Holding

The High Court's acquittal was unsustainable; the trial court's convictions under Sections 302 and 34 IPC are restored.

Summary

The State of Punjab prosecuted Mohinder Singh and others for the murder of Dalip Singh, alleging they used sharp weapons during a land dispute. The trial court convicted one accused under Section 302 IPC and the others under Section 302 read with Section 34, rejecting the defence that the FIR was delayed, the injuries on the accused were unexplained, and no blood trail was found. The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the convictions, holding that the delay in lodging the FIR was unexplainable, the injuries on the accused were not accounted for, and the absence of a blood trail undermined the prosecution. On appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the FIR itself explained the delay—no one could accompany the complainant at night—and that the accused never claimed the injuries were caused by the deceased, so no explanation was required. It also noted that blood‑stained earth was recovered, negating the claim of no blood trail. Consequently, the Court held the High Court’s acquittal unsustainable and restored the trial court’s convictions. The appeals were allowed, reinstating the sentences.

Issues considered

The effect of delay in lodging the FIR on the prosecution's case
The requirement to explain injuries sustained by the accused
The significance of the absence of a visible blood trail at the crime scene
The applicability of Sections 302, 34 and 460 IPC and Section 313 CrPC in the context of the defence

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34, s. 460

Subjects

delay in FIRexplanation of injuriesblood trailmurderIPC 302Section 34criminal appealconviction upheld

Judgment

STATE OF PUNJAB A
v.
MOHINDER SINGH AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 28, 2007
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.K. JAIN,JJ.)

)-
~ Criminal Trial:

Delay in lodging FIR-Effect on prosecution case-Complainant- c
wife of deceased explained that the delay occurred because nobody
came forward to accompany her to police station in the dark night
and therefore for lodging the FIR she had to wait till the next morning-
Held: Delay not fatal to the prosecution case-Penal Code, 1860-S
302 r/w s. 34. D
Non-explanation of injuries sustained by accused-Effect on
prosecution case-Held: Not fatal as it was not the case of accused
that they were assaulted by deceased-They rather claimed that those
injuries were sustained by them at the hand ofunidentified assailants
when they tried to intervene. E

According to the prosecution, Respondent assaulted the husband
of PW4 (the complainant) with various sharp-edged weapons thereby
causing his death. The parties were allegedly involved in a land dispute.
"' Before the Trial Court, Respondents pleaded innocence contending (a) F
that the injuries on them were not explained: (b) that there was delay in
lodging the FIR; (c) that the evidence of PW4 was at variance with the
medical evidence and (d) that no trail of blood was seen by the
Investigating Officer, though PW4 stated about the presence of a trail
of blood when the accused-Respondents had allegedely dragged the G
~
deceased. Trial Court negatived all the contentions and placing reliance
on the evidence of PW4, convicted one Respondent under Section 302,
IPC and the other Respondents under Section 302 read with Section
34 IPC. High Court set aside the conviction. Hence the present appeals.
411 H
412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 10 S.C.R.

A Allowing the appeals, the Court ~·

HELD: 1. The High Court has wrongly recorded that there was
no explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR In the FIR it has been
categorically stated that nobody came fmward to accompany the
B complainant to the police station in the dark night Therefore, she had
to wait till the morning to come to the police station. In the cross-
examination of this witness, no question regarding the reason for the
alleged delay in lodging the FIR was asked, though, the witness was
cross-examined at length. There was not even a suggestion that she
C had wrongly stated about the reason as to why she was lodging the FIR
on the next morning. [Para 8] (417-D-E]

2. It was not the case of the accused, nor even in their cross-
examination under Section 313 of the CrPC, that they were assaulted
by the deceased and that the accused persons had suffered injuries at
D the hands of the deceased. Their clear case was that they have been
falsely implicatd and the killing was done by unidentified assailants
because of the bad reputation of the deceased. They claimed to have
sustained injuries at the hands ofthe unidentified assailants when they
tried to intervene. As rightly observetl by the trial Court, if they had
E really sustained injuries in that manner, the least that could have done
was to report the matter to the police. AdmittedJ~·, that was not done.
Since the accused did not claim to have suffered injuries at the hands
of the deceased, the question of explaining the injuries on the accused
in that sense did not arise. (Para 9] [417-G-H; 418-A-B]
F
3. The Trial Court on analysing the evidence noticed that since the
accused persons were dragging the dead body of the deceased to the
house of the accused Ajit Singh alias Jeet Singh, there was possibility
of their clothes being stained with blood rather than leaving trail of blood.
G The Investigating Officer has categorically stated that he had collected
blood stained earth from several places. Therefore, it is not a case where
there is absence of blood atthe spot of occurrence or nearby. This aspect
has been completely lost sight by the High Court It is not even discussed
as to why it did not concur with the view of the trial court in this regard.
H [Para 10] [418-B-D]
STATE OF PUNJAB v. MOHINDER SINGH 413
[PASAYAT, J.]
--'- CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. A
330 of2000.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.8.1995 of the High Court
of Punjab and Hruyana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 298-DB/
1994.
B
WITH
Criminal Appeal No. 331 of 2000.
Ajay Pal for the Appellant.
c
Seema Gulati, Sadhana Sandhu and Hemantika Wahi for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. These two appeals are directed D
i!: against a common judgment of the Punjab & Hruyana High Court dated
~0th August, 1995 in Criminal Appeal No. 208-DB of 1994. In the said
appeal, the present respondents questioned correctness of the order of
conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar. Accused-
respondent Major Singh was found guilty of offence punishable under E
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The co
accused Jeet Singh alias Ajit Singh, Mohinder Singh and Kulwant Singh
were found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with
"'"" Section 34 IPC. Each of the accused was sentenced to imprisonment for
life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation. For the offence p
relatable to Section 460 IPC, each of the accused was sentenced to
rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine ofRs.500/-with
default stipulation.
2. Background facts as projected by the prosecution during the trial
-4: are as follows: G

On 17.5.1991 at 8 p.m. Surjit Kaur (PW-4) and her husband Dalip
Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') were present in their house
in village Leharka. At that time, accused Mohinder Singh and Kulwant
armed with dang, Jeet Singh armed with a barchhi and Major Singh armed H
414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A with a kirpan came there and told her husband that he had been abusing
them in connection with the land dispute which existed between them, so
a
he would be taught a lesson. Saying this, Mohinder Singh raised lalkara
to the effect that Dalip Singh should be taught a lesson for asking his.share
of the agricultural land, whereupon Kulwant Singh caught hold of Dalip
B Singh and threw him on the ground. Jeet Singh then gave a blow with
barchhi, which hit Dalip Singh on the right side of the chest while Major
Singh gave a blow with kirpan, which hit Dalip Singh on his left ear. Major
Singh again gave a blow with the kirpan, which hit Dalip Singh on his
neck. In the meantime, Surjit Kaur cried for help which attracted Karnail
C Singh son of Shangara Singh and Ajit Singh son of Chanan Singh. They
all tried to intervene to save Dalip Singh. Major Singh told them to stand
aside lest they shall be assaulted. Hearing this, Surjit Kaur, Karnail Singh
·and Ajit Singh stood aside and Jeet Singh and his co-accused took the
body of Dalip Singh to the house of Ajit Singh. An electric bulb was on
D in the courtyard of the house and Surjit Kaur (PW-4) was thus, able to
identify the accused. She thereafter, left for the police Station Kathu
Nangal and on the way near Talwandi Phuman met ASI Rajinder Singh,
(PW-9) and made statement regarding the circumstances in which her
husband had been attacked by the accused and removed from his house.
E PW9 recorded the statement (Ex.PF) into writing and read over the same
to the witness whereafter she signed the same in token of its correctness.
He then, made endorsement Ex. PF/2 and sent the same to the Police
Station for recording of formal FIR (Ex.PF/1 ). The Investigating Officer,
thereafter, went to the spot and in the house of Ajit Singh, found the dead
F body of Dalip Singh. He prepared inquest report Ex.PB and after drawing
up request for post-mortem Ex-PD sent the dead body to the mortuary
through Head Constable Charan Singh and Constable Sat Pal Singh. He
also prepared injury statement Ex.PC and lifted blood stained earth and
took the same into possession through recovery memo (Ex.PO) which
G was attested by SI Kishan Singh and ASI Surinder Kumar. They went
to the house of Dalip Singh and lifted blood stained earth from the
courtyard of the house and that was also taken into possession through
recovery memo Ex.PQ. This recovery memo was also got attested from
the aforesaid vvitnesses. He prepared rough site plan Ex. PR and Ex.PG
H showing the houses of Ajit Singh and Dalip Singh. The marginal notes
I

./
,f -
STATE OF PUNJAB v. MOHINDER SINGH 415
[PASAYAT, J.]
thereof are correct according to the spot. On return to the police station, A
he deposited the case property with Moharir HC with seals intact.
Thereafter, he searched for the accused and on 1.6.1991 when he was
present at Bus adda, Talwandi Phuman, he joined Darshan Singh, PW-5
and left towards village leharka in search of the accused. When he reached
near the canal minor Darshan Singh pointed out the four accused and they B
were apprehended and detained in the case. In the presence of Darshan
Singh and other police officials, ASI Rajinder Singh interrogated Major
Singhwho made disclosure statements (Ex.PL) to the effect that he had
kept concealed a kirpan in the heap of wheat straw which was lying in
his cattle shed and he had the exclusive knowledge about the same. His C
statement was reduced into writing and was got thumb marked by the
accused and was got attested from Darshan Singh and Amrik Singh, PWs.
Thereafter, ASI Rajinder Singh interrogated Jeet Singh who had made
disclosure statement to the effect that he had kept concealed barchhi in
the heap of toori lying in the toori wala kotha and he had the exclusive D
knowledge of the same and could get the same recovered. This statement
Ex.PJ was also reduced into writing and got attested from the aforesaid
witnesses. Thereafter, the accused had led the police party to the place
of concealment already disclosed by them and got discovered kirpan
(Ex.P2) and barchhi (Ex.Pl) which were taken into possession through E
recovery memo Ex.PM and Ex.PK after making rough sketches thereof,
which are Ex.PN and Ex.PK/I respectively. The memos, were attested
by Darshan Singh and Amrik Singh, PWs. On return to the police station,
the Investigating Officer deposited the case property in the malakhana with
seals intact. Rough sketches of the places of discoveries Ex.PT and PU F
were also prepared during the investigation and on completion of the same,
the challan was put in the court of Ilaqa Magistrate, against the accused.
Charge sheet was filed after completion of investigation. Accused persons
pleaded innocence.
G
3. Placing reliance on the evidence of PW4, informant, the trial Court
found the accused persons guilty and convicted and sentenced, as
aforesaid. The main stand of the accused persons before the trial Court
were (a) there was a delay in lodging the FIR (b) the injuries on the
accused were not explained and (c) evidence of the complainant PW4, H
\
\

----1 \~
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R. ...

A eye witness, was at variance with medical evidence and (d) there was no
trail of blood seen by the Investigating Officer, though the complainant -~
stated about the presence of a trail of blood when the accused persons
dragged the deceased to the house of Ajit Singh alias Jeet Singh. the
trial court negatived each of the contentions holding as follows:
B (a) there was no delay in lodging the FIR as no person came
to rescue the deceased and, therefore, the helpless lady, PW4
could not have come to the police station in the night.
(b) injuries on the accused were not grievous in nature and
i 'fl

c could be self inflicted.
(c) statement of eye witness/complainant, PW4 corroborates
the medical evidence.
(d) Lack of trail of blood has been explained.
D 4. In spite oflengthy cross-examination it ~mained unshattered. The
complainant had nothing to gain by implicating the accused. Recovery of
weapons at the instance of the accused has been established. If any of :1
the accused \\'.as injured by unidentified assailants as claimed, there was
no reason for them not to report the matter to the Police and kept mum.
E
5. Being aggrieved, accused persons filed appeal before the High
Court. The stands before the trial Court were reiterated before the High
Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court found that the trial
court's judgment was unsustainable and accordingly set aside the
conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court and directed acquittal. -·~
F
Hence, State has filed the present appeals by special leave.
6. In ~upport of appeals, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the High Court has erroneously come-to hold that there was delay in
lodging the FIR The High Court wrongly concluded that in the FIR or in
G the statement in court the delay was not explained. This is clearly contrary
to the factual position. In fact, there was no requirement for explaining :)--

the delay in lodging the FIR by giving details. In any event, that criticism
is not factually correct. So far as non-explanation of injuries on the accused
persons is concerned, the accused persons never claimed that they
H
STATE OF PUNJAB v. MOHINDER SINGH 417
[PASAYAT,J.]
suffered injuries at the hands of the deceased. Therefore, the question of A
explaining the injuries did not arise. Finally, the trial court, by an elaborate
analysis, indicated as to why there could not be trail of blood, as stated
byPW4.
7. In response, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that B
PW4's presence on the spot was doubtful. The High Court has rightly
referred te the background of the deceased and the motivation for false
implication of the respondents. It is submitted that the High Court's
judgment being one of the acquittal, there is no scope for interference in
these appeals.
c
8. As submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, three factors
weighed with the High Court for acquitting the respondents. Firstly, the
alleged non-explanation of delay in presentation of the FIR. The High
Court has wrongly recorded that there was no explanation for the delay
in lodging the FIR. There was no requirement for offering any such D
explanation. Even otherwise, in the FIR it has been categorically stated
that nobody came forward to accompany the complainant to the police
station in the dark night. Therefore, she had to wait till the morning to
come to the police station. In the cross-examination to this witness, no
question regarding the reason for the alleged delay in lodging the FIR vvas E
asked, though, the witness was cross-examined at length. There was not
even a suggestion that she had wrongly stated about the rea<;on as to why
she was lodging the FIR on the next morning. The conclusion of the High
Court is, therefore, clearly unsustainable.
F
9. Next comes the conclusion of the High Court relating to the
alleged non-explanation of the injuries on the accused. It was not the case
of the accused, nor even in their cross-examination under Section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'), that they
were assaulted by the deceased. It was not the defence version that the G
accused persons had suffered injuries at the hands of the deceased. Their
clear case was that they have been falsely implicated and the killing was
done. by unidentified assailants because of the bad reputation of the
deceased. They claimed to have sustained injuries at the hands of the
unidentified assailants when they tried to intervene. As rightly observed H
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 10 S.C.R.

A by the trial Court, if they had really sustained injuries in that manner, the
least that could have done was to report the matter to the police.
Admittedly, that was not done. Since the accused did not claim to have
suffered injuries at the hands of the deceased, the question of explaining
the injuries on the accused in that sense did not arise. Here again the
B conclusion of the High Court is clearly unsustainable.
10. The last question relates to the Investigating Officer's evidence
that he did not find trail of blood. The trial court on analysing the evidence
noticed that since the accused persons were dragging the dead body of
the deceased to the house of the accused Ajit Singh alias Jeet Singh, there
C was possibility of their clothes being strained with blood rather than leaving
trail of blood. The Investigating Officer has categorically stated that he
had collected blood stained earth from several places. Therefore, it is not
a case where there is absence of blood at the spot of occurrence or
nearby. This aspect has been completely loSt sight by the High Court. It
D ' is not even discussed as to why it did not concur with the view of the
trial court in this regard.
11. Looking from any angle the impugned judgment ofthe High Court
directing acquittal of the respondents is clearly unsustainable. The.same
E is set aside. The order of the trial court is restored. Respondents wl;lo
are on bail shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining.
sentence.
12. The appeals are allowed accordingly.
F B.B.B. Appeals allowed.