Holding

A single shot that intentionally strikes the head of the victim, even if only one pellet is recovered, constitutes murder under Section 302 IPC, and the testimony of relatives is admissible if credible.

Summary

The appellant, Constable Joginder Singh, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for shooting and killing Harjinder Singh during a Panchayat election. The prosecution alleged that the accused fired a rifle shot at the victim's head from close range, causing a fatal head injury, and this was corroborated by several eyewitnesses who were relatives of the deceased. The appellant challenged the conviction on two grounds: that the eyewitnesses were interested parties and thus unreliable, and that only a single shot was fired, which he argued should preclude a murder charge. The Supreme Court held that the relationship of witnesses to the victim does not, per se, render their testimony inadmissible and that a single shot causing a lethal head injury can satisfy the elements of murder under Section 302. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment.

Issues considered

Whether testimony of witnesses who are relatives of the deceased can be relied upon in a murder trial.
Whether the firing of a single shot that caused a fatal head injury falls within the ambit of Section 302 IPC.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 304

Subjects

Section 302 IPCmurdereyewitness testimonyinterested witnesscredibility of evidencesingle shotclose-range shootingweapon injury

Judgment

[2009] 3 S.C.R. 714

\-
A JOGINDER SINGH
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 406 of 2009)
FEBRUARY 27, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.] ''

Penal Code, 1860: s.302- Conviction under- Gun shot
c hitting head of deceased resulting in his death - Applicability
of s.302, challenged on the ground that only one shot was fired
- Held: Though one pellet was recovered and there was only
one injury, but that would not take the offence out of the
purview of s.302 as it was established that the accused aimed . ~

D at the head of the deceased and fired the shot from a close
range which hit him on his head - s.302 was applicable to
facts of the case.

Evidence: Testimony of related/interested witnesses -
Reliability of - Held: When there is a/legation of
E
interestedness, the same has to be established - Mere
statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely
to falsely implicate accused cannot be ground to discard the }

evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible.

F Prosecution case was that complainant along with
deceased brother and others were standing in a queue
to cast vote. The accused, constable challenged his
brother and abused him and fired a shot from his rifle.
The shot hit head of deceased and he died.
G
The trial Court placing reliance on the evidence of the
eye witnesses recorded the conviction under s.302 IPC.
High Court upheld conviction.

H 714
JOGINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 715

In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that so A
called eye witnesses were related to the deceased and
therefore their evidence should not have been relied
upon and that one shot was fired and therefore Section
302 was not applicable.
B
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
;
~
HELD: 1. Merely because the eye-witnesses were
family members, their evidence cannot 'per se' be
discarded. When there is allegation of inte·restedness, the
same has to be established. Mere statement that being c
relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely
implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the
evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible.
Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a
I.., witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not D
conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an
innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false
implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt
a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out
whether it is cogent and credible. [Para 6] (719-B-E] E
Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab AIR (1953)
SC 364; Gu/i Chand and Ors.v. State of Rajasthan (1974) 3
SCC 698; Vadive/u Thevar v. State of Madras AIR (1957) SC
.'
.(

614; Masalti and Ors. v. State of U.P. AIR (1965) SC 202;
Punjab v. Jagir Singh AIR 1973 SC 2407; Lehna v. State of
F
Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 76; Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v.
State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381; Babula/ Bhagwan
Khandare and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 10 SCC
404; Salim Saheb v. State of M.P. (2007) 1 SCC 699 and
Sone/af v. State of M.P. 2008(11) SCR 75, relied on. G

2. In the present case though one pellet was
recovered and there was only one injury, but that would
not on the facts of the case take the offence out of the
H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 3 S.C.R.

A purview of Section 302 IPC. It cannot be laid down as a
rule of universal application that when there is one shot
fired, Section 302 IPC is ruled out. It would depend upon
the factual scenario, more particularly, the nature of
weapon, the place where the injury is caused and the
B nature of the injury. It has been clearly established that
the accused aimed at the head of the deceased and fired
the shot which hit him on his head and that too was fired
r '
from a close range. [Para 13] [721-E-G]

Case Law Reference:
c
AIR (1953) SC 364 relied on Para 7
(1974) 3 sec 698 relied on Para 8
AIR (1957) SC 614 relied on Para 8
D ?
AIR (1965) SC 202 relied on Para 10
AIR 1973 SC 2407 relied on Para 11
(2002) 3 sec 76 relied on Para 11

E (2002) 8 sec 381 relied on Para 11
(2005) 1o sec 404 relied on Para 12
(2001) 1 sec 699 relied on Para 12 >
•
2008(11) SCR 75 relied on Para 12
F
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 406 of 2009.

From the Judgment & Order dated 05.2.07 of the High
G Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal No. 670-
DB/1997.

Sudhir Nandrajog for the Appellant.

Vivek Goel, AAG(PB) and Kuldip Singh for the
H
JOGINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 717

T
-¥
Respondent. A

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division B
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the
conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section
• ~
302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and
sentencing him to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,000/-
with default stipulation as recorded by learned District and c
Sessions Judge, Ferozepur.
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
A complaint under Section 302 IPC was filed by Harbans
... Singh son of Gurbachan Singh, resident of Chak Saidoke, D
Police Station Sadar Jallalabad, Tehsil Fazilka against
Joginder Singh stating therein that on 18.1.1993 at about 9.00
AM. complainant, his brother Harjinder Singh alias lnder Singh,
Sube Singh son of Partap Singh, Jarnail Singh son of Mukhtiar
Singh, Pohla Singh son of Aroor Singh all residents of village
E
Chak Saidoke had gone to the school of the village for the
purpose of casting their votes in the Panchayat Election. At
about 9.45 or 10.00 a.m. he and his brother Harjinder Singh
..' made a request to the voters to keep peace so that there may
.. not be any dispute in casting their votes for the people, who
were already standing in queue to cast their votes. In the F
meantime, Constable Joginder Singh No. 1421, PC Branch,
office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, (the
accused-appellant) challenged his brother Harjinder Singh and
abused him and subsequently, he fired a shot from his rifle. The
shot fired at Harjinder Singh hit on his head and he died at the G
spot. The occurrence was witnessed by the complainant along
with Sube Singh son of Partap Singh, Jarnail Singh son of
Mukhtiar Singh and Pohla Singh son of Aroor Singh, all
residents of village Chak Saidoke. Joginder Singh was
requested not to fire the shot, but he did not pay any attention H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 3 S.C.R.

A and committed the murder of Harjinder Singh. He lodged a .
~

report with Inspector Harbans Lal, who recorded his statement
and a case was registered vide FIR No.5 dated 18.1.1993
under section 304 IPC, but he was not arrested by the police
and no action was taken against him, notwithstanding the fact
B that he visited the Police Station on number of times and this
necessitated the filing of complaint.
The inquest report on the dead body of Harjinder Singh
was prepared by Inspector Harbans Lal and he sent the dead
body of Harjinder Singh to Civil Hospital, Fazilka, where post
c mortem on the dead body of Harjinder Singh was conducted.
As per the post mortem report, cause of death was due to
shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries Nos.1 and 2,
which were on the vital part of the brain and were sufficient to
cause death in the ordinary course of nature and the injuries
D were caused with fire-arms. . ,I

After investigation was completed, charge sheet was filed.
Since the appellant abjured guilt, trial was held.
Stand of the accused appellant before the trial Court apart
E from the plea of denial was that some people tried to snatch
away ballot boxes as a consequence of which the law and
order situation became bad. The police party fired in the air to
disburse the mob. The trial Court placing reliance on the ).

evidence of the eye witnesses recorded the conviction as noted •
F above.
In appeal the primary stand was that the so called eye
witnesses were related to the deceased and, therefore, their
evidence should not have been relied upon. The High Court
found that merely because the prime witnesses were related
G to the deceased that did not in any event affect the credibility
of th13ir evidence. It was submitted that only one shot was fired
and, therefore, Section 302 IPC has no application. It was also
noted that there was no evidence that the voters had become
uncontrollable or that there was snatching of ballot boxes or
H ballot papers. The evidence clearly established that the
JOGINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 719
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.)
v
-"' accused aimed at the head of the deceased and fired the shot. A
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
4. The stand taken before the High Court was re-iterated
by learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand B
supported the judgment of the trial Court as affirmed by the High
I
Court.
...,
6. Merely because the eye-witnesses are family members,
their evidence cannot 'per se' be discarded. When there is
allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established.
c
Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are
likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to
discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible.
We shall also deal with the contention regarding interestedness
> >:. . of the witnesses for furthering the prosecution version . D
Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It
is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual
culprit and make allegations against an innocent person.
Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made.
In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and E
analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible .
....... 7. In Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab (AIR
1953 SC 364) it has been laid down as under:-
..
~
'

- "A witness is normally to be considered independent
unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to
be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has
F

cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to
implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be
the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an G
innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there
is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to
drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a
grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid
for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 3 S.C.R.

v
A from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. ""
However, we are not attempting any sweeping
generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts.
Our observations are only made to combat what is so often
put forward in cases before us as a general rule of
B prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must
be limited to and be governed by its own facts."

8. The above decision has since been followed in Guli
Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (1974 (3) SCC 698) in
which Vadive/u Thevarv. State of Madras (AIR 1957 SC 614)
c was also relied upon.
9. We may also observe that the ground that the witness
being a close relative and consequently being a partisan
witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. This
D theory was repelled by this Court as early as in Da/ip Singh's .:. '
case (supra) in which surprise was expressed over the
impression which prevailed in the minds of the Members of the
Bar that relatives were not independent witnesses. Speaking
through Vivian Bose, J. it was observed:
E "We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the
High Court that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses
requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an
observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are >-
women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their •
F testimony, we know of no such rule. If it is grounded on the
reason that they are closely related to the deceased we
are unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to many
criminal cases and one which another Bench of this Court
-
endeavoured to dispel in - 'Rameshwar v. State of
G Rajasthan' (AIR 1952 SC 54 at p.59). We find, however,
that it unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments of
the Courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel."
10. Again in Masalti and Ors. v. State of UP. (AIR 1965
SC 202) this Court observed: (p. 209-210 para 14):
H
JOGINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 721
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
.} A
"But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that
evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on
the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested
witnesses ....... The mechanical rejection of such evidence
on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead
to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down B
as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial
i.., approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence;
but the plea that such evidence should be rejected
because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct."
11. To the same effect is the decisions in State of Punjab c
v. Jagir Singh (AIR 1973 SC 2407), Lehna v. State of Haryana
(2002 (3) SCC 76) and Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. State
of Orissa (2002 (8) SCC 381).
·-, ._
• 12. The above position was also highlighted in Babula/ D
Bhagwan Khandare and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
[2005(10) SCC 404], Salim Saheb v. State of M.P. (2007(1)
SCC 699) and Sonela/ v. State of M.P. (SLP (Crl.) No.3220
of 2007 disposed of on 22.7.2008).
13. In this case though one pellet was recovered and there E
was only one injury. But that does not on the facts of the case
,.. take the offence out of the purview of Section 302 IPC. It cannot
be laid down as a rule of universal application that when there
..
"
is one shot fired, Section 302 IPC is ruled out. It would depend
upon the factual scenario, more particularly, the nature of F
weapon, the place where the injury is caused and the nature of
the injury. In the instant case it has been clearly established that
the accused aimed at the head of the deceased and fired the
shot which hit him on his head and that too was fired from a
close range. G
~ 4. Above being the position the applicable offence is
Section 302 IPC. We do no find any merit in this appeal which
is accordingly dismissed.
D.G. Appeal dismissed. H