STATE OF PUNJABversusGURPREET SINGH & ORS.

                [2024] 2 S.C.R. 1039 : 2024 INSC 154

                            State of Punjab
                                   v.
                         Gurpreet Singh & Ors.
                  (Criminal Appeal Nos. 664-665 of 2024)
                              06 February 2024
              [Surya Kant* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]

                           Issue for Consideration
       High Court, if justified in acquitting the main accused and the co-
       accused of the charges u/s. 302/34 IPC.

                                  Headnotes
       Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 – Murder – Acquittal by High
       Court, if sustainable – Prosecution case that main accused
       armed with pistol shot his ex mother-in-law resulting in her
       death – Other co-accused accompanied the main accused
       – Motive behind the murder was that the main accused
       believed that his ex-mother-in-law was responsible for
       the divorce from his ex-wife, sabotaging his plan to settle
       abroad – Conviction and sentence of the main accused u/s.
       302 and the co-accused u/ss. 302/34 by the trial court, on
       basis of the testimonies of the complainant-husband of the
       deceased and his daughter – However, acquittal by the High
       Court – Sustainability:
       Held: Reasons assigned by the High Court for disbelieving the
       testimonies of the complainant-husband of the deceased and
       his daughter, cannot be concurred with – There is no suggestion
       to the complainant, and his daughter that they had some other
       reason to implicate the main accused falsely, who happens to be
       the former husband of the elder daughter – On the contrary, the
       prosecution successfully established that main accused had been
       nursing a grudge against the deceased, which stands proved
       – Presence of the complainant at the time of occurrence, his
       prompt reporting of the crime, and the swift action taken by the
       police immediately upon receipt of the said report, cumulatively
       and unequivocally established the prosecution case beyond any
       doubt – There could not be, in all probabilities, any meeting
       of the minds within a few minutes after the occurrence, so as


* Author
1040                                                       [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


    to create a false narrative only to implicate main accused –
    Unfiltered version of the complainant conclusively established the
    veracity of his subsequent deposition – Overwhelming evidence,
    to establish the recovery of weapon of crime-pistol along with
    live cartridges and one empty shell at the instance of the main
    accused – Submission that none of the neighbours came forward
    to witness the occurrence totally illogical and a misconceived
    notion – Thus, the reasons assigned by the High Court while
    granting acquittal to the main accused totally perverse and as a
    result of misreading of the evidence on record – Order of acquittal
    qua main accused u/s. 302 set aside, and that of the trial court
    convicting him and sentencing him to life imprisonment restored
    – However, the reasons assigned by the High Court in support
    of the acquittal of co-accused are possible and plausible – High
    Court seems right in extending the benefit of doubt qua them.
    [Paras 24-33, 35, 36]
    Constitution of India – Art. 136 – Intervention in acquittal
    orders under:
    Held: Once the appellate court acquits the accused, the
    presumption of innocence as it existed before conviction by the
    trial court, stands restored, and this Court, while scrutinizing
    the evidence, would proceed with great circumspect and would
    not routinely interfere with an order of acquittal, save when the
    impeccable prosecution evidence nails the accused beyond
    any doubt – Where on consideration of the material on record,
    even if two views are possible, yet this Court, while exercising
    powers Art. 136 would not tinker with an order of acquittal – An
    erroneous or perverse approach to the proven facts of a case
    and/or ignorance of some of the vital circumstances would amount
    to a grave and substantial miscarriage of justice – In such a
    case, this Court would be justified in exercising its extraordinary
    jurisdiction to undo the injustice mete out to the victims of a
    crime. [Paras 15, 18]
    First Information Report – Prompt lodging of – Significance:
    Held: Prompt lodging of an FIR helps dispel suspicions related to
    the potential exaggeration of the involvement of individuals and
    adds credibility to the prosecution’s argument – Promptly lodged
    FIR reflects the first-hand account of what happened and who was
    responsible for the offence in question. [Para 30]
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                                1041

                    State of Punjab v. Gurpreet Singh & Ors


     Witness – Natural witness, when – Evidentiary value:
     Held: Incident, which transpires partly within the confines of the
     house, the family members and close relatives naturally become
     the witnesses – These individuals cannot be considered incidental
     witnesses; instead, they emerge as the most natural witnesses –
     Typically, a close relative is unlikely to shield the actual culprit and
     falsely implicate an innocent person – While it is acknowledged that
     emotions can run high and personal animosity may exist, merely
     being related does not provide a valid basis for criticism, instead,
     familial ties often serve as a reliable assurance of truth. [Para 29]

                               Case Law Cited
           State of Karnataka v. J. Jayalalitha [2017] 5 SCR 525 :
           (2017) 6 SCC 263; Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar,
           [2022] 3 SCR 1046 : (2022) 3 SCC 471; Thoti Manohar
           v. State Of Andhra Pradesh, [2012] 5 SCR 1129 : (2012)
           SCC 7 723; Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh, [2023]
           2 SCR 276 : (2023) 10 SCC 470; Thulia Kali v. State
           of Tamil Nadu, [1972] 3 SCR 622 : (1972) 3 SCC 393;
           State of Punjab v. Surja Ram, [1995] Suppl. 2 SCR
           590 : (1995) Supp (3) SCC 419; Girish Yadav v. State
           of M.P., [1996] 3 SCR 1021 : (1996) 8 SCC 186; Takdir
           Samsuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 10 SCC
           158 – referred to.

                                  List of Acts
     Penal Code, 1860; Constitution of India.
                               List of Keywords
     Murder; Acquittal; Motive; Natural witnesses; Testimonies; False
     implication; Recovery of weapon; Travesty of justice; Benefit
     of doubt; Presumption of innocence; Extraordinary jurisdiction;
     First Information Report; Prompt lodging of FIR; Witness.
                              Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos.664-
     665 of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 05.12.2019 of the High Court
     of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CrA-D-1606-DB of 2015
     (O&M) and CRR No. 2942 of 2015 (O&M)
1042                                                         [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


                         Appearances for Parties
     Gaurav Dhama, A.A.G., Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, Malivka Raghavan,
     Harshit Khanduja, Umang Mehta, Mohammad Salam, Advs. for the
     Appellant.
     Miss Aanchal Jain, Karan Dewan, Kartik Yadav, Advs. for the
     Respondents.
                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                    Judgment
     Surya Kant, J.
     Delay condoned.
2.   Leave granted.
3.   These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 05.12.2019,
     passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
     (hereinafter, ‘High Court’), allowing Criminal Appeal, CRA-D-
     1606-DB-2015 (O&M) filed by Gurpreet Singh, Kashmira Singh and
     Jagdeep Singh (Respondent Nos. 1-3) and Criminal Revision, CRR-
     2942-2015 (O&M) filed by Harpreet Singh against their conviction
     awarded by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana
     (hereinafter, ‘Trial Court’) vide judgments dated 29.09.2015 and
     02.07.2015 respectively. The High Court has, through the impugned
     judgment, acquitted all the four Respondents of the charges under
     Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
     (hereinafter, ‘IPC’).
     Facts:
4.   At this juncture, it is imperative to delve into the factual matrix to set
     out the context of the present proceedings.
5.   FIR No. 100 dated 18.07.2012, was registered at Police Station City
     Jagraon, District Ludhiana Rural, under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC
     and Sections 25, 27, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959. The subject
     FIR was lodged on the statement of Gursewak Singh (P.W.2), the
     Complainant, who stated that his elder daughter, Kirandeep Kaur,
     was married to Gurpreet Singh (main accused) in the year 2009
     and they got divorced in the year 2011. On 18.07.2012, at about
     1.30 p.m., the Complainant was taking rest in his bedroom while
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                      1043

                    State of Punjab v. Gurpreet Singh & Ors


     his wife, Amarjit Kaur, and their son and younger daughter were
     on the first floor. At the exact time of the incident, the Complainant
     received information from Amarjit Kaur, who was standing on the
     stairs, that someone was calling for him. The Complainant opened
     the drawing-room door to check the main gate, wherein he saw
     Gurpreet Singh, accompanied by an unidentified individual, who
     had entered the porch by jumping the compound wall. Gurpreet
     Singh was armed with a pistol, while the unidentified person held
     a hockey stick. No sooner did the Complainant open the drawing-
     room door Gurpreet Singh shot at the Complainant’s wife, Amarjit
     Kaur, under the right ear from a close range. When the Complainant
     accessed the main gate, he saw brothers of Gurpreet Singh,
     namely, Harpreet Singh and Joga Singh (sons of Puran Singh r/o
     Bhodipura), standing there besides an Innova car. The Complainant
     shouted at them and tried to catch hold of the assailants, but they
     crossed the main gate and fled in the Innova car. The reason for
     enmity, according to the Complainant, was that the daughter of
     the Complainant, Kirandeep Kaur, had cleared the IELTS exam
     and had shifted to Australia. Gurpreet Singh also wanted to settle
     in Australia, but due to their divorce, his dreams were shattered,
     and he blamed Amarjit Kaur, the wife of the Complainant to be
     responsible for the divorce.
6.   The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses to bring the
     guilt home, including Gursewak Singh, P.W.2 (the Complainant) and
     his daughter, Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3), both eyewitnesses. The
     entire case of the prosecution is based upon the version of these
     two eyewitnesses, who claimed that the murder took place in the
     broad daylight in front of them.
7.   The Trial Court, having found the version of the two eyewitnesses to
     be trustworthy, which was duly corroborated by the medical evidence
     and the recovery of the weapon, held Gurpreet Singh guilty of the
     offence under Section 302 IPC, whereas his co-accused were held
     guilty for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. All of them were
     sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
8.   The High Court, vide the impugned judgment, disbelieved the
     version of Gursewak Singh (P.W.2, the Complainant) and his
     daughter, Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3), primarily for the reasons that
     (i) Gursewak Singh (P.W.2) had gone for the medical checkup of
1044                                                       [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


     his son to a hospital in Jagraon. It was not possible for him to reach
     back Doraha at the time of occurrence, as the distance was of about
     70 kms. (ii) Gursewak Singh (P.W.2) failed to disclose the names
     of the co-accused, Harpreet Singh and Kashmira Singh, in his first
     version, and he is stated to have re-collected their names after
     about five hours. (iii) It is doubtful that Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3)
     would be attending her classes from her parental house rather than
     from her in-laws’ house since she got married only a few months
     ago. (iv) No Test Identification Parade was conducted. (v) There is
     a great mystery about the nomination of Jagdeep Singh, Harpreet
     Singh S/o Veer Singh and Kashmira Singh because, as per the
     testimony of the eyewitnesses, they were never named before the
     police, and even the Investigating Officer has also not disclosed as
     to how these persons have been nominated as accused. (vi) These
     discrepancies, inconsistencies and unexplained circumstances go to
     the root of the case and severely dent the credibility of Gursewak
     Singh (P.W.2) and his daughter.
9.   The High Court, thus, viewed that once the defence is able to cast
     a reasonable doubt on the story of the prosecution, the necessary
     consequence will be the acquittal of the accused.
10. Discontented with the acquittal of the accused persons, the State of
    Punjab is in appeal before us.
     Contentions of Parties
11. Mr. Gaurav Dhama, learned Additional Advocate General for the
    State of Punjab, argued that the High Court erred in acquitting the
    accused, by setting aside the well-reasoned findings by the Trial Court,
    which categorically stated that based on the direct and unequivocal
    statements provided by both the witnesses (P.W.2 and P.W.3), it was
    conclusively proved that Gurpreet Singh fired shots at Amarjit Kaur.
    The Complainant and the eyewitness, having lost a close family
    member in the incident, had no motive to protect the real accused
    or falsely implicate the innocent persons of committing the crime.
    Mr. Dhama vehemently contended that Gurpreet Singh harboured
    suspicions that the deceased played a big role in his divorce. He
    kept holding a grudge against her, which served as the motive for
    the murder. Additionally, the testimonies of Gursewak Singh (P.W.2)
    and his daughter, Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3), distinctly indicated that
    soon after Amarjit Kaur was shot, she was discovered to be dead,
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                        1045

                    State of Punjab v. Gurpreet Singh & Ors


     prompting them to alert the authorities. Furthermore, P.W.3 provided
     a clear and unequivocal identification of the accused-Respondents
     as the assailants at the police station, which was substantiated by
     a proper identification in the court.
12. Per contra, Mr. Karan Dewan, learned counsel on behalf of the
    Respondents, urged that this Court, in exercise of the power under
    Article 136 of the Constitution, should be extremely cautious in
    interfering with an order of acquittal passed by the High Court. Further,
    the offence took place in the broad daylight, it is quite strange that
    none of the neighbours witnessed the occurrence. He maintains
    that the High Court has rightly cast doubt on the prosecution’s case
    as the testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.3 does not inspire confidence.
    He also contended that P.W.3 was a married girl, and it was highly
    unlikely that she was attending classes from her paternal home
    despite getting married only a few months ago.
     Analysis
13. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties at a considerable
    length, we find that two questions fall for our consideration in the
    present appeal; (i) whether a case is made out for interference by
    this Court under Article 136; (ii) whether the acquittal of Respondents
    is sustainable, if the answer of the first question is in the affirmative.
     Scope of Interference
14. Learned counsel for the Respondents very passionately contends
    that the case does not fall within such exceptional category where
    this Court, while exercising its power under Article 136 of the
    Constitution, should interfere in a well-reasoned order of acquittal
    passed by the High Court.
15. There is no gainsaying that once the appellate court acquits
    the accused, the presumption of innocence as it existed before
    conviction by the Trial Court, stands restored, and this Court, while
    scrutinizing the evidence, will proceed with great circumspect and
    will not routinely interfere with an order of acquittal, save when the
    impeccable prosecution evidence nails the accused beyond any
    doubt. In other words, where on consideration of the material on
    record, even if two views are possible, yet this Court, while exercising
    powers under Article 136 of the Constitution, will not tinker with an
    order of acquittal.
1046                                                          [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


16. State of Karnataka v. J. Jayalalitha1 does acknowledge that a
    judgment of acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence
    in favour of the accused. Nevertheless, the caveat is that the
    court must not shy away from its responsibility to prevent a
    miscarriage of justice and must intervene when necessary. If the
    acquittal is based on irrelevant grounds, if the High Court allows
    itself to be misled by distractions, if the High Court dismisses the
    evidence accepted by the Trial Court without proper consideration,
    or if the High Court’s flawed approach leads to the neglect of
    vital evidence, this Court is obligated to intervene to uphold the
    interests of justice and address any concerns within the judicial
    conscience.
17. In Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar2, this Court has outlined the
    principles guiding its intervention in acquittal orders under Article
    136. These are:
     (i)     An intervention is warranted when the High Court’s approach
             or reasoning is deemed perverse. This occurs when the High
             Court, based on suspicion and surmises, rejects evidence
             or when the acquittal is primarily rooted in an exaggerated
             adherence to the rule of giving the benefit of doubt in favour
             of the accused.
     (ii)    Another circumstance for intervention arises when the acquittal
             would lead to a significant miscarriage of justice. This refers to
             situations where the High Court, through a cursory examination
             of evidence, severs the connection between the accused and
             the crime.
18. An erroneous or perverse approach to the proven facts of a case
    and/or ignorance of some of the vital circumstances would amount
    to a grave and substantial miscarriage of justice. In such a case,
    this Court will be justified in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction
    to undo the injustice mete out to the victims of a crime.
19. Keeping these principles in mind, we proceed to analyse the legal
    evidence on record and how the High Court appears to have fallen
    in an error, at least partially, if not in entirety.


1   [2017] 5 SCR 525 : (2017) 6 SCC 263.
2   [2022] 3 SCR 1046 : (2022) 3 SCC 471.
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                      1047

                    State of Punjab v. Gurpreet Singh & Ors


     Acquittal Order qua Gurpreet Singh (Main Accused)
20. With a view to establish charges against Gurpreet Singh, the
    prosecution relied on the testimonies of Gursewak Singh (P.W.2),
    Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3) and Hari Mittar (P.W.9). A brief
    summarization of their testimonies is necessitated hereunder.
21. P.W.2, Gursewak Singh, the deceased’s husband, is the Complainant
    in FIR No. 100/2012. He provided a detailed account of the incident
    to the police, recounting that his wife, who was standing on the
    stairs, informed him of someone calling from outside the main gate.
    Upon opening the door of the drawing room, he witnessed Gurpreet
    Singh armed with a pistol. Gurpreet Singh and the unidentified
    person (Jagdeep Singh, named later on during the testimony) had
    entered the house by scaling the wall of the house. While P.W.2
    was standing at the drawing-room door, Gurpreet Singh aimed the
    pistol at Amarjit Kaur, shot her under the right ear causing her to
    fall. P.W.2 raised the alarm, and upon reaching the main gate, he
    saw Gurpreet Singh, along with Harpreet Singh, Kashmira Singh,
    and Jagdeep Singh, making their escape in an Innova car. P.W.2
    asserted that the motive behind the murder was related to his elder
    daughter, Kirandeep Kaur, who was earlier married to Gurpreet Singh
    and had relocated to Australia. Due to the divorce from Kirandeep,
    Gurpreet Singh’s plans to settle in Australia were thwarted, and he
    held the deceased Amarjit Kaur responsible for the divorce.
22. P.W.3, Harmandeep Kaur, the younger daughter of the deceased,
    recounted that she, along with her brother and mother, was on the
    terrace of the house. Amarjit Kaur, hence deceased, while descending
    the stairs, informed Gursewak Singh P.W.2 of the call. P.W.2 opened
    the drawing room door to check the main gate. In the meantime,
    Gurpreet Singh, armed with a pistol, and Jagdeep Singh, wielding
    a hockey stick, entered the premises by scaling the boundary wall.
    Gurpreet Singh aimed the pistol at Amarjit Kaur, who was standing on
    the stairs, firing a shot that struck below her right ear. Subsequently,
    Gurpreet Singh and Jagdeep Singh fled in an Innova car. P.W.3
    also detailed the motive, indicating that Gurpreet Singh believed
    Amarjit Kaur was responsible for the divorce from Kirandeep Kaur,
    sabotaging his plan to settle in Australia.
23. P.W.9, Hari Mittar, the Investigating Officer of the case, reported that
    upon reaching the scene of the incident, he documented the statement
1048                                                        [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


     of P.W.2 and compiled an inquest report concerning the deceased,
     Amarjit Kaur. Additionally, he mentioned that after the arrest, Gurpreet
     Singh was interrogated where he made a disclosure statement (Ex.
     PW9/F) revealing the concealment of a 12-bore country-made pistol
     along with two live cartridges in bushes opposite Gurudwara Bhaura
     Sahib. Acting on this disclosure statement, the police successfully
     recovered a 12-bore country-made pistol, one empty cartridge, and
     two live cartridges of the same calibre.
24. The Trial Court, deeming P.W.2 and P.W.3 as natural witnesses,
    based its findings on their testimonies to establish the involvement of
    Gurpreet Singh in the murder of Amarjit Kaur. Furthermore, the Trial
    Court noted that there was no apparent motive for P.W.2 and P.W.3
    to protect the real culprits and falsely accuse innocent individuals in
    connection with the crime. The pertinent paragraph is outlined below:
          “51. Thus, the presence of both the complainant and
          Harmandeep Kaur at the place of occurrence comes across
          as natural presence. From the direct and unequivocal
          testimonies of both theses witnesses the fact that accused
          Gurpreet Singh shot at Amarjit Kaur is duly established.
          The complainant and the eye witness lost their family
          member in the incident. There would be no reason for the
          complainant and Harmandeep Kaur to shield the actual
          culprits and to name the innocent as the perpetrators of
          the crime.”
25. The High Court, however, in the impugned judgment, stated that the
    defence has been able to cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s
    story. Consequently, High Court has disbelieved the testimonies of
    P.W.2 and P.W.3.
26. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasons assigned
    by the High Court, and we find it extremely difficult to concur with
    the same. We say so for the reason that the presence of Gursewak
    Singh (P.W.2) in his own house cannot indeed be doubted for the
    simple reason that the occurrence took place at 1.30 p.m. and he
    made a call to the Police Control Room at 1.40 p.m. The fact that
    in the very first version, Gursewak Singh disclosed the name of the
    Gurpreet Singh, as being the killer of his wife, leaves no room to
    doubt that he was physically present in the house and witnessed
    the occurrence.
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                      1049

                    State of Punjab v. Gurpreet Singh & Ors


27. Similarly, the reason assigned by the High Court to discard the version
    of Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3) (daughter of the deceased) is wholly
    untenable. We cannot at all countenance that a daughter, after her
    marriage, would permanently stay at her in-laws’ house and would
    not visit her parents after her marriage. Such a sweeping conclusion
    is neither traceable to Punjab’s social culture nor it appeals to our
    common sense. It is on record that Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3) was
    a student before and after her marriage. It is natural that even after
    her marriage, Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3) wanted to continue her
    studies, and therefore was staying with her parents. We see no
    unnatural or unexpected circumstances in she being present in her
    paternal home on the fateful day.
28. There is no suggestion to Gursewak Singh, P.W.2 (Complainant), and
    his daughter Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3) that they had some other
    reason to implicate Gurpreet Singh falsely, who happens to be the
    former husband of the daughter of P.W.2. There was no criminal or
    civil case filed by the Kirandeep Kaur (ex-wife of Gurpreet Singh),
    Gursewak Singh (P.W.2) or his family members against Gurpreet
    Singh. On the contrary, the prosecution has successfully established
    that Gurpreet Singh had been nursing a grudge against the deceased,
    whom he held responsible for the divorce from the elder daughter of
    the deceased. It has also come on record that the elder daughter,
    Kirandeep Kaur, with whom Gurpreet Singh was earlier married, had
    settled in Australia even before her marriage. Gurpreet Singh was
    keen to migrate from India and settle down in Australia. His plans
    could not materialise because of the divorce from his wife. In such
    circumstances, the attribution of motive by the prosecution stands
    proved.
29. We cannot be oblivious to the fact that when the wife of Gursewak
    Singh (P.W.2) or the mother of Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3) is suddenly
    killed in their presence, they would not like the real accused to go
    scot-free. In the absence of any previous motive, it is not at all
    comprehensible that they would falsely implicate Gurpreet Singh. It
    was not a case where the Complainant had enmity with someone and
    he concocted a story to implicate Gurpreet Singh post the occurence.
    This Court, in Thoti Manohar v. State Of Andhra Pradesh3, observed


3   [2012] 5 SCR 1129 : (2012) SCC 7 723.
1050                                                        [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


     that in the incident, which transpired partly within the confines of the
     house and extended slightly beyond the deceased’s premises, the
     family members and close relatives naturally become the witnesses.
     These individuals cannot be considered incidental witnesses; instead,
     they emerge as the most natural witnesses in the given factual context.
     Typically, a close relative is unlikely to shield the actual culprit and
     falsely implicate an innocent person. While it is acknowledged that
     emotions can run high and personal animosity may exist, merely
     being related does not provide a valid basis for criticism; instead,
     familial ties often serve as a reliable assurance of truth.
30. Most importantly, Gursewak Singh (P.W.2) narrated the entire
    occurrence on a call made to the Police Control Room within ten
    minutes of the occurrence. There could not be, in all probabilities,
    any meeting of the minds within a few minutes after the occurence,
    so as to create a false narrative only to implicate Gurpreet Singh.
    The unfiltered version of the Complainant, in our considered opinion,
    conclusively establishes the veracity of his subsequent deposition.
    This Court, in Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh4, has categorically
    held that the prompt lodging of an FIR helps dispel suspicions related
    to the potential exaggeration of the involvement of individuals and
    adds credibility to the prosecution’s argument. A promptly lodged
    FIR reflects the first-hand account of what happened and who was
    responsible for the offence in question. (See also: Thulia Kali v.
    State Of Tamil Nadu (1972) 3 SCC 393, State of Punjab v. Surja
    Ram 1995 Supp (3) SCC 419, Girish Yadav v. State of M.P (1996)
    8 SCC 186 and Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat
    (2011) 10 SCC 158).
31. It is pertinent to refer to the endorsement of FIR No. 100, dated
    18.07.2012, where it is clearly mentioned that as soon as the
    information was received through Police Control Room, a police party
    headed by Sub-Inspector Hari Mittar along with ASI Baldev Singh
    and four Head Constables reached the house of Gursewak Singh
    (Complainant) at Tower Colony, Jagraon where the dead body of
    Amarjit Kaur was lying near the stairs. The Complainant’s statement
    was recorded, and an intimation to this effect was sent to the higher
    officers and the Control Room. This entire exercise got completed


4   [2023] 2 SCR 276 : (2023) 10 SCC 470.
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                     1051

                    State of Punjab v. Gurpreet Singh & Ors


     by 3.15 p.m. A report to this effect had already been sent to the
     Ilaka Magistrate, and the dead body was brought for postmortem
     at about 6.35 p.m. The presence of Gursewak Singh at the time of
     occurrence, his prompt reporting of the crime, and the swift action
     taken by the police immediately upon receipt of the said report,
     have cumulatively and unequivocally established the prosecution
     case beyond any doubt.
32. This is also a matter of record that the weapon of crime, namely, the
    pistol, was recovered from Gurpreet Singh pursuant to his disclosure
    statement. There is overwhelming evidence, including the statement
    of S.I. Hari Mittar (P.W.9) to establish the recovery of country-made
    pistol at the instance of Gurpreet Singh. The recovery of the weapon
    of crime, along with live cartridges and one empty shell, has been
    elaborately explained by Hari Mittar (P.W.9) in his cross-examination,
    which inspires confidence. The statement of P.W.9, Hari Mittar has
    been duly corroborated by ASI Baldev Singh (P.W.8) besides Head
    Constable Sukhdev Singh (P.W.6).
33. The contention that none of the neighbours came forward to witness
    the occurrence is totally illogical and a misconceived notion. The
    prosecution case is that the occurrence took place inside the house.
    When the police reached the spot immediately after the occurrence,
    the dead body was found lying inside the house near the stairs.
    It is, thus, natural that the residents in the adjoining houses did
    not see the occurrence. The shot was fired at close range, and,
    the people in the neighbourhood obviously did not come to know
    about the incident. No adverse inference can be drawn against the
    prosecution on this count. The time of occurrence, i.e., 1.30 p.m.,
    also indicates that most of the people in the neighbourhood were
    inside their houses and could not be expected outside in the streets
    keeping in view the hot and humid weather of July as it prevails in
    the State of Punjab. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion
    that the reasons assigned by the High Court while granting acquittal
    to Gurpreet Singh are totally perverse and as a result of misreading
    of the evidence on record. In this view of the matter, sustaining the
    acquittal of Gurpreet Singh, would amount to a travesty of justice
    and it, thus, warrants interference by this Court in the exercise of
    its jurisdiction, which we invoke sparingly. Consequently, the order
    of acquittal passed by the High Court qua Gurpreet Singh cannot
    be sustained and is set aside.
1052                                                     [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


     Acquittal Order qua the Co-Accused
34. Adverting to the prosecution case against Kashmira Singh and
    Jagdeep Singh (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein) in the appeal
    arising out of CRA-D-1606-DB-2015 (O&M) and Harpreet Singh, who
    was the appellant before the High Court in CRR-2942-2015(O&M),
    we are satisfied that the reasons assigned by the High Court in
    support of their acquittal are possible and plausible. We say so in
    light of the fact that (i) Gursewak Singh (P.W.2 – Complainant) did
    not mention their names when he called the Police Control Room
    at 1.40 p.m. immediately after the occurrence. (ii) Gursewak Singh
    (P.W.2 – Complainant) merely stated that there were some unknown
    persons accompanying Gurpreet Singh (iii) In fact, P.W.2 and 3
    both did not know the above-named three persons – who were
    nominated as co-accused of Gurpreet Singh. (iv) Gursewak Singh
    (P.W.2) is claimed to have recollected their names after about five
    hours of the occurrence. It is difficult to accept how he re-collected
    their names, more so when the prosecution did not lead any further
    evidence as to how he knew them prior to the occurrence. (v)
    The possibility of pointing out their names by someone else thus
    cannot be ruled out.
35. The Investigating Officer has also failed to disclose as to how he
    found these respondents to be connected with the crime during
    the course of investigation. There is no convincing explanation to
    implicate them as co-accused. There is also not an iota of evidence
    to suggest that the Respondents (Kashmira Singh, Jagdeep Singh
    and Harpreet Singh) had any meeting with Gurpreet Singh and/or
    they had conspired with him for the execution of the crime. There
    is no specific motive attributed to them. In such circumstances, the
    High Court seems right in extending the benefit of doubt qua them.
     Conclusion and Directions
36. For the reasons aforestated, the Criminal Appeal No.664 of 2024
    @ SLP(Crl.)No.1852/2024 is allowed in part; the judgment dated
    05.12.2019, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
    Chandigarh, acquitting Gurpreet Singh of the offence under Section
    302 IPC is set aside, and that of the Trial Court convicting him and
    sentencing him to life imprisonment is restored. The bail bonds
    of Gurpreet Singh, if any, are hereby cancelled. He is directed to
    surrender and be taken into custody forthwith to serve the remainder
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                       1053

                    State of Punjab v. Gurpreet Singh & Ors


     of the sentence. The appeal qua Kashmira Singh and Jagdeep Singh
     is dismissed.
37. Criminal appeal No.665 of 2024 @ SLP(Crl.)No.1853 of 2024 against
    acquittal of Harpreet Singh is dismissed.
38. The present appeals are disposed of in the above terms.


     Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain                   Result of the case:
                                                        Appeals disposed of.