Holding

The conviction under Sections 302 read with 149 IPC is upheld; the appeal and the applications for settlement and impleading parties are dismissed.

Summary

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of several accused who, amid a long‑standing family feud, assaulted and murdered Jagbandhan and Randhir and injured Mithan. The prosecution proved the offences under Sections 302, 149, 148 and 323 of the IPC using eye‑witness testimony, medical evidence and the existence of a common object, despite the lack of wholly independent witnesses. The Court rejected the contention that ocular evidence conflicted with medical evidence on digestion time and held that the delay in examining some witnesses was explained and not fatal to the case. It also ruled that a settlement cannot be recorded for the non‑compoundable offence of murder and that Order 47 of the Supreme Court Rules is inapplicable. Consequently, the appeal and the interlocutory applications for impleading parties and recording a compromise were dismissed.

Issues considered

The prosecution case is sustainable despite the absence of wholly independent witnesses.
Whether ocular evidence contradicts medical evidence regarding the time of death.
Whether delay in examination of witnesses vitiates the prosecution case.
Whether a common object among all accused is established to attract Section 149 IPC.
Whether a settlement/compromise can be recorded for a non‑compoundable offence under Section 302 IPC.
Whether interlocutory applications under Order 47 Rules 1 & 6 are maintainable.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 174, s. 320, s. 321
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 323
Supreme Court Rules, 1966s. Order 47 Rule 1, s. Order 47 Rule 6

Subjects

murdercommon objectSection 149 IPCnon‑compoundable offencesettlementwitness testimonyocular evidencedelay in investigationfamily feudcriminal appeal

Judgment

-
[2009) 3 S.C.R. 406

A SATBIR SINGH & ORS.
v.
STATE OF U.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 951 of 2005)

B FEBRUARY 25, 2009
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.)

Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3021149, 148 and 3231149 -
Murder of two and injury caused to one - Long standing
c enemity between accused and complainant party - Eye-
witnesses and injured eye-witness to incident - Timely lodging
of FIR - Conviction by courts below - On appeal, held:
Prosecution case proved - Conviction justified - Ocular
evidence not at variance with medical evidence - Availability
D of independent witnesses in case of family enemity is difficult "
- However, one of the eye-witnesses was independent witness
- Delay in examination of the witnesses was not of much
relevance as the delay has been explained - Mentioning of
names of the accused not necessary for proving the case -
E Common object also proved.
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - ss. 320 and 321 -
Prosecution uls. 302 /PC - Out of court settlement between
accused and complainant party- Application before Supreme
Court for recording the compromise - Held: Offence u/s. 302
F
/PC, since not compoundable, compromise cannot be
recorded in violation of the statutory provision - Judgment of
acquittal cannot be passed on the basis of compromise -
Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - 0. 47 rr. 1 and 6.

G Appellants accused were prosecuted for having
caused death of two persons and for causing injury to
one. As per prosecution, complainant and accused
parties were the two branches of the same family, having
long standing enemity. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 when started
...
H 406
SATBIR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 407

f.
cutting the ridge of the field of the complainant party to A
which deceased No. 1 objected. When the accused
started abusing deceased No. 1, deceased No. 2
intervened. The accused went away and came back with
accused Nos. 5, 6 and 7 and assaulted deceased No.1.
Witnesses to this assault were PWs 1, 5 and 6. PWS was B
also injured. Thereafter, the accused persons proceeded
to kill deceased No. 2 and assaulted him. PW4 (wife of
deceased No.2) and PW 7 were the witnesses to this
assault. Trial court relying on the testimony of the eye-
witnesses convicted the accused u/ss. 302/149, 148 and c
323/149 IPC. High Court confirmed the conviction. Hence
the present appeal.

Pursuant to a settlement/compromise arrived at
between the complainant and accused parties, one
interlocutory application was filed before this Court D
seeking impleadment of sons of both the deceased, as
parties. Another interlocutory application was filed under
Order 47 Rules 1 and 6 of Supreme Court Rules for
acceptance of the settlement between the parties.
E
Dismissing the appeal and the applications, the Court

HELD:1.1. There is no reason to disbelieve the
medical evidence that PW-5 suffered an injury. If he was
an injured witness, his presence at the place of
.. occurrence cannot be doubted. Even otherwise his F
evidence inspires confidence and has rightly been
accepted by both the courts below. Similarly evidence of
PW-6 also is reliable. Opinion of the doctor that the injury
may be a self inflicted one is not of much significance,
[Para 22] [420-B-D] G

1.2. The second part of the prosecution case has
been proved by PW-7 and PW-4. PW-7 is an independent
witness. He had no animus against the accused. False
implication of the accused at his hand had not been H
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 3 S.C.R.

A suggested, far less established. The long standing
enmity between two branches of the same family stands
admitted. It is, therefore, unlikely that other villages would
come to depose in favour of one of the parties or the
other. Only because the witnesses are not independent
B ones may not by itself be a ground to discard the
prosecution case. If the prosecution case has been
supported by the witnesses and no cogent reason has
been shown to discredit their statements, a judgment of
conviction can certainly be based thereupon. [Paras 23,
c 24, 25 and 26] [420-G-H; 421-A]
1.3. The ocular evidence cannot be said to be in
variance with the medical evidence as stomach of the
deceased contained undigested food. The materials
brought on record by the prosecution shows that
D deceased No. 2 had taken his food at about 10.00 a.m.
The occurrence took place at about 11.30 a.m. Digestive
process, depends upon the nature of the food.
Evidence of PW-4 that her husband (deceased No. 2) had
taken his meal at 12.00 - 1.00 noon must be considered
E having regard to the fact that she is an illiterate woman.
Her deposition to that effect must be considered upon
taking a holistic view of the matter. The distance between
the place of occurrence and the police station is said to
.....-
be two miles. Two deaths had taken place. There was an
F injured person. First information report was lodged at
1.15 p.m. If the first information report could be lodged
at 1.15 p.m., the occurrence could not be said to have
taken place after 1.00 p.m. [Paras 27, 28 and 29] [421-B-
D; 422-C-F]
G Shivappa and Ors. v. State of Kamataka 2008 (11) SCC
337, referred to.

1.4 The first information report having been lodged
almost immediately after the occurrence, the prosecution
H case cannot be said to be tainted with falsehood. It would
SATBIR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 409

1
be almost well nigh impossible to implicate so many A
persons falsely and that to attribute specific overt acts
on the part of each of the accused. [Para 31] [423-8-C]

1.5. The plea that the Investigating officer did not
examine some of the witnesses on the day of the B
incident, cannot be accepted for more than one reason,
firstly because the delay in the investigation itself may not
benefit the accused ; secondly because the Investigating
Officer (PW-8) in his deposition explained the reasons for
delayed examination of the witnesses (PW 7 and PW5).
In regard to the purported delay of examination of PW-6,
c
no question was put to the Investigating Officer. [Paras
31 and 32] [423-C-D; 425-A-8]

...., Ranbir v. State of Punjab 1973 (2) SCC 444 and Bodhraj
v. State Qf J and K 2002 (8) SCC 45, relied on. D

1.6 In law it was not necessary to mention the names
of the accused persons in the inquest report. The inquest
report is prepared for the purposes mentioned in 174
Cr.P.C. and not for corroborating the prosecution case.
E
[Para 33] [425-8-C]

,
~ Pedda Narayana v. State of A.P. 1975 (4) SCC 153 and
George v. State of Kera/a 1998 (4) SCC 605, relied on.

1.7. If all the witnesses could not attribute specific F
roles to each of the accused, the same is natural. If seven
persons armed with various weapons attack a person, the
witnesses who were standing at some distance may not
be able to attribute specific role to each of the accused
persons. [Para 34] [426-A-8] G
1.8. The prosecution has been able to establish the
existence of common object amongst all the accused
persons. It is not correct to take the plea that appellant
Nos.4 to 7 (the members of the second group) did not
H
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.

A show any common object with the members of the first
group i.e. appellant Nos. 1 to 3. It may be that they were
not the persons who had committed overt acts when
deceased No. 1 objected to the factum of cutting of the
ridge. But each one of them came back with the other
B accused. They were armed with deadly weapons. They
were present, even though might not have actually
assaulted deceased No. 1. They left the place stating that
they would kill deceased No. 2. Both PW-4 and PW-7
stated that all the accused had taken part in assaulting
c deceased No. 2. Their statements are credit-worthy. as
deceased No. 2 suffered as many as 19 injuries. He was
chased and surrounded before he was assaulted. [Para
35] [426-B-E]

2. Having regard to the provisions contained in
D Sections 320 and 321 Cr.P.C. an offence u/s. 302 IPC is
not compoundable. Appellants were prosecuted for
committing two murders and injuring one. Maintenance
of rule of law is the prime duty of the State. In violation
of the statutory provisions, except in some marginal
E cases, the court shall not allow composition of offence.
If parties have settled their disputes they may live in
peace in future but the same by itself cannot be a ground ~

to pass a judgment of acquittal. Therefore, there is no
reason to allow the applications for impleading persons
F for the purpose of recording the compromise/settlement
in exercise of jurisdiction under Order 47 Rules 1 and 6
of the Supreme Court Rules, which has no application to
the present case. [Paras 37 and 38] [426-F-G; 427-A-B]

Case Law Reference:
G
2008 (11) sec 337 Referred to. Para 27

1973 (2) sec 444 Relied on. Para 31

2002 (8) sec 45 Relied on. Para 31
H
SATBIR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 411

1975 (4) sec 153 Relied on. Para 33 A
1998 (4) sec 605 Relied on. Para 33

CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 951 of 2005.
B
From the Judgment & Order dated 4.2.05 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Appeal No. 104/1978.

Sushil Kumar, Manish Pitale, Aditya Kumar, Anmol
Tharkral, Meenakshi Singh and Chander Shekhar Ashri for C
the Appellants.

R.K. Das, T.N. Singh, Rajeev Dubey and Kamlendra
Mishra for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Appellants are before us questioning
the correctness of a judgment and order of a Division Bench
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 4th April,
2005 affirming a judgment and order dated 23rd December,
1997 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut E
convicting the appellants herein under Sections 302 read with
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 148 and
323/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment
for two years and rigorous imprisonment for three months F
respectively. The sentences were, however, directed to run
concurrently.

2. Appellants, the deceased and the prosecution
witnesses are agnates being descendants of one Badan G
Singh.

3. The genealogical chart of the family is as under :-

H
412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 3 S.C.R.

A Badan Singh
I
I
Ratiram Kallu
1----.----1
Khajan Lalsingh Mulchand Shadi Ram- Chhotu
8 I asrey
I I
HemraJ Atarsingh
I
r-
Sachida-nand Jagban-dhan Randhir Sukh Raghu
(deceased) -bir nath
c
..------1I I
Arun Anirudh Nern Singh Sat-kumar
(R-5) (R-6)

Dhumsingh Kaleyram Mittan
D (now dead) (Injured)
I (PW5 now
Virender Pal dead)

Abhimanu Satyapal Jasvir Suresh-chand Janmejai
(Complainant)
E
Dallu Neki Baljit Hukma Lax-man Tilakram
I (A-1, now dead)

Ved.--u --H-arv~1-·r--'-Ja~gmeg Dansahai Dalbir (A-5) I
---1....._.....__I--~I_.__-'--'_I
-I

F Satbir Vakil Lekhpal Brahmpal Rajpal
(A-4) (A-2) (A-3)

4. Enmity between the two parties was a long standing
one. It started with murder of one Laxman brother of Tilak Ram
G (A-1) and father of Dalbir (A-6) as well as Dansahai (A-5).
Jagbandhan (deceased No.1 ), father of Arun and Anirudh
alongwith 10 other persons were prosecuted therefor.
Jagbandhan (deceased No.1), Dhum Singh (PW-7) and
Gandhari wife of Ajab Singh (PW-6) were convicted, but others
H were acquitted in that case. However, the High Court on an
SATBIR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 413
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
~

appeal preferred by the said four persons acquitted them. A
Proceedings under Sections 107/117 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure had also been initiated by and against both the
parties.

5. The incident in question took place on 27th November, S
1997 at about 11.00 a.m. According to the first information
· report which was lodged by Suresh Chandra (PW-1 ), at about
10.00 a.m. he alongwith his cousin Jagbandhan (deceased
No.1) and brother-in-law Ajab Singh were working in their fields.
Tilak Ram, Satbir, Vakil and Lekhpal were also ploughing their
field. At that time, they started cutting soil from the ridge of
c
their field to which Jagbandhan objected. To this the accused
persons started abusing him. Randhir (deceased No.2)
intervened. Tilak Ram (A-1) and his three sons Satbir (A-4);
~

Valil (A-2) and Lekhpal (A-3) left the field extending threats.
They returned with Dalbir (A-5) ; Dansahai (A-6) and Harvir D
(A-7).

6. Accused Tilak Ram, Dalbir and Harvir were armed with
ballam ; Vakil and Lekhpal were armed with Salkari and Satbir
and Dansahai were armed with Shala. Deceased No.1 E
Jagnandhan was smoking a 'Hukka' at that time. He was
assaulted by the accused persons in presence of Suresh
Chandra (PW-1 ), Mithan (PW-5) and Ajab Singh (PW-6). PW-
5, Mithan is also an injured eye witness.
F
7. Ajab Singh (PW-6), Sachitanand and Janmajay, upon
hearing the cries, ran towards the scene of occurrence.
Accsued Satbir, Vakil and Lekhpal chased them. They fled
and took shelter in the field of Sakhty. Mithan (PW-5), who
was working in his field was also attracted by the noise. They
intercepted him. Satbir assaulted him with Shala. Meanwhile G
"/
Tilak Ram reached there and asked the accused persons to
leave him and proceed to the village to do away with Randhir.
Accused persons thereafter went towards the Village. Randhir
was sitting on his cot in his 'gher'. His wife Kishan Devi (PW-
H
414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 3 S.C.R.

A 4) was cleaning the buffalo. On seeing the accused, Randhir
(deceased No.2) tried to run away to save his life but was
chased, surrounded and assaulted by the accused persons.
He died on the spot. Upon being informed by Mithan (PW-5)
that accused had gone towards the village to do away with
B Randhir they rushed towards the 'gher' of Randhir where they
were told about the occurrence.

8. We may place on record that accused Tilak Ram (A-
1) has since died.

C 9. Prosecution examined five eye witnesses i.e. PWs. 1,
5 and 6 in relation to the first incident i.e. murder of Jagbandhan
(deceased No.1) and PW-4 and PW-7 in relation to the second
incident i.e. murder of Randhir (deceased No.2). Sachitanand
and Janmajay were, however, not examined.
D
10. Police station Dodhar is situated at a distance of
about 2 miles from the place of occurrence. First information
report was lodged at about 1.15 p.m.
11. Postmortem report shows that Jagbandhan suffered
E nine anti mortem injuries which are as under :-

"1. Incised wound 13cmx1/2 cm x brain deep on the right
side of scalp, 10 cm from right ear and 1/4 cm. from root
of the nose. Dark clotted blood was present and brain
F matter had come out from the wound.

2. Five punctured wound on right cheek of average size 1
cm x 1.5 cm x thickening of cheek, fracture of right
mandible in the area of 9 cm x 3 cm.
G 3. Incised wound with margins clean cut on right side back ...
of scalp, 3 cm x 1 cm x bane deep, oblique in direction, 3
cm behind right ear.

4. Incised wound with clean cut margins on right side neck
H
SATBIR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 415
[S.8. SINHA, J.]

back, 4 cm x 1.5 cm x muscle deep, 3 cm below injury A
No. 3.

5. incised wound with clean cut margins on right shoulder
upper and anterior side, 6 cm x 3 cm, extending upto; the
outer part of right clavicle bone B
6. Incised wound with clean cut margins, 6 cm x 2-1/2 cm
x 2 cm on right shoulder just behind injury No. 5

7. Contusion 6 cm on the right arm anterior side 6 cm
below injury No. 5. c
8. Punctured wound 1-1/2 cm x1/2 cm x 3 cm on the back
of left forearm.

9. Abrasion 3 cm x 1/2 cm on the back of right hand. 4
' cm below right wrist joint." D

Deceased Randhir suffered nineteen anti mortem injuries
which are as under :-

"1. Incised wound with clean cut margins 14 cm x 3 cm x
E
brain on the right side scalp from back of right ear. The
brain mater had come out.

2. Incised wound with clean cut margins, 7 cm x 2 cm x
bone deep on right side scalp extending upto the upper
right ear. F

3. Semi-circular incised wound with clean cut margins 4
cm x 2 cm x bone deep on left upper part of scalp 9 cm
above left ear and 19 cm from left eye brow.

4. Incised wound with clean cut margins 6 cm x 1/2 cm x G
bone deep 2-1/2 cm above and behind left ear.

5. Deep incised wound with clean cut margins 13 cm x 4 ·
cm x bone deep on right side face from right eye inner side
cutting the nose on right side and upper lip on right side. H
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.

A The under lying bone and teeth were visible.
6. Incised wound with clean cut margins 2 cm x 1/2 cm x
bone deep on right side cheek just below the right eye.
7. Incised wound with clean cut margins 3 cm x 1 cm x
B bone deep on right side inner part of eye brow.
8. Clean cut incised wound on the right side on chin 5 cm
x 1 cm x bone deep with fracture of mandible right side.
9. Abrasion on left side chest 1-1/2 cm x 1 cm x 5 cm
c above and inner to left nipple.
10. Punctured wound on right anterior side of chest 1/2 cm
x 1 cm 11-1/2 cm below the right nipple.
11. Contusion 8 cm x 1/2 cm on the right arm upper part 9
,
D cm below right shoulder joint.
"'
12. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x 1/2 cm on the right
arm lower part anterior side just above the right elbow joint.
13. Abrasion 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm on the back right arm 8 cm
E above the right elbow joint.
14. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1/2 cm x skin deep on inner
part of right index finger near base.
15. Clean cut incised wound 3 cm x 1/2 cm x skin deep
F on back of left forearm 7 cm above left wrist joint
16. Two incised wound of average size x 1/2 cm x skin
deep on the left palm inner side near left wrist Joint
17. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1/2 cm x skin deep on the
G outer side of right leg, 10 cm above right ankle joint.
,..
18. Incised wound 2 cm x 1/2 cm x skin deep on the outer
side of right leg 10 cm above right ankle joint :-
•
19. Punctured wound 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x 1 cm on the back
H
SATBIR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 417
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
side of right leg above ankle joint." A

12. Whereas other appellants raised a plea of denial of
occurrence Harveer; A-7 raised the plea of alibi. In order to
prove the same two defence witnesses were examined to
show that on the date of occurrence he had gone to Budhana B
in the morning at 7.00 a.m. to encash a 'parchi' issued by
Sugar Mill towards the supply of sugarcane. According to him
the said 'parchi' was not encashed on that day and he returned
to the village at about 5.30 p.m. D.W.1 Omkar Singh was
examined to prove the said fact. D.W.2 Kuldeep Chand is C
Cane Accountant at Khatauli Sugar Mill. According to the said
witness in the sugar Mill's register payment made to Pitam
Singh was recorded.

13. The first part of the prosecution case leading to the
murder of Jagbandhan was proved by Suresh Chand (PW-1) D
; Mithan (PW-5) and Ajab Singh (PW-6). The second part of
the occurrence resulting in death of Randhir was proved by his
widow Kishan Devi (PW-4) and Dhum Singh (PW-7).

14. Both the learned trial judge as also the High Court E
totally relied upon their testimonies. The learned trial court as
also the High Court disbelieved the plea of alibi of Harveer,
accused No.7.

15. Before the High Court as also before us it was
contended:- F

(a) Prosecution having not examined any independent
witness, the judgment of conviction cannot be
sustained.

(b) In view of the statement made by PW-4 that G
Randhir had taken meal at about 12.00 - 1.00
noon and thereafter went towards fields and the
autopsy surgeon having found 300 gms. of semi
digested food, the prosecution story that the
H
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.

A occurrence took place at about 11.00 a.m. should
not be believed as ocular evidence runs contrary to
the medical evidence.

(c) No overt act on the part of Dan Sahai, Dalbir and
Harveer, A-5 to A-7 having been alleged in respect
B
of both parts of the incident, the prosecution cannot
be said to have proved existence of common
object amongst the accused persons so as to
invoke Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
c 16. Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellants, would furthermore draw our attention
to some subsequent events.

According to learned counsel on or about 8th July, 2000
D at about 8.00 a.m. Jagmeg, brother of Harveer (A-7) was
murdered. In connection with the said case Jagmeg son of
Kaley Ram (brother of PW-1, Suresh Chand, Anirudh and Arun,
both sons of Jagbandhan-deceased and other members of
their family were made accused. The First Information Report
lodged in connection with the said incident was registered as
E
FIR No.138/2000 under Sections 147, 302, 149 of the Indian
Penal Code.

The other villagers attempted reconciliation between the
parties. A Panchayat was convened on 21st March, 2005 and
F allegedly a compromise/ settlement has been arrived at
amongst the parties, pursuant whereto or in furtherance whereof
the accused did not support the prosecution case and all the
accused named in the said FIR 138/2000 giving rise to Session
Trial No.38 of 2002 (prosecution witnesses herein) were
G acquitted.

17. Before us an application being I.A. No.6979 of 2005
" ,
...

for impleading Suresh Chand (PW-1), Sat Kumar and Nern
Singh, sons of deceased Randhir and Arun & Anirudh sons of
deceased Jagbandhan has been filed.
H
SATBIR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 419
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
18. Another application being I.A. No.4945 of 2005 has A
also been filed purported to be in terms of Order 47 Rules 1
& 6 of the Supreme Court Rules for acceptance of the said
settlement between the parties.

19. Mr. R.K. Dass, learned senior counsel appearing on B
behalf of the State, on the other hand, would support the
judgment.

20. Before adverting to the maintainability of the said two
interlocutory applications, we may advert to the merit of the
matter. c
21. The fact that the parties are related is not in dispute.
The homicidal nature of death of Jagbandhan and Randhir is
also not in dispute. The occurrence started as the accused
~
were said to be cutting soil from the ridge of their field to D
which deceased No.1, Jagbandhan, objected. The deceased
Randhir also intervened. All the accused persons then went to
the village and came variously armed. They not only assaulted
Jagbandhan but after his death they went back to the village
and done away with Randhir. Evidence of the informant, PW- E
1, Suresh Chand, was supported in material particulars by
PW-5, Mithan, who is an injured eye witness. He was taken to
the primary hospital. He was given treatment there.

22. It was urged that Dr. R.K. Sharma, who examined
himself as PW-9 in cross-examination stated that injury on the F
person of Mithan (PW-5) can be a self-inflicted one.

We may notice that Mithan (PW-5) was examined on 28th
January, 1977. According to the said doctor the injury on his
person could possibly be caused on 26th January, 1977 with G
a sharp ballam stating :-

"3. Scratch can be superficial also and it can be skin deep
also. If it is skin deep then it is called wound. I cannot tell
corectly the thickness of skin of wrist joint. I cannot tell if
H
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.

A thickness can be 1/10 (illegible). The witness said again
that it cannot be so les. If any heavy weapon rubs off then
such injury can be caused. If edge of ballam rubs off then
such injury can be caused., tattooing can be caused. This
injury could be caused with any sharp weapon. It could be
B self-inflicted. In my estimation of period of injury, it could
be 3-4 hours more or less. This is wrong this difference
could be 10-12 hours."

We do not see any reason to disbelieve the medical
evidence that (PW-5) Mithan suffered an injury. If he was an
C injured witness his presence at the place of occurrence cannot
be doubted. Even otherwise his evidence inspires confidence
and has rightly been accepted by both the courts below.
Similarly evidence of Ajab Singh (PW-6) also is reliable.

D Opinion of the doctor that the injury may be a self inflicted
one is not of much significance.

23. The second part of the prosecution case has been
proved by Dhum Singh (PW-7) and Kishan Devi (PW-4) widow
E of Randhir. PW-7 was sitting on the roof of his house. According
to him, seeing the accused persons Randhir tried to run away
but was surrounded by the accused persons and was murdered.
He furthermore stated that the widow of deceased Kishan
Devi and Harbai were present there. Presence of Kishan Devi
at the place of occurrence was natural. That Dhum Singh (PW-
F 7) had been living near the gher of the deceased is neither
denied nor disputed. He otherwise is an independent witness.
24. The long standing enmity between two branches of
the same family stands admitted. It is, therefore, unlikely that
G other villages would come to depose in favour of one of the
parties or the other.

25. It is now a well settled principle of law that only because
the witnesses are not independent ones may not by itself be
H a ground to discard the prosecution case. If the prosecution
SATBIR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 421
[S.B. SINHA, J.]

case has been supported by the witnesses and no cogent A
reason has been shown to discredit their statements, a
judgment of conviction can certainly be based thereupon.

26. Furthermore, as noticed hereinbefore, at least Dhum
Singh (PW-7) is an independent witness. He had no animus 8
against the accused. False implication of the accused at his
hand had not been suggested, far less established.

27. We may now examine the question as to whether the
ocular evidence is in variance with the medical evidence as
stomach of the deceased contained undigested food. The C
materials brought on record by the prosecution shows that
deceased Randhir had taken his food at about 10.00 a.m.
The occurrence took place at about 11.30 a.m Digestive
process, as is well known, depends upon the nature of the
food. This Court in Shivappa and Ors. v. State of Kamataka, D
((2008) 11 sec 337] while dealing with a similar contention,
held as under:-

"13. The High Court, however, opined that in view of the
evidence of the doctor that the death occurred within 24 E
hours of the time of the post- mortem, the variation
between the medical evidence and the testimony of the
eye witnesses is not such which would lead to a conclusion
that the prosecution case was not correct. We agree with
the said view.
F
In Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, p. 185, it is stated that
so far as the food contents are concerned, they remain for
long hours in the stomach and duration thereof depends
upon various factors.
G
14. In Main Pal and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.
(2004) 10 SCC 692 , this Court held:
If the eyewitnesses' version, even though of the relatives,
is found to be truthful and credible after deep scrutiny the
H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.

A opinionative evidence of the doctor cannot wipe out the
effect of eyewitnesses' evidence. The opinion of the doctor
cannot have any binding force and cannot be said to be
the last word on what he deposes or meant for implicit
acceptance. On the other hand, his evidence is liable to
B be sifted, analysed and tested, in the same manner as that
of any other witness, keeping in view only the fact that he
has some experience and training in the nature of the
functions discharged by him.

15. Indisputably, a large number of factors are responsible
c for drawing an inference with regard to digestion of food.
It may be difficult if not impossible to state exactly the time
which would be taken for the purpose of digestion.

28. Evidence of Kishan Devi (PW-4) that her husband
D had taken his meal at 12. 00 - 1. 00 noon must be considered
having regard to the fact that she is an illiterate woman. Her
deposition to that effect must be considered upon taking a
holistic view of the matter.
E 29. The distance between the place of occurrence and
the police station is said to be two miles. Two deaths had
taken place. There was an injured person. First information
report was lodged at 1.15 p.m. If the first information report
could be lodged at 1.15 p.m., the occurrence could not be
F said to have taken place after 1.00 p.m.
30. The entire incident took place in three phases, namely

(a) quarrel at the field ;
G (b) accused persons going to the village, coming back
to the field and killing Jagbandhan and injuring
Mithan; and
(c) going back to the village and assaulting Randhir.
H
SATBIR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 423
[S.S. SINHA, J.]
It mµst have consumed some time. A

31. We must also bear in the mind the number of injuries
found on the persons of both the deceased. Jagbandhan had
nine injuries on his person whereas the number of injuries on
the person of Randhir were nineteen .. The first information
B
report having been lodged almost immediately after the
occurrence, we do not think that the prosecution case is tainted
with falsehood. It would be almost well nigh impossible to
implicate so many persons falsely and that to attribute specific
overt acts on the part of each of the accused.
c
Contention of Mr. Sushil Kumar that the Investigating officer
did not examine some of the witnesses on 27th January, 1997
cannot be accepted for more than one reason, firstly because
the delay in the investigation itself may not benefit the accused
; secondly because the Investigating Officer (PW-8) in his D
deposition explained the reasons for delayed examination of
the witnesses. According to him, after preparation of the inquest
report he was busy in searching for the accused persons and
thus could not record the statement of Dhum Singh.
E
So far as non-examination of PW-5 is concerned, he
--,,.. stated:-

"13. The weapons used in the incident are not mentioned
in inquest report. At the time of writing inquest report, I had
come to known that Dhumsingh was eyewitness. F
Eyewitness can be witness of inquest report, therefore, I
made him witness in inquest report. Dhumsingh was
directed to remain in village because his statement was
to be recorded.
G
"" 14. Statement of witness Mitthan was not recorded by me
at the field because Panchyatnam of Randhir was to be
prepared and search of accused persons was to be
conducted. After preparing site plan I went to village
immediately. I did not give any instruction to Mitthan that
H
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 3 S.C.R.

A recorded. The entry regarding injury on his arm was
recorded in case diary at the field itself. He sustained
wound. It is incorrect to state that he had sustained little
abrasion. I. did not send him for medical examination from
the field because I had few accused persons and I could
B not find him."

This Court in Ranbir v. State of Punjab, [(1973) 2 SCC
444] repelled a similar contention stating :-

"..... The fact of delayed examination of Tota Ram should,
c in our opinion, have been put to the investigating officer
so as to enable him to explain the undue delay, if any, in
examining Tota Ram. The question of delay in examining
a witness during investigation is material only if it is
indicative and suggestive of some unfair practice by the ·•
D investigating agency for the purpose of introducing a got-
up witness to falsely support the prosecution case."

Yet again in Bodhraj v. State of J&K, [(2002) 8 SCC 45]
it was held :-
E "33. Another point which was urged was the alleged
delayed examination of the witnesses. Here again, it was
explained as to why there was delay. Important witnesses
were examined immediately. Further statements were
recorded subsequently. Reasons necessitating such
F examination were indicated. It was urged that the same
was to rope in the accused persons. This aspect has also
been considered by the trial court and the High Court. It
has been recorded that there was a valid reason for the
subsequent and/or delayed examination. Such conclusion
G has been arrived at after analysing the explanation offered.
It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application
that if there is any delay in examination of a particular
witness the prosecution version becomes suspect. It would
depend upon several factors. If the explanation offered for
H the delayed examination is plausible and acceptable and
SATBIR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 425
, [S.B. SINHA, J.)

the court accepts the same as plausible, there is no reason A
to interfere with the conclusion."

32. We may place on record that in regard to the purported
delay of examination of PW-6, no question was put to the
Investigating Officer. B
33. Mr. Sushil Kumar would urge that in the inquest report
the name of the accused persons had not been mentioned. In
our opinion that in law it was not necessary to do so. The
inquest report is prepared for the purposes mentioned in 174
of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not for corroborating c
the prosecution case. In Pedda Narayana v. State of A.P.,
[(1975) 4 SCC 153] this Court has held :

•, ~ "11. A perusal of this provision would clearly show that the
object of the proceedings under Section 174 is merely to D
ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious
circumstances or an unnatural death and if so what is the
apparent cause of the death. The question regarding the
details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who
assaulted him or under what circumstances he was E
assaulted appears to us to be foreign to the ambit and
scope of the proceedings under Section 174."
' Yet again in George v. State of Kera/a, [(1998) 4 SCC
605] it was held :-
F
"31. The whole purpose of preparing an inquest report
under Section 174(1) Cr PC is to investigate into and draw
up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such
wounds as may be found on the body of the deceased and
stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument, G
if any, such wounds appear to have been inflicted. In other
words, for the purpose of holding the inquest it is neither
necessary nor obligatory on the part of the Investigating
Officer to investigate into or ascertain who were the
persons responsible for the death." H
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 3 S.C.R.

A 34. If all the witnesses could not attribute specific roles to
each of the accused, the same in our considered view, is
natural. If seven persons armed with various weapons attack
a person, the witnesses who were standing at some distance
may not be able to attribute specific role to each of the accused
B persons.

35. Mr. Sushil Kmar would urge that whereas Satbir, Vakil
and Lekhpal, appellant Nos. 1 to 3, may be placed in one
group and Dan Sahai and Dalbir sons of Lakshman and
C Harveer (appell(!nt Nos.4 to 7) on the other, the members of
the second group did not show any common object with the
members of the first group. It may be that they were not the
persons who had committed overt acts when Jagbandhan
objected to the factum of cutting of the ridge. But each one of
them came back with the other accused. They were armed ~
D with deadly weapons. They were present, even though might
not have actually assaulted Jagbandhan. They left the place
stating that they would kill Randhir. Both PW-4 and PW-7
stated that all the accused had taken part in assaulting Randhir.
Their statements are credit-worthy as Randhir suffered as many
E as 19 injuries. Randhir was chased and surrounded before he
was assaulted.

36. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the prosecution
has been able to establish the existence of common object
F amongst all the accused persons.

37. So far as the interlocutory applications are concerned,
suffice it to point out that having regard to the provisions
contained in Sections 320 and 321 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, an offence under Section 302 of the Indian
G Penal Code is not compoundable. Appellants were prosecuted
for committing two murders and injuring one. Maintenance of
rule of law is the prime duty of the State. In violation of the
statutory provisions, except in some marginal cases, the court
shall not allow composition of offence. If parties have settled
H
SATBIR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. 427
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
1
their disputes they may live in peace in future but the same by A
itself cannot be a ground to pass a judgment of acquittal.

38. We, therefore, do not find any reason to allow the
applications for impleading of Suresh Chand and others for
the purpose of recording the compromise/settlement in exercise B
of our jurisdiction under Order 47 Rules 1 and 6 of the Supreme
Court Rules, which in our opinion, has no application to the
present case. The applications are accordingly dismissed.

39. In the result this appeal fails and is dismissed.
c
K.K.T. Applications and Appeal dismissed.

-·

;.