the acquittals, restored the convictions under Sections 302/149 IPC, and dismissed the appeals of the accused.

Issues considered

The correct interpretation and application of Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code in the context of an armed unlawful assembly.
Whether the High Court erred in acquitting certain accused on the ground that they did not personally inflict the fatal injuries.
Whether contradictions in eyewitness testimony justify rejection of their evidence.
Whether the plea of self‑defence raised by some accused is sustainable.
Whether omissions in a witness statement under Sections 161(2) and 162 CrPC constitute a material contradiction.

Legislation cited

Arms Acts. 25, s. 27, s. 30
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 161(2), s. 162
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 145
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120-B, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 307, s. 323, s. 34

Subjects

unlawful assemblySection 34 IPCSection 149 IPCcommon intentionjoint liabilityself-defenceeyewitness testimonyCriminal Procedure CodemurderArms Act

Judgment

JASWANT SINGH A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA

APRIL 4, 2000

.[D.P. WADHWAAND RUMA PAL, JJ.] B

Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 302, 323, 149 and 34-Death of two
persons caused by nine accused persons by fanning an unlawful assembly-
Multiple injuries inflicted with guns, spears lathis etc.-Injuries sufficient to
cause death in the ordinary course of nature-Trial Court convicted the c
accused persons inflicting fatal below, under Section 302 /PC and others
under Section 3021149 /PC-On appeal High Court held four accused guilty
under Section 302134 /PC-Acquitted the other five accused-On appeal,
Held: With regard to Section 34 IPC, promotion and facilitation of crime is
required in addition to common intention whereas regarding Section 149 !PC,
mere presence in the unlawful assembly is sufficient-In view of the presence D
of elements of both the sections, acquittal was erroneous.

Penal Code, 1860 : Section 97-Ghastly killing of two persons by nine
persons-Head of one of the accused almost severed from body-Dead bodies
bore deep and incised wounds in addition to gunshots-Accused persons had
E
only one or two wounds each either on anns or fingers-Plea of self defence
taken at a later stage-Held : Plea of Self defence not sustainable.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 : Section 161 (2) read with Explanation
to Section 162-Assault by a number ofpersons on another set ofpersons-Eye
witnesses not certain as to who assaulted whom and with what weapon-Held F
: Such a discrepancy in the circumstances no ground to reject the evidence of
eyewitnesses.

The appellant-accused had enmity with the deceased persons. A
relative of the accused had been murdered by deceased K and B, who
were later been released on bail. In order to seek revenge, Accused 1 to 9 G
formed an unlawful assembly armed with guns, spears, lathis, kirpans,
'naiza', a kind of spear, etc. On the day of occurrence, when deceased K
and B alongwith PW-2 and PW-4 were going on motorcycles, all the
accused persons waylaid them. A-8 struck PW-2 on the head with a lathi
whereas A-1 gave a ga11dasi below to B. PW-2 fled form the scene.Kand H
903
904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A B both ran into a neighbouring house and locked themselves from inside.
All the accused after chasing the deceased broke open the door and at-
tacked K and B with their weapons. The deceased tried to defend them-
selves with kirpans and even inflicted injuries on A-1, A-2 & A-3. A-2 and
A-5 inflicted fatal wounds on K whereas A-1, A-4, A-6 and A-9 gave fatal
blows to B. PW-2 lodged a complaint with the police naming all the nine
B
accused persons and a case was registered under Sections 302, 307, 323,
148, 149, 120-B and 452 IPC against all the accused. According to the
Post-mortem report, seven injuries on the body of K and twenty injuries
on the body of B were stated to be inflicted and the cause of death was
reported to be shock and hemorrhage resulting form ante mortem multiple
c injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary cause of nature. The trial
court, after convicting A-1, A-2 and A-3 under Section 302 IPC sentenced
them to life imprisonment. It also sentenced A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8 and
A-9, under Section 302 read with 149 IPC, to life imprisonment.

On appeals preferred by all the accused persons, High Court altered
D the conviction of A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-8 to offences under Section 302 read
with 34 IPC. It also held A-8 guilty under section 323 IPC and A-1, A-2
and A-3 guilty under Sections 323 read with 34 IPC. liigh Court acquitted
A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7 and A-9 of all charges. PW-2 also preferred an appeal
against acquittal by way of special leave but special leave-was granted
E against acquittal of A-4 and A-5 only. Hence the present appeals.

Disposing the appeals, this Court

HELD : 1.1. The similarity of Sections 34 and 149 IPC lies in the
requirement of a common object or intention or a pre-arranged plan in
furtherance of which the act is done. The difference lies in the d(!gree of
F
actual participation required in the criminal enterprise. The emphasis is
on physical presence and promotion of the crime. As far as Section 149
IPC is concerned, in addition to the common object, merely being a mem-
ber for an unlawful assembly within the meaning of Section 141 IPC may
be sufficient. [916-H; 917-A; F-G]
G
Ramaswami Ayyangar v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1976) 3 SCC 779; Lalji
v. State of U.P., [1989) 1 SCC 437 and State of A.P. v. Thakkadiram Reddy &
Ors., [1998] 6 SCC 554, relied on.

1.2. According to the accepted evidence there was an unlaWful as-
H sembly of all the accused, which, with the common object or premeditated
JASWANT SINGH v. STATE 905
plain of murdering Kand B,' waylaid, chased and attacked them resulting A
~ in their death. All the elements of Sections 149 and 34 JPC were there
which were sufficient to hold all the accused guilty under Section 34 and
149 JPC. Still the High Court looked for evidence that A-4 and 5 had
actually struck the blows on the victims. This conclusion is not only
conradictory to its own finding but is based on an erroneous interpreta-
B
tion of the provisions of both Sections 34 and 149 JPC as authoritatively
laid down. The order of the High Court acquitting A-4 and A-5, therefore,
cannot stand. [919-H; 920-A-B; 921-D]

State of Haryana v. Tek Singh, [1999] 4 SCC 682, relied on.
c
1.3. Both the Courts below accepted the evidence of PW 1, 2 and 4
as being consistent, corroborative and credible. Even if one excludes the
presence of the other accused whose acquittal by the High Court were not
interfered with by this Court, the remaining six accused formed an unlaw-
ful assembly within the meaning of Section 141 JPC. Their object in
forming the assembly was to murder B and K. This premeditation is D
evidenced not only by their foregathering on the road with deadly weap-
ons but also by their subsequent conduct commenci.ng with the lathi blow
to PW-2 by A-8 and the gandasi blow to B by A-1 followed by the con-
certed chase of the victims and forcible entry in the house where the
victims had taken shelter and finally after the murder leaving the. site E
together after the murder. [922-B-D]

Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, AIR (1955) SC 216, relied on.
I
1.4. As regards A-8 that he formed part of the armed group which
intercepted the victims and initiated the assault by striking a blow on PW- F
2's head is established by the evidence of PW-2 himself and PW-4. That
PW-2's wound could have been caused by a lathi blow is corroborated by
the evidence of doctor. A-S's complicity in the attack of the victims contin-

.. ued when he alongwith the other accused chased the victims as they fled to
take shelter. This would be sufficient to hold him guilty under Section 149
and Section 34 JPC. In addition his actual participation in the killing was
G

seen and testified to by PW-1. [923-F-H]

2. According to Section 161(2) read with and explanation to Section
162 Cr.P.C., an omission in order to be significant must depend whether
the specific question, the answer to which is omitted, was asked of the H
906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A witnesses. In the present case, the Investigating Officer, PW-13 was not
>-
asked whether he had put questions to PW-1 asking for details of the
injuries inflicted or of the persons who had caused the injuries. It is well
settled that when a number of persons assault one or more persons at one
and same time-with different weapons, some contradictions as to who
attacked whom with and what weapon are not unlikely and are also no
B
ground to reject the evidence of eyewitnesses. [925-C-F]

Tehsildar Singh and Am: v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1959] 2 SCR 875
and Satbir Singh v. Surat Singh, (1997] 4 SCC 192, reJied on.

3. The viciousness and extent of the injuries inflicted on the victims
c compared with the injuries suffered by A-1, A-2 and A-3 belies the plea of
self defence. ·K's head was virtually severed from his body. Both bodies
bore deep slash wounds, incised wounds, gunshot wounds. and extensive
bruising, PW-5, the doctor who had examined A-1 had only found a
wound between the left thumb and forefinger. He also testified that he had
D examined A-2 and found one wound on the left forearm. Even the defence
witnesses (DWs 5 and 6) said that A-3 has suffered cuts and lacerations.
Furthermore the plea was taken by these accused for the first time iil their
statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Finally no such plea of
self-defence was put in cross-examination to any of the prosecution wit-
nesses. In the circumstances, the plea of self-defence was rightly rejected
E
as an afterthought. [925-G-H; 926-A-B]

4. The principle to be followed by Appellate Courts consideririg an
appeal against an order of acquittal is to interfere only when there are
"compelling and substantial reasons" for doing so. If the order is "clearly
F unreasonable" it is a compelling reason for interference. [916-B-C]

Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, [1973] 2 SCC 793,
referred to.

G
Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, [1996] 9 SCC 225 and
George v. State of Kerala, (1998) Cr.L.J. 2034 SC, relied on.
..
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 722
of 1993 Etc. Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.11.92 of the Punjab and
H Haryana High Court in Crl.A. No. 132-DB/91 and 135-DB/91.
JASWANT SJNGH v. STATE [RUMA PAL, J.] 907

- A.K. Sen, B.K. Mehta, P.S. Mishra, Prem Malhotra, A. Sharan, Good-
will Indeever (A.C.), Ms. Madhu Sharma and Alok Vagrecha for the Appel-
lants.
A

K.C. Bajaj, LS. Goyal, Ms. lndu Malhotra, Mahabir Singh, J.P. Dhanda
and Rishi Malhotra for the Respondent.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RUMA PAL, J. This judgment disposes of three appeals which arise
out of the same judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The appellant
in the first appeal has challenged the judgment because it upheld his convic-
tion under Section 323 and sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) c
in respect of the murder of Kulwant Singh and Bidhi Shankar. The three
appellants in the second appeal have also appealed against their conviction by
the High Comt for the same offence under Sections 148, 307/149, 323/149,
302 and 302/149 IPC. The appellant in the third appeal was the complainant
and he is aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court because two of the D
accused were acquitted.

The case of the prosecution was that there was a long standing enmity
between the accused and the deceased. Darshan Singh a relative of the
accused had been murdered. Kulwant Singh and Bidhi Shankar had been
charged with the murder, but had been released on bail. With the intention of E
avenging the murder of Darshan Singh the nine accused formed an unlawful
assembly armed with guns, spears, lathis and axes and kirpans on 1st
September 1989 near the road leading from Charnmu Kalan to lsmailabad
Shisha Singh (son of Banta Singh), Amrik Singh, Baksha Singh (also known
as Gurbaksh and Bakshi), Iqbal Singh, Gurnam Singh, Balkar Singh, Jaswant
F
Singh, Satnam Singh and Dalip Singh. Amrik Singh and Balkar Singh were
carrying guns; Jaswant Singh and Satnam Singh were carrying lathis, Shisha
Singh was carrying a 'gandasi', Iqbal Singh and Gurnam Singh were carrying
'naizas' and Baksha Singh and Dalip Singh were carrying kirpans. That
morning Jagjit Singh (appellant in the third appeal) and Bidhi Shankar were
driving two motor-cycles with Kulwant Singh riding pillion on Jagjit's motor G
cycle and Raj Rani, Bidhi Shankar's mother, riding pillion on the motor-cycle
of her son, Bidhi Shankar along that road. They were going to get medical
treatment for Kulwant Singh and R~j Rani. They were waylaid on the road at
11.00 A.M. by the nine accused persons. Jaswant Singh (appellant in the first
appeal) struck Jagjit on the head with a lathi as a result of which Jagjit' s
H
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A motor-cycle went out of control and fell on the road. Shisha Singh inflicted·
a gandasi blow to Bidhi Shankar. Jagjit Singh fled and hid behind a wall when
Balkar Singh fired a shot at him. Kulwant Singh and Bidhi Shank:ar both ran
into the house of Shisha Singh (son of Waryam Singh) and locked the door.
TI1e nine accused persons together chased the fleeing men and broke open the
door and window of the house and attacked Kulwant Singh and Bidhi
B
Shank:ar with the weapons. Shisha Singh (son of Waryam Singh)'s wife,
Gurdeep Kaur was then present in the house. Bidhi Shankar and Kulwant
Singh tried to defend themselves by taking kirpans which were hanging on
pegs in the room and they inflicted wounds on Baksha Singh, Amrik Singh
and Shisha Singh. Although all the nine accused took part in the attack on
c Kulwant Singh and Bidhi Shankar, Iqbal and Baksha in fact, inflicted the fatal
wounds on Kulwant Singh while Shisha, Gurnam, Satnam and Dalip struck
Bidhi Shankar fatally. After the incident took place the assailants left taking
their weapons with them.

Jagjit Singh lodged the complaint with the local police station at 12.20
D p.m. He named each of the nine accused. (Ex. PA). On the basis of his
complaint a case was registered under Sections 302, 307, 323, 148, 149, 120-
B and 452 IPC against Shisha Singh (son of Banta Singh) (accused no. 1),
Baksha Singh (accused no. 2), Amrik Singh (accused no. 3), Gumam Singh
(accused no. 4), Iqbal Singh (accused no. 5), Dalip Singh (accrrsed no. 6),
E Balkar Singh (accused no. 7), Jaswant Singh (accused no. 8) and Satnam
Singh (accused no. 9).

Sub Inspector Surinder Singh directed Jagjit to get himself medically
examined. The Doctor Dr. Sushi! Singhal's report was that Jagjit had suffered
a lacerated wound at the back of his head caused by a blunt weapon. S.I.
F Surinder Singh then visited the spot, prepared inquest reports of the dead
bodies and had photographs taken of them and of the two motor cycles. From
the room ,where the dead bodies of Kulwant Singh and Bidhi Shankar were
found, he collected the broken pieces of the door and windows, broken
sheaths, chaddar, turban, one empty cartridge, blood, blood-stained earth and
G the hair clutched in the right fist of Kulwant Singh. The two motor-cycles
were also taken into possession (Exhibits PRI to PR8). A site plan was
prepared.

The next day, a post-mortem was conducted on the body of Kulwant
Singh by Dr. P.K. Goel and Dr. K.K. Chawla. TI1ey submitted a report (Ex.
H PC) to the effect that death was due to hemorrhage and shock because of
JASWANT SINGH v. STATE [RUMA PAL, J.] 909
multiple injuries which were ante mortem and suffieiecnt to cause death in the A
ordinary course of nature. The injuries found were listed as follows :

(1) There was an incised wound 15 cm x 3 cm on the right side of
face, transversely placed starting from just near right ear going
towards chin, bone deep. Muscles and sub-cotaneous tissues
were infiltrated with blood. Clotted blood was present in the B
wound.

(2) There was an incised wound in the neck cutting through and
through except a flap of skin posteriorly by which head was
connected with trunk. All the muscles vessels, trachea vertebral
column had been cut open at the level of C3-4 vertebra. The
c
wound was starting 6 cm behind the right ear lobule and 1 cm
below it; going across below it. The front of neck to left s_ide
ending at the leve of left ear lobule four cm below it. Near the
left end of the wound muscles are partially cut Muscle and
subcutaneous tissues were infiltrated with blood. D
(3) There was an incised wound 2 x 0.2 cm transversely placed on
the back of left little finger over the middle phalanx. Sub
cutaneous tissues were deep.

(4) 4 MM oval lacerated wound on the lateral side of right arm 8 E
cm below the accromian. The edges were blackened. A corre-
sponding wound was present on the middle side of the arm 3
MM lacerated wound a track of infiltration is found connected
with the two wounds.

(5) There was an oval lacerated wound 3 MM in size 1 cm above F
the left nipple. Subcotaneous tissues were deep. The margins
were blackened. Wound was situated on the 4th rib. No pellet
was found on exploration.

(6) There was oval lacerated wound 4 MM size situated 4 cm to
G
left of mid line just over the 9th rib. Margins were blackened.
No pellets found on exploration.

(7) There was an incised wound on the lateral side of right knee
joint 6 x 2 ems bone deep. Subcutaneous tissues and muscles
were infiltrated with blood." H
910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A A post mortem was also conducted in respect of Bidhi Shankar' s body
by Dr. S. Saini. His report (Ex. PL) was that Bidhi Shankar's body had the
following twenty injuries :

1. A large incised wound over the right side of face extending
from right ear pinna to chin. Underlying structure including
B bone, muscle and blood vessel were all cut and open. The size
of the wound was 8 x 2 inches. Clotted blood was present in
and around the wound.

2. An oblique incised wound on the upper part of the left side of
for head. It was bone deep and underlying bone was also cut.
c The size was 3 inches x 112 inch.

3. An oblique incised wound on the left side of face extending
from cheak bone down to lower mandible. The size was 4 inches
x 112 inch. It was muscle deep and the underlying muscles were
D cut

4. An incised eliptical (sic) wound on left side of upper part of
'neck. It was 112" x 1" in size. Both ~ndes narrow and the margin
was sharp it was 112 inch in breadth. Clotted blood was present
around the wound.
E
5. An incised elptical (sic) wound horizontal on left side of the mid
line near middle of neck. It was 3 cm x 0.75 cm in size. Narrow
on both end and hmizontal.

6. A small oval subcotancous deep blackish margins size 1 cm x
F

-
0.8 was present over upper part of left side of chest over 2nd
intercortal space. No track inside was found. Margins were
irregular.

.7. An incised elptical (sic) wound 2 cm and bone deep over the
left side of mid line of sternum over 5th intercortal space.
G
8. An incised elptical (sic) wound 3 cm x 1.8 cm over the left side
of lower part of chest over 9th intercortal space. On exploration
wound was going deep into lung and injuring lower part of lung.

9. An horizontal bruise 3 cm x I cm darkish reddish in colour near
H the enterior area of lower part of injury No. 8.
JASWANT SINGH v. STATE [RUMA PAL, J.] 911

........ 10. An incised wound on the right side and front of chest in the 5th A
intercostal space in the mamerry line. It was elptical (sic) shape
with both ends narrow and was about 2 cm 0.75 cm. On
exploring it was extending upto lung and there was blood in the
cavity.
·-
11. An irregular bruise 1.5 x 0.3 cm on the right side of upper part B
of chest. It was darkish, in colour.

12. Another irregular bruise darkish, reddish in colour over the
upper part of the sternum. 1.5 cm xl cm.

13. A small oval lacerated wounds sub-cotaneous deep 0.5 cm x 0.5
c
cm in size over the abdominal wall on right lateral side above
3 cm below the rib margins. Margins were black and irregular.
No track or pellet were found.

14. Little fmger of the right head was amputated at the base margins D
were clean cut. Ring fmger of this hand had a bone deep incised
wound, crossing it obliquely over its breadth, and terminal
phalynx of big fmger had a muscle deep incised wound covering
its breadth obliquely.

15. ~other incised wound over the middle right hand over its E
palm. It was muscle deep and of the size of3 cmx0.7 cm. Both
edges were narrow.

16. An oblique, long bruise over lower part of right side of the chest
and abdomen. 13 cm x 1 cm in size and darkish, reddish. in
colour. F

17. Incised elptical (sic) wound 3.5 cm x 1.5 cm and subcotaneous
tissues deep over the middle of front of right thigh.

18. A long incised wound over the dorsal surface of upper part of
G
left forearm. It was vertical and was 11 cm x 2.5 cm in size and
was muscle deep.

19. Another incised wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm, muscle deep with both
ends narrow about 9 cm above the wrist over the dorsal surface
of left fore arm. H
912 .SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A 20. A transverse incised wound 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm medial to medical
matlerless over right leg. Margins were sharp. Subcutaneous
tissues were deep and infiltrated of blood around it was present"

It was aslo opined that death was due to hemorrhage and shock and due
to the above named injuries which were ante mortem in nature and sufficient
B to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

Shisha Singh and Baksha Singh were arrested on 5.9.89. Pursuant to
statements made by them while in police custody a Gandasi (Ex. PV) and a
Kirpan were recovered. Gumam Singh was arrested on 6.9.89. His statement
(Ex. PA) led to the recovery of a blood stained naiza blade. Dalip Singh and
c Satnam Singh were arrested on 8.9.89. Dalip Singh's statement led to the
recovery of a 'Talwar' and Satnam Singh's statement (Ex. PO) also led to the
recovery of a Talwar. After the arrest of Balbir Singh and Iqbal Singh, on
8.9.89 they also made disclosure statements (Ex. PJ and PK) leading to the
recoverey of a gun, one empty cartridge and 4 live cartridges. It was found
D that the gun in fact belonged to Iqbal Singh. Amrik Singh was arrested on
16.9.89. His statement (Ex. PP) led to the recovery of an empty cartridge and
a gun which belonged to Mohinder Singh.

On 26.9.89 Mohinder Singh was also arrested on the ground that he had
been part of the conspiracy to murder Kulwant Singh and Bidhi Shankar (Ex.
E PW). On 17.9.89 SI Surinder Singh applied for collecting hair from the beard
of Amrik Singh for comparision with the hair found clutched in Kulwant
Singh's hand. The Magistrate's order recorded Amrik's refusal (Ex. PWI).

The weapons recovered were sealed in the presence of one Chetan Dev.
These together with the various items collected from the site, were sent to the
F
Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. The Laboratory reports (Ex. PZ, Ex.
PZI) stated, inter alia, that the blood found on the naizas and kirpans was
human blood and the empty cartridges had been fired from the recovered
guns. (Ex. PN).

G After completion of the investigation the police submitted the charge
sheet and the case was committed to the Court of sessions for trial.

The charges as recorded by the Trial Court were that :

(i) All the accused were charged under Section 148 IPC that they
H were members of unlawful assembly, in prosecution of their
,
JASWANT SINGH v. STATE [RUMA PAL, J.] 913
common object to commit murders of Kulwant Singh and Bidhi A
Shankar and attempted to commit murder of Jagjit Singh
Marwah.

(ii) Balkar Singh was charged with firing a gun shot at Jagjit Singh
with intent and knowledge that his death could be caused under
B
Section 307 IPC. The rest of the accused were charged for the
various liabilities under Section 307 read with Section 149 of
the Indian Penal Code.

(iii) Baksha· Singh and Iqbal Singh were charged for the offence of
committing murder of Kulwant Singh and the rest of the accused c
were charged for the offence under Section 302 read with
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) Shisha Singh and Gurnam Singh, Satnam Singh and Dalip
Singh were charged with causing the death of Bidhi Shankar D
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Baksha Singh,
Amrik. Singh, Iqbal Singh, Jaswant Singh, Balkar Singh and
Mohinder Singh were charged for the offence under Section 302
read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder
of Bidhi Shankar.
E
(v) Jaswant Singh was charged with having voluntarily caused hurt
to Jagjit Singh Marwah under Section 323 of the Indian Penal
Code whereas the rest of the accused for the act were charged
for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 149 of the
Indian Penal Code. F

(vi) All the accused were further charged that in prosecution of
common object of the unlawful assembly they had agreed to
commit the murder of Kulwant Singh and Bidhi Shankar and
attempted to commit murder of Jagjit Singh Marwah and G
Mohinder Singh abetted the commission of the said offence by
giving his licensed gun to his co-accused Amrik Singh to use
l'
the same for the commission of the said offence, in prosecution
of the agreement and was charged under Section 302 read with
Section 120-B IPC. H
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A (vii) Mohinder Singh was also charged for the offence punishable
under Section 30 of the Arms Act that he having parted with
the possession of his D.BB.L. Gun on 1.9.1989 contravened the
terms of the licence.

· (viii) Amrik Singh was charged for the offence punishable under
B Section 27 of the Arms Act for making unlawful use of the gun
in the commission of murders of Kulwant Singh and Bidhi
Shankar and also charged for the offence under Section 25 of
the Arms Act for having in his possession D.BB.L. Guil along
with two live cartridges without any permit or licence.
c (ix) Iqbal singh was charged under Section 30 of the Arms Act that
he was licencee of single gun No. 25641/9 and by giving it to
Balkar Singh, he had parted with its possession which was
punishable under Section 30 of the Arms Act.

D (x) Balkar Singh was charged for the offence punishable under
Section 27 of the Arms Act for making unlawful use of the
single barrel gun for making an attempt to commit the murder
ofJagjit Singh Marwah."

The defence of Shisha Singh, Baksha Singh and Amrik Singh was self
E defence. According to them, Amrik Singh was dragged into the house by
Kulwant Singh and Bidhi Shankar and that Shisha Singh and Baksha Singh
in their attempt to rescue Amrik Singh caused the injuries to Kuldip Singh and
Bidhi Shankar. All the other accused claimed that they were falsely implicated
and were not there at all.

F Thirteen witnesse8 ·were examined by the prosecution, namely, Gurdeep
Kaur (PW I), Jagjit Singh (PW 2), Dr. P.K. Goel (P\Y 3), Raj Rani (PW 4),
Dr. Susheel Sighal (PW 5), (who examined Jagjit Singh, Shisha Singh, Amrik
Singh and Baksha Singh) Chetan Dev (PW 6), ASI Sube Singh (PW 7), Satish
Kumar (Police Photographer) (before whom the disclosure statements of the
G accused and by whom recoveries of the weapons were made, (PW 8), Dr. D.S.
Saini, (PW 9), ASI Rajmal (PW 10), Mukesh Kumar (PW 11) who drew the
site plan) Raghbir Singh (PW 12 who recorded the FIR) and SI Surinder
Singh (PW 13).

The defence produced six witnesses (a) Subhash Chopra (DW 1) in
H support of Iqbal's defence that Iqbal had deposited his gun with him; (b) Dr.
JASWANT SINGH v. STATE [RUMA PAL. J.] 915
R.K. Kaushal (DW 2) to testify as to the nature of gun wounds; (c) Mahesh A
Inder, court offici~l to produce an FIR filed by Shisha relating .to a dispute
between one Darshan Singh and Kulwant Singh and subsequent murder of
Darshan Singh by Kulwant Singh and his associates which included Bidhi
Shankar, (d) Dr. S.K. Bhalla (DW 4) and (e) Dr. A. Allawani (DW 5) both of
whom testified as to the wounds on Amrik (f) ASI Ranga Ram (DW 6) to
B
prove that Dalip Singh had claimed to be an eye witness to the murder of
Darshan Singh.

The Trial Judge meticulously. considered the evidence and the argu-
ments and in an elaborate judgment found charges 1 to 6 proved against all
the accused except Mohinder Singh who was acquitted of the charge under c
Section 148 IPC. Mohinder Singh was however found guilty of violating
Section 30 of the Arms Act. Balkar Singh and Iqbal Singh were also found
guilty of offences under Sections 30 and 27 of the Arms Act but acquitted in
respect of the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act as conviction under
that Section could not be done without the sanction of the District Magistrate
which had not in fact been obtained. D

After convicting the accused for the offences as found, ·the Trial Court
considered the arguments on the quantum of punishment and sentenced
Shisha Singh, Baksha Singh and Arnrik Singh for their offence under Section
302 IPC and for the remaining accused convicted under Section 302/149 IPC
E
to imprisonment for life. For the other convictions different terms of impris-
.onrnent and fines were imposed. All sentences were to run concurrently.

'
'
All the accused appealed. The High Court was of the view that the case
against Gurnarn Singh, Iqbal Singh, Dalip Singh, Balkar Singh, Satnarn Singh
and Mohinder Singh had not been proved and as such they were acquitted of
all charges. The High Court altered the conviction in respect of Shisha Singh,
Baksha Singh, Arnrik Singh and Jaswant Singh to offences under Sections
F

302/34 IPC. Jaswant Singh was held guilty under Section 323 IPC and Shisha
Singh, Baksha Singh and Arnrik Singh under Sections 323/34 IPC. Arnrik
Singh's conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act was also maintained. As
G
far as Mohinder Singh was concerned his conviction under Section 302/120
B IPC was set aside but his conviction and sentence under Section 30 of the
Arms Act was upheld.

Jagjit sought to prefer an appeal by way of Special Leave before this
court against the acquittals. The Special Leave Petitions against Mohinder H
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A Singh, Balkar Singh, Dalip Singh and Satnam Singh were dismissed but
granted as far as Iqbal Singh and Gurnam Singh were concerned.

Since all the appeals are being disposed of simultaneously keeping in
view the fact that the third appeal is one against acquittal, it would be .,,~

appropriate to deal with that appeal first before assessing the evidence.
B
The principle to be followed by Appellate Courts considering an appeal
against an order of acquittal is to interfere only when there are "compelling
and substantial reaons" for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable" it
is a compelling reason for interference (See : Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v.
State of Maharashtra, [1973] 2 SCC 793). The principle was elucidated in
c Ramesh Babu/al Doshi v. State of Gujarat, [1996] 9 SCC 225 :

"While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first
/
required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the
trial court are palpaly wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably
D unsustainble. If the appellate court answers the above question in the
negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if
the appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order
of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above
infirmities it can then - and then only - reappraise the evidence to
arrive at its own conclusions."
E
[See also : George v. State of Kera/a, (1998) Crl. L.J. 2034 (SC)].

We have found such demonstrable .perversity in the decision of the
High Court, particularly in its appreciation and application of the provisions
of Sections 34 and 149 IPC.
F
Both sections deal with the vicarious liability of an accused for an
offence committed by another. Under Section 34 IPC ''when a criminal act is
done by several persons in furtherance of the contemplation of all, each of
such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by
him alone" Similarly Section 149 IPC provides for the guilt of every member
G
of an unlawful assembly if in prosecution of a common object an offence is
committed, or which the members know would be likely to be committed in -<:._
prosecution of that objec.t.

The similarity of the sections lies in the requirement of a common
H object or intention or a pre-arranged plan in furtherance of which the act is
JASWANT SINGH v. STATE [RUMA PAL, J.] 917
done. The difference lies in the degree of actual participation required in the A
criminal enterprise. The nature of participation under Section 34 IPC has been
considered in the case of Ramaswami Ayyangar v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1976]
3 sec 779 at p. 783 :

"Section 34 is to be read along with the preceding Section 33 which
makes it clear that the "act" spoken of in Section 34 includes a series B
of acts as a single act. It follows that the words "when a criminal act
is done by sereral person" in Section 34, may be construed to mean
"when criminal acts are done by several persons". The acts committed
by different confederates in the criminal action may be different but
all must in one way or the other participate and engage in the criminal c
enterprise, for instance, one may only stand guard to prevent any
person coming to the relief of the victim, or may otherwise facilitate
the execution of the common design. Such a person also commits an
"act" as much as his co-participants actually committing the planned
crime. In the case of an offence involving physical violence, however,
it is essential for the application of Section 34 that the person who D
instigates or aids the commission of the crime must be physically
present at the actual commission of the crime for the purpose of
facilitating or promoting the offence the commission of which is the
aim of the joint criminal venture. Such presence of those who in one
way or the other facilitate the execution of the common design, is E
itself tantamount to actual participation in the 'criminal act'. The
essence of Section 34 is simultaneous consensus of the minds of
persons participating in the criminal action to bring about a particular
result."

TI1e emphasis is on physical presence, and promotion or facilitation of F
the crime.

As far as section 149 IPC is concerned in addition to the common
object, merely being a member of an unlawful assembly within the meaning
of Section 141 IPC may be sufficient. As held in Lalji v. State of U.P., [1989]
sec G
•
I
1 437 .

-
"Once the case of a person falls within the ingredients of the section
the question that he did nothing with his own hands would be
immaterial. He cannot put forward the defence that he did not with
his own hand commit the offence committed in prosecution of the
H
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R. I
A common object of the unlawful assembly or such as the members of
the assembly kne~ likely to be committed in prosecution of that
object. Everyone must be taken to have intended the probable and
natural results of the co~bination of the acts in which he joined. It
is not necessary that all the persons forming an unlawful assembly
must' do some overt act. When the accused person6 assembled
B
together, anned with lathis, and were parties to the assault on the
complainant party, the prosecution is not obliged to prove which
specific overt act was done by which of the accused. This section
makes a member of the unlawful assembly responsible as a principal
for the acts of each, and all, merely because he is a member of an
c unlawful assembly. While overt act and active participation may
indicate common intention of the person perpetrating the crime, the
mere presence in the unlawful assembly may fasten vicariously
criminal liability under Section 149. It must be noted that the basis
of the constructive guilt under Section 149 is mere membership of the
unlawful assembly, with the requisite common object or knowledge.
D
[See also State of A.P. v. Thakkadiram Reddy & Ors., [1998] 6 SCC
554.J

The High Court accepted the statement of Jagjit Singh to the effect that
E all the nine accused including Gurnam Singh and Iqbal Singh being anned,
way-laid the two motor cycles, that Jagjit was struck on the head by Jaswant
Singh, that Shisha Singh hit Bidhi Shankar with the 'gandasi', and that all
the accused chased the fleeing Kulwant Singh and Bidhi Shankar and broke
open the door of the house in which they had taken shelter.

F The High Court also accepted the evidence of Raj Rani, the mother
of Bidhi Shankar (PW4). This is what was said about her testimony :

"Now coming to the testimony of Raj Rani (PW 4) she has reiterated
the prosecution version as given by Jagjit Singh (PW2). She too was
cross-examined at length but the defence counsel could not elicit
G anything which could favour the defence and discredit the prosecu-
tion."

The specific evidence given by Raj Rani was that Gurnam Singh and
Iqbal Singh armed with naizas along with the other accused not only way laid
H them, but were present when Shisha Singh inflicted a gandasi blow on the
JASWANT SINGH v. STATE [RUMA PAL, J.] 919
A

-·
head of Bidhi Shankar 'and Jaswant Singh hit Jagjit with a lathi. She had also
~
said that all the accused chased the two victims shouting that the enemies
would not be spared, and that all the accused excepting Balkar Singh who
stood guard outside, entered the room after the door was broken and that after
the accused left, she found Bidhi Shankar and Kulwant Singh were both dead
with multiple injuries on their bodies.
·~ B

- The High Court also accepted the evidence of Gurdeep Kaur (PW 1) in
no uncertain terms when it said :
i:
"Gurdeep Kaur (PW 1) in whose house the occurrence had taken
place was cross-examined at length but nothing material could be
c
-- extracted from her testimony which could shatter her credibility or
would throw any doubt about her presence at the place."

Again at another place it was reiterated :

"She did not deviate from the prosecution version despite a searching D
cross-examination. She with-stood the test of cross-examination."

Now Gurdeep Kaur had testified :

"I had seen from the adjoining room that Bakshish Singh and Iqbal
Singh accused grappled with Kulwant Singh and attempted to throw E
him on the ground but he was resisting their that attempt. Amrik Singh

-- started loading his gun to fire at Kulwant Singh but Iqbal Singh
intervened and stopped Amrik Singh from loading the gun and added
that Kulw~nt Singh would be killed in the same manner as his father
was killed. Kulwant Singh then had caught the beard of Amrik Singh
F

-- and they grappled with each other. Jaswant Singh also joined the
accused to over power Kulwant Singh and Baksha Singh with kirpan
severed the head of from the body. Iqbal Singh. Jaswant Singh and
Baksha Singh had also caused injuries to Kulwant Singh."

She had also categorically asserted : G
"Bidhi Shankar was attacked by Dalip Singh, Shisha Singh, Gurnam
Singh & Satnam Singh and had killed to death with Kirpan and Naiza
~
and Gandasi."

Thus the accepted evidence was that there was an unlawfol assembly of H
920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000) 2 S.C.R.
A all the accused, which, with the common object or premeditated plan of
murdering Kulwant Singh and Bidhi Shankar, waylaid chased and attacked
·c them resulting in their death. All the elements of both sections 149 and 34 IPC

were there.
'
~-

Although each case must be decided on its own facts, a somewhat
B similar situation arose in State of Haryana v. Tek Singh, (1999) 4 SCC 682.
In that case

"They came all of a sudden armed with the deadly weapons and
attacked the victims, who rushed to take shelter in house. In such a
fact situation, some contradictions as to who assaulted whom, with
c what weapon and whether it was by the sharp edge or blunt side of
the gandasa are bound to be there, particularly when the blows are
given in quick succession, it would be against the ground reality to
--
expect the eye witnesses to depose exactly on which part of the body
the blow landed. In these circumstances, even if there is some
0 exaggeration with regard to the infliction of blows, it would hardly
be a ground for rejecting their testimony. It may be futile to expect
an exact description of the details of the attack on the victims by each
accused from the window of one of the deceased who witnessed the
dastardly act or from eyewitnesses. The accused were known to the
widow and the witnesses. Their names were disclosed immediately.
E
Hence, the presence of the accused at the scene of offence was
established. They all were armed with deadly weapons and came .
together: In such a situation, when the presence of the accused who
wen? armed with deadly weapons is established beyond doubt,
Sections 148and149 !PC would come into operation and they would
F be liable for the offences. "

..
In the case before us the High Court found the ingredients of both
,•
section 34 IPC and of Section 149 IPC were proved as far as all the accused
were concerned, when it said:

G "It can well be inferred that the accused on coming to know that Jagjit
Singh and Bidhi Shankar had started on their motorcycles towards
Ismailabad, premeditated and collected near the house of Darshan
Singh and in order to take revenge of the murder of Darshan Singh
brother of Shisha Singh, accused all of them in prosecution of the
common object which was to kill Kulwant Singh and Bidhi Shankar
-
H
JASWANT SINGH v. STATE [RUMA PAL, J.]

did commit the mtirder of both of them."
921
.A
.......
......-
This should have been sufficient to hold all the accused guilty under
Sections 34 and 149. And yet the High Court acquitted Gurnam Singh and
Iqbal Singh on the ground that :

"Their participation in the commission of the crime does not stand B
proved. According to Gurdeep Kaur (PW-1), Iqbal Singh and Gurnam
Singh accused were armed with Neza. However, the Doctors, who
performed autopsy on the dead bodies of Kulwant Singh and Bidhi
Shankar did not find any injury caused by Neza. Therefore, their
participation in the crime is not free from doubt. Consequently, the
conviction of Iqbal Singh and Gurnam Singh accused is set aside."
c
In other words what the High Court did was look for evidence that
Gurnam Singh and Iqbal Singh had actually struck the blows on the victims.
This conclusion is not only contradictory to its own finding but is based on
an erroeous interpretation of the provisions of both Section 34 and 149 IPC D
as authoritatively laid down. The order of the High Court acquitting Gurnam
Singh and Iqbal Singh therefore cannot stand.

We may now consider the evidence to see whether the guilt of Shisha
Singh, Baksha Singh, Amrik Singh, Gurnam Singh and Iqbal Singh has been
established. E

.
A fact which has not been disputed either by the complainant or the
~accused and which both sides have called in aid of their respective cases is
that it all started with a dispute over a 'Bara' between Kesar Singh and
Darshan Singh on the one side and Kulwant Singh (deceased) on the other.
F
According to the accused, because of this enmity, Darshan Singh was
murdered by Kulwant Singh and his associates including Bidhi Shankar. In
fact both Kulwant Singh and Bidhi Shankar were charged with Darshan
Singh's murder. All the accused are either relatives of Darshan or Kesar:
Shisha Singh, Baksha Singh and Amrik Singh were Darshan's brothers:
Gurnam Singh and Iqbal Singh were Darshan's sons and Jaswant Singh is
G
Kesar' s son.

- According to the prosecution this enmity provided the motive for the
commission of the crime by the accused. According to the defence it
provided the motive for Kuldip Singh and Bidhi Shankar not only to initiate H
922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A the attack on Amrik Singh but also to falsely implicate the other accused of
the cirme. Both the courts below have accepted the version of the prosecution
and we see no reason to differ with their assessment of the evidence in this
regard.

We have also noted the concurrent finding of fact that the accused being
B armed had accosted the victims while they were travelling on motorcycles
from Chammu Kalan to Ismailabad. Both Courts accepted the evidence of
Gurdeep (PWl), Jagjit (PW2) and Rajrani (PW4) as being consistent, cor-
roborative and credible. Even if one excludes the presence of the other
accused whose acquittals by the High Court were not interfered with by this
c Court, the remaining six accused formed an unlawful assembly within the
meaning of Section 141 IPC. Their object in forming the assembly was to
murder Bidhi Shankar and Kulwant Singh. This premeditation is evidenced
not only by their foregathering on the road with deadly weapons but also by
their subsequent conduct commencing with the lathi blow to Jagjit Singh by
Jaswant Singh and the gandasi blow to Bidhi Shankar by Shisa Singh and
D
followed by the concerted chase of the victims and forcible entry into the
house where the victims had taken shelter and finally leaving the site after the
murder, together. ·

"Prior concert and arrangement can, and indeed often must, be
E determined from subsequent conduct, as for example, by a systematic
plan unfolding itself during the course of the action which cou14 only
be referrable to prior consent and pre arrangement, or a running away
in a body or a meeting together subsequently." •

[See : Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, AIR (1955) SC 216.]
F
That the murders took place in the room where the bodies' were found
has not been disputed. The blood stained floor, the photographs and the site
plan which were proved substantiate this. Evidence of the broken door
corroborates the forcile entry.
G The accused Gurnam Singh, Iqbal Singh and Jaswant Singh say that
they were falsely implicated, but they led no evidence either oral or documen-
tary to show that they were elsewhere. Even the High Court accepted that
these accused were present at the scene of the murders. The evidence shows
further that they actively participated in the cirme. Apart from the oral
-
H testimony of the prosecution witnesses is the unimpeachable medical evidence
JASWANT SINGH v. STATE [RUMA PAL, J.] 923
of the doctors who conducted the post mortems and the recovery of· the A
• weapons from the places indicated by the accused all of which sufficiently
prove their mvo]vement in the crime.

As far as Gum.am Singh and Iqbal Singh are concerned they were
canying naizas. A naiza is a spear or pike - like weapon causing incisable
wounds. The High Court mis-read the evidence of doctors when it said that B
"the doctors did not find any injury caused by Neza". The post mo1tems
showed several deep incised wounds on both the deceased. The doctors did
not say that the injuries could not be caused by naizas. What they had said
was that the incisions could have been caused by a sharp weapon "including
a gandasi or a kiipan". The word "including" indicates that it could have been c
some other sharp weapon.

The Trial Court in fact found :

"The injury No. 3 which was incised would 2 x 0.2 cm on the person
of Kulwant Singh, injury no. 4 which was 112 x 114" eliptical wound D
injury no. 7 which was incised eliptical wound 2 CM and bone deep
on the person of Bidhi Shankar, Keeping in view the size of the
injuries (they) could possibly to the result of Neza blow."

In fact the narrowness and depth of the incised wounds as indicated
in the Post Mortem Reports supports the Trial Court's finding. The naizas E
recovered consequent upon the disclosure statements made from the places
indicated by Gum.am Singh and Iqbal Singh were found by the Forensic
Science Laboratory to be covered with human blood. No explanation was
given by either .of these accused as to this telling circumstance which
indicated their participation in the crime. F
As far as Jaswant Singh is concerned, that he formed part of the armed
group which intercepted the' victims and initiated the assault by striking a
blow on Jagjit Singh's head is established by the evidence of Jagjit Singh
himself, and Rajrani. That Jagjit Singh's wound could have been caused by
a lathi blow is corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Sushil Singhal. Jaswaitt G
Singh's complicity in the attack of the victims continued when he along with
the other accused chased the victims as they fled to take shelter. This would
be sufficient to hold him guilty under Sections 149 and Section 34 IPC. In
addition his actual participation in the killing was seen and testified to by
Gurdeep Kaur. Gurdeep Kaur' s evidence was that Jaswant Singh facilitated H
924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A the killing of Kulwant Singh not only by beating him but also by helping ..,...
the other accused to overpower him. It is true that in cross examination
Gurdeep Kaur said "I do not know who of the accused had caused injuries
to whom of the deceased as I had seen all the accused causing injuries to
the deceased" but this does not detract from evidence of participation of
B Jaswant Singh in the murder of the deceased. The effect of this seeming
contradiction is considered in greater detail in connection with Shisha Singh,
Baksha Singh and Amrik Singh. The medical evidence of bruises is consist-
ent with the finding of lathi blows and has been so stated by the doctors who
conducted the post-mortems.

c As far as Shisha Singh, Baksha Singh and Amrik Singh are concerned,
they admitted they were there but pleaded self defence. The accused claimed
that both the Trial Court and the High Court had erred in relying on the
evidence of Gurdeep Kaur as she was not an independent witness and
particularly when her statements at the trial had not been made earlier when
D interrogated by the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. It is also submitted that neither Jagjit (PW 2) nor Raj Rani (PW
4) had seen the commission of crime and that although Gurdeep Kaur in her
evidence had referred to the presence of two other eye witnesses namely
Omkar Nath and Som Nath neither them had been called as witnesses.
E
It would be unfair to the Courts below to hold that they had merely
relied on the evidence of Gurdeep Kaur. They had considered the evidence
of all the witnesses including the material and medical evidence particularly
the wounds on the victims and concluded that the charges under Section 302/
34, 323/34 IPC were established. Besides the place of occurrence being
F
inside the residence of Gurdeep Kaur it was natural that she should be
present.

Section 161(2) of the Code requires the person making the statements
'to answer truly all questions relating to such case, put to him by such
G officer.... ". It would, therefore, depend on the questions put by the police
officer. It is true that a certain statement may now be used under Section 162
to contradict such witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Previously, the law was as enunciated in
Tehsildar Singh and Another v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, [1959] 2 SCR
H 875: as
JASWANT SINGH v. STATE [RUMA PAL, J.] 925
"omissions, unless by necessary implication be deemed to be part of A
the statment, cannot be used to contradict the statement made in the
witness-box."

Now the Explanation to Section 162 provides that an omission to state
a fact in the statement may amount to contradiction. However, the explana-
B
tion makes it clear that the omission must be a significant one and 'otherwise
relevant' having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and
whether any omission am?unts to a contradiction in the particular context
shall be a question of fact.

Reading Section 161(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code with the c
Explanation to S.162, an omission in order to be significant must depend upon
whether the specific question, the answer to which is omitted, was asked of
the witness. In this case the Investigating Officer, PW 13 was not asked
whether he had put questions to Gurdeep Kaur asking for details of the
injuries inflicted or of the persons who had caused the injuries. D
As already noted Gurdeep Kaur' s testimony in this regard was believed
by both Courts. Both the trial Court as.well as the High Court were of the
view that although Gurdeep Kaur had not given to the Police particulars of
who had caused which injury she had not deviated from the actual occurrence
and the manner in which it had happened. This Court has also held that "an E
incident where a number of persons asaulted three persons at one and the
same time with different weapons, some contradictions as to who assaulted
whom and with what weapon were not unlikely, and such contradictions could
not be made a ground to reject the evidence of eyewitnesses, if it was
otherwise reliable. See : Satbir v. Surat Singh, [1997] 4 SCC 192. Both the F
Courts below have also come to the conclusion as a matter of fact that the
omissions were not contradictions in the particular context. There is no reason
for us to interfere with this concurrent finding of fact.

In any event, the viciousness and extent of the injuries inflicted on the
victims compared with the injuries suffered by Shisha Singh, Baksha Singh G
and Amrik Singh belies the plea of self defence. Kulwant Singh's head was
virtually severed from his body. Both bodies bore deep slash wounds, incised
wounds gunshot wounds and extensive bruising. On the other hand Dr. Sushil
Singhal (PW 5) who examined Shisha Singh had only found a wound between
fue \eft thumb and forefinger (Ex. DD). He also testified that he had examined H
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A Baksha Singh and found one wound on the left forearm (Ex. DE). Even the
defence witnesses (DW5 and DW6) said that Amrik Singh had suffered cuts
and lacerations. Furthermore, the plea was taken by these accused for the first
time in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure Finally, no such plea of self-defence was put in cross-examination
to any of the prosecution witnesses. The High Court, in the circumstances,
B
rightly rejected the plea of self-defence as an afterthought.

· For all these reaons, we allow the appeal of the complainant by setting
aside the order of acquittal and restoring the decision of the Sessions Court
and dismiss the appeals filed by Shisha Singh, Baksha Singh, Amrik Singh
c and Jaswant Singh. Consequent upon our allowing the complainant's appeal,
all the appellants are also convicted under Section 302/i 49 IPC. If any of the
accused is on bail he shall surrender to his bail bond and be taken into custody
forthwith to serve out the sentences imposed upon him.

RC.K. Appeals dismised.