Supreme Court of India
JASWINDER SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 877
- Decided
- 7 July 2009
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The Court held that the eyewitness testimony was reliable and the appellant's identity was duly established, so the conviction stands.
Summary
The appellant Jaswinder Singh was convicted for murder and attempt to murder under Sections 302, 307 and 34 of the IPC. He argued that he was not named in the FIR, that no test identification parade (TIP) was held, and that the evidence against him was unreliable. The sole eyewitness, the complainant PW‑1, testified that he saw the appellant seize the victim, fire at him, and also shoot at the witness, and his testimony was corroborated by medical evidence. The Supreme Court held that the eyewitness had observed the appellant at close quarters, identified him in court, and that the lack of a TIP did not defeat the identification. Consequently, the Court found the evidence reliable and dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Issues considered
- Whether the identity of the appellant was established in the absence of a test identification parade.
- Whether the eyewitness testimony and medical evidence were sufficient to sustain conviction under Sections 302, 307 and 34 IPC.
- Whether the appellant's participation in the murder and attempt to murder was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959s. 27, s. 54, s. 59
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120-B, s. 302, s. 307, s. 34, s. 449
Subjects
murderattempt to murderconspiracyidentification paradeeyewitness testimonyconvictionIPCcriminal law
Judgment
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 311
.•.,..
JASWINDER SINGH A
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 900 of 2006)
JULY 7, 2009
B
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND
_.
DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]
PENAL CODE, 1860:
c
ss.302134 and 307 - Accused-appellant caught hold of
the victim saying that he should not be spared, while his co-
accused fired at the victim resulting in his death - Accused
J also firing at the witness who grappled with the co-accused -
Held: Accused was rightly convicted and sentenced by courts D
below
EVIDENCE:
Identification of accused in court - Accused refusing to
participate in test identification parade on the ground that he E
had already been shown to witness - TIP not held - Plea of
,>
A accused that in the circumstances his identity in trial court
should have been held not established - Held: Witness had
seen the accused at the time of occurrence at close quarters
and also for a reasonable time - He also identified the F
accused in court - His evidence· corroborated by medical
evidence - There could be no dispute with regard to identity
of the accused - Test identification parade.
The appellant alongwith three others faced trial for
G
committing offences, inter alia, punishable ulss.120-B, 302
and 307 IPC. The prosecution case was that one 'BS'
hired contract killers to eliminate 'JS' the son of
complainant's landlord, who was stated to have arranged
311 H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.
A the marriage of the daughter of 'BS' against his wishes.
On the date of occurrence, the appellant and other co-
accused 'CS' entered the house of complainant's
landlord, the appellant caught hold of 'JS' and 'CS' shot
at him. 'JS' succumbed to his injuries. The trial court
B convicted and sentenced co-accused 'BS' u/ss.120-B and
s.302 IPC; 'CS' was convicted and sentenced, inter alia,
u/ss.302 and 307/34 IPC; and the appellant was convicted
and sentenced, inter alia, u/ss. 302/34 and 307 IPC. The
fourth accused 'AS' was given benefit of doubt and was
c acquitted. On appeal, the High Court found participation
of co-accused 'BS' doubtful and acquitted him, but
upheld the judgment of the trial c;ourt as regards the
conviction and sentences of the appellant and co-
accused 'CS'.
D In the appeal filed by the appellant, it was contended
that he was neither named in· the FIR nor was any specific
role attributed to him therein, and he was arrested only
on suspicion after about 25 days of occurrence. It was
also submitted that no test identification parade was held
E as he had already been shown to prosecution witnesses,
and in the circumstances, his identity in the trial was to
be held as not established.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
F
HELD: 1. The solitary eye-witness, namely, the
complainant (PW1) was present in the room where the
incident took place. All along he was sitting with the
deceased and watching television. PW1 categorically
stated in his statement that he had seen accused 'CS'
G firing with his pistol on the head of the deceased while
the appellant caught hold of the deceased saying that he
(the deceased) should not be spared. [Para 18] [320-E-H]
1.2. The records reveal that the accused-appellant
H
JASWINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 313
-r- has refused to take part in the TIP taking up the plea that A
he was already shown to PW-1 by the police. The said
plea cannot be accepted for the simple reason that at the
time of occurrence PW-1 had occasion to see the
' appellant not only when he opened the door but also
when he took both of them to the room where the B
deceased was watching the television. Moreover, he
grappled with both of them. He himself received gun shot
injuries in his hand as also on leg as a result of the shot
fired by the appellant. He had seen the appellant at close
quarters and also for a reasonable time. He also identified
the accused-appellant in the court as the person who had
c
fired at him. His evidence is corroborated by the medical
evidence of the doctor who examined him. Therefore,
there could be no dispute with regard to the identity of
the accused-appellant. [Para 19] [321 -B-E]
D
1.3. The evidence of the eye-witness PW-1 is found
to be convincing, reliable and trustworthy. There is no
reason to disbelieve his statement. Consequently, there
is no merit in the appeal. [Para 20] [321 -G-H]
E
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 900 of 2006 .
./
From the Judgment & Order dated 23.09.2005 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal
No. 69 of 2004. F
Anu Mehta, Rubinder Pal Ghumman and Harinder Mohan
Singh for the Appellants.
Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey and H.S. Sandhu for the
G
+ Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. This appeal is filed
H
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.
A by the appellant who stands convicted by the Court of Addi.
Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Hoshiarpur, Punjab under Section
302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC') and also under Section
307 IPC which is affirmed by the High Court of Punjab and
B Haryana and aggrieved by which the present appeal is filed in
this Court.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that a criminal
case was registered on the basis of the statement of Jasprit
Singh, the complainant and PW-1, who stated in his report that
C he was residing in village Parowal for the last 12 years in the
house of Joginder Singh and on 17.01.2001 at about 7.00 p.m.
when he was sitting with his landlord's son Jasbir Singh alias
Tota and watching television while sitting on a double bed in
the room, somebody from outside called Tota whereupon the
D complainant opened the door and found two young persons
standing outside. Both of them enquired about Jasbir Singh
alias Tota upon which the complainant took them inside where
Tota was sitting. Then Jasbir Singh alias Tota asked the
complainant to bring tea for those persons and the complainant
E went inside the house to tell the mother of Jasbir Singh alias
Tota to prepare tea. In the meantime he heard gun shot fire from
the room and hearing the shot he immediately went to that
room. On entering the room he saw the young man firing shots
on the head of Tota and the other young man saying that Tota
F should not be left alive. The complainant alleged that he caught
hold of the young man who fired at Tota and then the other young
man, who was wearing a 'Patka', told the complainant pointing
pistol towards him that he would also be killed along with Tota
and then he fired the shot which hit the complainant on the finger
G of his left hand and left ankle as the complainant had caught
the hand of that man in which he was holding the pistol. Upon
complainant raising the alarm Joginder Singh, the father of
Jasbir Singh alias Tota, the deceased namely and Shiv Charan
Singh, the father of Jasprit Singh, the complainant reached
H
JASWINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 315
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
-+-· there. The man wearing patka ran away from the spot while A
firing shots and the other young man who also tried to run away
was overpowered and the pistol was snatched away from his
hand. The said young man was identified later as Charanjit
Singh and the other young man with a patka accompanying
Charanjit Singh was identified as Jaswinder Singh. In the B
meantime, Jasbir Singh alias Tota fell on the bed and number
of villagers collected there. He was taken to the Civil Hospital,
A Garhshankar along with complainant where he succumbed to
the injuries whereas complainant was medically examined.
Sub-Inspector Gian Chand came to the hospital and recorded c
the statement of complainant on the basis of which the criminal
case was registered.
3. During the course of investigation Sub-Inspector Gian
Chand took into possession the pistol and the licence of
:r Charanjit Singh, the accused. He visited the place of incident D
on 18.01.2001, prepared a rough site plan and recorded the
statements of the witnesses. He took into possession three
empty cartridges, two led bullets of the cartridges, bloodstained
bed sheet from the spot along with cap and a scooter bearing
Registration No. Pl Q-68. He also prepared inquest report on E
the dead body of Jasbir Singh alias Tota, the deceased. The
post-mortem examination was conducted by the doctor.
.,, 4. On completion of the investigation he submitted charge-
sheet against Charanjit Singh, Jaswinder Singh, Balbir Singh, F
Avtar Singh and Amarjit Singh. It transpired that Balbir Singh,
Avtar Singh and Amarjit Singh had conspired with Jaswinder
Singh and Charanjit Singh to commit the murder of Jasbir Singh
as he was instrumental in arranging the love marriage of
daughter of Balbir Singh.
G
5. According to the prosecution, Balbir Singh had hired the
contract killers for eliminating Jasbir Singh alias Tota for
arranging marriage of his daughter with one Jugraj Singh
because Balbir Singh did not want his daughter to marry that
man. The police could, however, arrest only Charanjit Singh, H
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.
A Jaswinder Singh and Balbir Singh initially. Therefore, Charanjit
Singh, Jaswinder Singh and Balbir Singh were challaned and
Avtar Singh and Amarjit Singh were declared as proclaimed
offenders. Later on Amarjit Singh was also arrested and his
supplementary challan was presented and committed to the
B court. Those four accused persons namely Charanjit Singh,
Jaswinder Singh, Balbir Singh and Amarjit Singh were,
therefore, tried whereas Avtar Singh was still a proclaimed
offender. 1
C 6. After submission of the charge-sheet, charges were
framed under Section 120-8, 302/34, 307/34, 449 IPC and
under Section 27 of the Arms Act. When the charges were read
over and explained to the accused they pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
D 7. During the course of trial the prosecution examined as
many as 11 witnesses and at the end of their deposition the
accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'the CrPC'). The
defence examined the witness Satnam Singh as DW-1. The
E trial court, namely the Court of the Addi. Sessions Judge (Ad
hoc), Hoshiarpur, Punjab, after hearing the arguments of the
counsel appearing for the parties and on examination of the
entire records including the depositions and all the statements
found accused Charanjit Singh, Jaswinder Singh and Balbir
F Singh guilty and convicted and sentenced them by its judgment
and order dated 18.09.20Q3.
8. Balbir Singh was found guilty under Section 120-B read
with Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of
G payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for
one month. Charanjit Singh was found guilty under Section 302
and 307/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment
and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine
to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for
H offence under Section 302 and to undergo rigorous
JASWINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 317
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
-)o.- imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and A
in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 307/34
IPC. Jaswinder Singh was found guilty under Section 302/34
and 307 IPC and sentence to undergo life imprisonment and
to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to B
further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence
__ , under Section 302/34 IPC and to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and
in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 307 IPC. c
9. The trial court also found both Charanjit Singh and
Jaswinder Singh guilty under Section 449 IPC and under
Sections 27/54/59 of Arms Act and sentenced each of them to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine
,.'"
of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further D
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence under
Section 449 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in
default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 15 days each. E
10. All the aforesaid substantive sentences were, however,
.A ordered to run concurrently. Amarjit Singh was, however, given
benefit of doubt and he was acquitted of all the charges leveled
against him. F
11. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order
of conviction and sentence accused Balbir Singh, Charanjit
Singh and Jaswinder Singh have filed three separate appeals
in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The said appeals
\" , were entertained and disposed of by a common order dated G
"' 23.09.2005 passed by the High Court.
12. After hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, the
appeals filed by accused Charanjit Singh and Jaswinder Singh
were dismissed thereby upholding the order of conviction and H
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.
A sentence passed against them by the trial court. So far accused
Balbir Singh is concerned, his participation in the commission
""-
of crime was held to be highly doubtful and so was his conviction
under Section 120-B IPC. Consequently, the impugned
judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against
B him was set aside and he was acquitted of all the charges
framed against him.
13. During the course of hearing learned counsel appearing
for the parties submitted before us that to their information
Charanjit Singh has not filed any appeal and only accused
c Jaswinder Singh has filed the present appeal.
14. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties
and have also gone through the entire records.
D 15. It was very forcefully argued before us by Ms. Anu
Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the
..
,I
appellant was neither named in the first information report nor
any specific role and description of his participation had been
given therein and that he was arrested from his house only on
10.02.2001, i.e. about after 25 days of the date of incident. It
E
was submitted that the appellant was arrested only on suspicion
and without there being any material or specific evidence
against him and that the entire prosecution case against him
~
is a got up story and therefore he was liable to be acquitted of
all the charges. She also submitted that the Test Identification
F
Parade (for short 'the TIP') was not held because the appellant
.was shown to the prosecution witnesses before any TIP could
be held and consequently there was no justification for holding
a TIP and in absence of the same both the courts below should
have held that the identity of the accused was not established
G in the trial. Counsel appearing for the appellant also had taken
us through the evidence on record and on the basis thereof she
submitted that so far the appellant is concerned, there are a
number of contradictions in the prosecution case and, therefore,
he is required to be acquitted. It was also submitted that the
H role ascribed to the appellant in the incident was highly
JASWINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 319
(DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
-.>--
improbable and unreliable in as much as while holding Jasbir A
.... Singh alias Tota, the deceased as alleged by the prosecution,
the appellant was using both his hands and, therefore, he could
not have brought out his pistol and fired from the said pistol on
the injured witness, P.W.1.
B
16. Counsel appearing for the respondent-State, however,
refuted all the aforesaid submissions contending inter alia that
the identity of both the accused persons namely Charanjit Singh
~1
and Jaswinder Singh, the sole appellant herein were clearly
established in trial. He he9VilY relied on the evidence of Jasprit
Singh, PW-1, the injured eye-witness and also on medical
c
evidence to substantiate that the appellant is guilty of .the
-.....
charges framed against him.
17. On a careful analysis of the facts and circumstances
,.,... of the present case we find that Jasprit Singh, PW-1 as also D
the complainant, is the persori who opened the door so as to
enable both the accused persons namely craranjit Singh and
Jaswinder Singh to enter the house of Jo~der Singh at the
time when the incident took place. He himself took both of them
to the room where Jasbir Singh alias Tota, the deceased was E
watching television with the complainant just before the
occurrence. He also categorically stated in his statement that
'
_., he had seen Charanjit Singh firing a shot with his pistol on the
head of Jasbir Singh alias Tota, the deceased while the other
young man wearing a patka was catching hold of the deceased F
and saying that he (the deceased) should not be spared that
day. On seeing that situation Jasprit Singh, the complainant
caught hold of Charanjit Singh and at that stage Jaswinder
Singh, the present appellant who was wearing a patka took out
a pistol from the fold of his trouser and fired at Jasprit Singh,
G
the complainant. It has also come in evidence that when the
present appellant was about to fire his pistol the complainant
pulled his pistol downward and as such fire shot from his pistol
had hit at the finger of his left hand and left foot near his ankle.
In the meantime, on hearing a noise raised by the complainant,
H
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 10 S.C.R.
Joginder Singh, the father of Jasbir Singh alias Tota, the
-
A -.;-
deceased and Shiv Charan Singh, the father of Jasprit Singh,
the complainant immediately came to the spot from inside the
house and on their arrival Charanjit Singh and Jaswinder Singh,
the present appellant tried to run away from there. While fleeing
B away, the present appellant fired shots from his pistol but the
other accused person was overpowered and given beatings
with fists and his pistol was also snatched. The nabbed
accused person came to be identified as Charanjit Singh. The
driving license of Charanjit Singh was with him which was
c recovered and which gave his complete identity. In the
meantime, Jasbir Singh alias Tota, the deceased fell down on
the bed and blood started oozing out from his head. Jasprit
Singh, the complainant was also bleeding from his left finger
and ankle. The deceased was taken to the hospital along with
D
Jasprit Singh, the complainant. Jasbir Singh, the deceased .'
died on way to the hospital and accordingly his post-mortem
was conducted in the hospital whereas Jasprit Singh, the
complainant was medically examined and treated by the doctor
of the hospital.
E 18. We have a solitary eye-witness namely Jasprit Singh,
the complainant as well as PW-1, who was present in the room
where the incident had taken place. All along he was sitting with
Jasbir Singh alias Tota, the deceased and watching television. +-
He opened the door for both the accused persons to enable
F them to come inside the house, took both of them to the room
where Jasbir Singh alias Tota, the deceased was sitting. He
saw Charanjit Singh firing upon the deceased and also grappled
with him whereupon he was fired upon by the co-accused
namely Jaswinder Singh (the appellant herein), who however,
G managed to flee away after the occurrence by firing from his
pistol. The evidence of the solitary eye-witness is also
supported by the medical evidence and, therefore, there is no
reason as to why such evidence should not be held to be
trustworthy and reliable. Jasprit Singh (PW-1) is the lone eye-
H witness of the crime who had seen the actual occurrence of the
JASWINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 321
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
incident. He vividly described the whole occurrence that has A
occurred inside the room. The said evidence on record,
• according to us, inspires confidence in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
19. A very strong argument was made before us by the
8
defence in respect of the identity of the appellant particularly
on the ground that he was shown to the witness before any TIP
could be held. On going through the records we find that the
accused-appellant has refused to take part in the TIP taking up
the plea that he was already shown to Jasprit Singh, PW-1 by
the police. We cannot accept the aforesaid plea taken by the C
accused-appellant for the simple reason that PW-1 had
occasion to see the appellant not only when he opened the door
but also when he took both of them to the room where Jasbir
Singh alias Tota, the deceased was watching the television.
Moreover, he grappled with both of them. He himself received D
gun shot injuries in his hand as also on leg from the gun fired
by the appellant. He described the whole incident in his
deposition as to how he received those injuries. He had seen
the appellant accused from close quarter and also for a
reasonable time. He has also identified the accused-appellant E
in the court as the person who had fired upon him. His evidence
is corroborated by the medical evidence of the doctor who
examined him. Therefore, there could be no dispute with regard
to the identity of the accused - appellant.
F
20. On reading the evidence of the aforesaid eye-witness
namely Jasprit Singh (PW-1) we find the same to be
convincing, reliable and trustworthy. We find no reason to
disbelieve the aforesaid statement of PW-1 and consequently,
we find no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. G
R.P. Appeal 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