Holding

The High Court's acquittal of Rajinder Singh is affirmed as the evidence creates reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case.

Summary

The case concerns the murder of Harinder Kumar, who was shot during a dispute over brick‑kiln ownership. Rajinder Singh was convicted by the trial court under IPC s.302 and the Arms Act s.27, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court acquitted him, relying on a conflict between eyewitness testimony that a shotgun was used and medical evidence indicating a rifle wound, as well as the unexplained injuries on the accused. The Supreme Court examined the forensic and medical evidence, noting that the nature of the head wound (single exit wound) is consistent with a rifle and that single‑projectile shotgun cartridges are not available in India, creating serious doubt about the prosecution's version. It also considered the principle that non‑explanation of injuries on the accused raises suspicion and that benefit of doubt must favor the accused. Concluding that the High Court’s assessment was sound and that the investigation was tainted, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal.

Issues considered

The credibility of eyewitness (ocular) evidence versus medical forensic evidence regarding the type of weapon used.
Whether the non‑explanation of injuries on the accused warrants acquittal under established jurisprudence.
Whether alleged investigative lapses and tainted investigation affect the validity of the conviction.
The applicability of the benefit‑of‑doubt principle in murder cases involving firearm injuries.

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1955s. 27
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302

Subjects

murderfirearm injuryforensic evidenceeyewitness testimonymedical jurisprudencebenefit of doubtnon‑explanation of injuriesArms Actcriminal appealacquittalinvestigation taint

Judgment

[2009] 13 (ADUL.) S.C.R. 609

STATE OF PUNJAB A
v.
RAJINDER SINGH
(Criminal Appeal No.1252 of 2006)

AUGUST 11, 2009
B
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.]

PENAL CODE, 1860:

s .. 302; - Death of victim by fire-arm injury - Convictionc
by trial court - Acquittal by High Court -- Ocular evidence
discordant' with medical evidence - Injuries on accused not
explained< -- Held: As per the ocular account, injury on the
.,,. head of ileceased was caused by a shot gun, but the injury
~long with single exit wound is compatible with the use of a o
1
rifle and not a shot gun -In view of the categoric statement of
the doctor in his examination-in-chief that the injury was
possible with a single projectile 12 bore cartridge, the use of
a shot gun becomes suspect, as single projectile cartridges
are not available in India and, even otherwise, they can be E
used with a measure of accuracy only in specialized shot
guns -- In view of the fact that eye witness account does not
~upport the medical evidence and vice versa, serious doubt
is cast on the prosecution story - Besides, the second ground
taken by High Court in its judgment of acquittal is non-
explanation of injuries on the accused - The said injuries could .F
not have been self-inflicted - Apart from that, on re-
investigation, two senior police officers had come to
conclusion that the defence put up by accused was in fact the
correct one and they had been victims of the attack rather then
,. "1'the other way round - These facts indicate that the G
investigation in the case was tainted and the defence version
was not even taken into account- The judgment of High Court
calls for no interference - Evidence - Medical evidence vis-
a-vis oral evidt:Jnce - Medical jurisprudence - Fire arm
609 H
610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A injuries.

WORDS AND PHRASES:

Word 'pakki' used for a fir-arm in villages of Punjab -
Connotation of.
B
CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1252 of 2006.
...
From the Judgment & Order dated 22.7.2004 of the High
C Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal
.Nos. 481 DB of 1999.

H.M. Singh, Jasneet Kaur, Praveen Kumar Singh and
Kuldip Singh for the Appellant.
.--
D Sushil Kumar, Tajinder Kaur, Adity Kumar, Meenakshi
Kumar and Sheetal Prasad Juneja for the Respondent.
,.
I'
The following Order of the Court was delivered:

ORDER
E
This appeal by way of special leave arises out of the
judgment and order dated 22.07.2004 in Criminal Appeal No.
481 of 1999 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana whereby the High Court had allowed the ~

appeal filed by the accused-respondent Rajinder Singh setting
F
aside his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment and fine
under Section 302 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act,
by giving him the benefit of doubt and had also dismissed the
appeal against acquittal filed by the appellant-State against the
acquittal of Kuldip Singh and Rachhpal Singh, by the Sessions
G Judge, Faridkot.
'r ""
The brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows:-

Madan Lal - P.W. 2, the father of the deceased- Harinder
H
STATE OF PUNJAB v. RAJINDERSINGH 611

Kumar was the co-owner of brick kilns in villages Madooke and A
Ajitwal with Rajinder Singh, respondent herein. About one year
prior to the occurrence, a settlement had been arrived at
between the parties aforesaid and the brick kiln in village
Madooke had fallen to the share of Madan Lal and the one in
Ajitwal to the share of Rajinder Singh. As per the settlement, a B
truck bearing registration No. PJB 2155 had also come to the·
share of Rajinder Singh who was to pay a sum of Rs. 1,68,000/
- to Madan Lal in lieu thereof. On 30th November, 1995, Madan
Lal and his son Harinder Kumar, the deceased along with P.W.
3 - Shamsher Singh and P.W. 4 -Anil Kumar had visited the c
brick kiln at Madooke to make payment to the labour and as
they reached that place at about 7:30a.m., they observed that
bricks were being loaded onto a tractor trolley by Rajinder
Singh, and Kuldip Singh (armed with shotguns) assisted by four
or five persons. As soon as the complainant party intervened
0
Rachhpal Singh who too was present, raised a lalkara calling
on Rajinder Singh to fire on the complainant party. Rajinder
Singh thereupon fired a shot which hit Harinder Kumar near his
left eye. Rachhpal Singh and Kuldip Singh thereafter fired shots
towards the complainant party but on an alarm raised by the
latter, the accused ran away firing shots in the air. The tractor E
trolley with the bricks loaded thereon was also driven away.
Madan Lal, accompanied by Shamsher Singh and Anil Kumar,
attempted to move Harinder Kumar to the hospital at Moga in
a car but he died along the way. A First Information Report was
thereafter lodged by Madan Lal at Police Station, Mehna. The F
body of the deceased was also subjected to a post-mortem
examination and P.W. 1 - Dr. Iqbal Singh opined that the injury
appeared to have been caused with a shot from a rifle, though
the possibility that it had been caused with a shot from a 12
bore gun, using single projectile cartridge, could not be ruled G
out. P.W. 9 - ASI Devinder Singh of P.S. Mehna also visited
the place of incident and picked up two spent cartridges of a
.315 bore rifle, four spent cartridge cases of a 12 bore shot gun
and nine catridges of 12 bore which were taken into possession
and sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, H
612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Chandigarh. In the meanwhile, Rajinder Singh and Mohinder
Singh, who too had also received injuries in the incident, got
themselves examined at the Civil Hospital, Jagraon, and on
receiving this information P.W. 9-ASI Devinder Singh obtained
their medical reports from Jagraon Police Station and also
B recorded' their statements. A rifle of .315 bore belonging to
P.W. 4 -Anil Kumar-and a 12 bore gun belonging to P.W. 2 -
Madan Lal allegedly used in causing the injuries to Rajinder
Singh and Mohinder Singh. were also taken into possession by
the ASI. On the completion of the investigation, Rajinder Singh
c was charged for an offence punishable under Section 302
whereas the other accused were charged under Section 302/
34,of the IPC read with Secti.on 1208 of the IPC and all the
three were also charged under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
,....
T~e prosecution in support of its case relied on the
0 evidenee of P.W. 1 - Dr. Iqbal Singh, P.W. 2 - Madan Lal, P.W. :.-
3 - Shamsher Singh and P.W. 4 -Anil Kumar, the last three
t-
.named being eye witnesses, P.W. 9 -ASI Devinder Singh who
had investigated the case for a day or so and P.W. 1? Su_b
Inspector Mal Singh who had taken over the investigatio~> from
E him was the main Investigating Officer. The prosecution c~se
was then put tocthe accused and their statements were recorded
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They
pleaded false implication. In their defence, the accused ~
examined eight witnesses in an attempt to show that they were
F in fact the victims at the hands of the deceased and his father
Madan Lal and had suffered gun shot injuries at their hands.

The Sessions Judge, Faridkot in an elaborate judgment
held that the participation of Kuldip Singh and Rachhpal Singh
was doubtful as they had not caused any injury to the deceased
G
and that the three eye witnesses were also discordant as to
~
their role in the incident. On a philosophical note, the Sessions
Judge concluded that:

"The settled law is that it is safe to acquit 10 accused
H persons rather than to convict one innocent. Weighing the
STATE OF PUNJAB v. RAJINDER SINGH 1
613

... above dictum in the scale of justice, I am of the considered A
., opinion that when there is a doubt with regard to the
participation of accused Kuldip Singh in the present
occurrence, then it is safe to give him the benefit of doubt
.
'
and acquit him. Thus by giving him the benefit of doubt,
accused Kuldip Singh is acquitted of the charges framed B
against him."

r The Sessions Judge, accordingly, holding Rajinder Singh
guilty of murder convicted and sentenced him under Section
302 of the IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act a~ already
indicated above, but acquitted Kuldip Singh and Rachhpal c
Singh.

The matter was thereafter taken to the High Court by way
of two appeals; one by the State of Punjab challenging the
acquittal of Kuldip Singh and Rachhpal Singh and the other by D
' the convicted accused Rajinder Singh. The High Court by its
..... judgment dated 07.01.2002 dismissed the appeal filed by the
State and allowed the appeal filed by Rajinder Singh primarily
on two grounds:-
E
(i) that as per the eye witnesses - Madan Lal and
Shamsher Singh in particular, the weapon used in causing
the fatal injury was a shot gun but the injury found on the
4 deceased was by a shot from a rifle; and (ii) that the
--..') injuries on the person of Rajinder Singh and Mohinder
Singh had not been explained which cast a doubt on the F
entire prosecution story. A Special Leave Petition was
thereafter filed in this Court against the judgment of the
-..- High Court. This Petition was dismissed qua Kuldip Singh
and Rachhpal Singh but leave has been granted with
respect to Rajinder Singh, the present respondent, vide G
~
"t order dated 20th November, 2006.

It is under these circumstances that the matter has come
up before us today for final disposal.
H
614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Mr. H.M. Singh, the learned counsel for the State has ...
argued that there was no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the
eyewitness accounts given by Madan Lal, Shamsher Singh and
Anil Kumar; the first and the third named being close relatives
of the deceased, and in that eventuality any flaw or shortcoming
B with regard to the medical evidence ought to have been
ignored. He has also submitted that as per the statement of
P.W. 1 - Dr. Iqbal Singh who had conducted the post mortem
examination on the dead body, the injury on the person of the
deceased could have been caused by a shot gun using a single
c projectile cartridge and the finding of the High Court was also
wrong on this aspect as well. He has finally submitted that the
observations of the High Court with respect to the non-
explanation of the injuries on the accused was again based on
a mis-appreciation of the evidence as the injuries could not
have been caused to the injured in the manner suggested by
D .~
the defence.

Mr. Sushil Kumar, the learned senior counsel for the ~
respondent-accused Rajinder Singh has, however, supported
the judgment of the High Court.
E
As would be evident, the fate of appeal would primarily rest
on the evidence of the three eye witnesses vis-a-vis the
evidence of P.W. 1 - Dr. Iqbal Singh. We have gone through
~
the judgment of the Sessions Judge and find that he has, in
F several places, noticed the argument on behalf of the accused
that the doctor's evidence did not support the use of a shot gun
and that the gun shot wound was perfectly in consonance with
the use of a rifle. Faced with this situation, the Sessions Judge
had no option but to hold that Madan Lal who was an old man,
had seen the weapon from some distance and it was possible
G
that he had been unable to distinguish between a rifle and a
shot gun and in the light of the fact that he had every reason to
be present on the spot, the eye witness account was to be
preferred over the doctor's evidence. We are of the opinion that
this is perhaps over simplifying and stretching the matter too
H
STATE OF PUNJAB v. RAJINDER SINGH 615

• far in favour of the prosecution as Madan Lal had identified the A
murder weapon as a 'pakki' weapon which in Punjab's rural
dialect always means a 'rifle'. Moreover, the possibility of a
mistake is difficult to swallow for the very significant reason that
Madan Lal and his son Anil Kumar- P.W. 4 were the owners
,,
of a shot gun and a rifle respectively. 8
The Sessions Judge was also influenced by the fact that
~· the four spent catridge cases that had been recovered from the
place of incident by P.W. 9 - ASI Devind~r Singh on 30th
November, 1999 and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory
were found to have been fired from the licensed shot gun c
belonging to Rajinder Singh. We find this observation to be
contrary to the record as it is clear from the report of the
Forensic Science Laboratory (Exh. PV) that it had observed
that no conclusive opinion could be given as to the use of
Rajinder Singh's shot gun on account of insufficient identifying D
characteristics on the cartridges.

We have also gone through the medical evidence of P.W.
1 - Dr. Iqbal Singh. He found the following injury on the dead
body:- E
"A lacerated punctured wound 4cms X 2.5 ems.
margines inverted and colour of abrasion was present and
.. was placed on the left side of the face on the lower lid and
face. Also incorporating. the left eye bar below the upper
eyelid. Grease colour present over the abrasion colour. the F
underlying structures that is left eye ball was macerated
into unrecognisable mass. On probing and dissecting the
track of the wound was backward and to the right. On its
-- way it fractured the underlying bone and lacerated
meninges and brain matter till it communicated with the G
lacerated punctured wound with everted and irregular
margines and of the size of 4cms. X 3cnis. placed on the
right lateral side of head just above and anterior to right
tragus. The upper part of pins was dismantled. Meninges
and brain matter were driven out through the exit wound. H
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (APPL) $.C.R.

-\ Clotted blood was present. All other organs were normal." •
As per the ocular account, the shot gun had been fired from
a distance of 10 or 12 karm i.e,, 50 or 60 feet or_ about 20
yards. In this situation, and if the prosecution story was to be
3 accepted the pellets would have entered the body making
individual pellet holes and not en-masse as appears in this
case. The injury being of the head along with single exit wound
is compatible with t.he use of a rifle and not a shot gun. In ."'
Modi's Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology 23rd Edition, it has
... been observed:-
J

"At a distance of one to three feet, small shots make
a single aperture with irregular and lacerated edges
corresponding in size to the bore of the muzzle of the gun,
~-

)
as the shot enter .as one mass, but are scattered after
entering the wound and cause great damage to the internal
tissues. The skin surrounding the wounds is blackened,
scorched and tattooed, with unburnt grains of powder. On
-
the other hand, at a distance of six feet, the central aperture
is surrounded by separate openings in an area of about
-=- two inches in diameter made by a few pellets of the shot,
which spread out before reaching the mark. The skin
surrounding the aperture may not be blackened or
scorched, but is tattooed to some extent. At a distance of ~
12 feet, the charge of the shot spreads widely and enters
-= the body as individual pellets producing separate openings ~

in an area of five to eight inches in diameter depending
on the choke, but without causing blackening, scorching
or tattooing of the surrounding skin. At a distance of about -~
50 feet a pattern measuring about 14 inches from a fully
...... choked barrel and 28 inches from an unchoked barrel are
v
produced and at about 100 feet the spread pattern on the
target unchoked one. A rule of thumb in long usage is that
• .
the diameter of the spread of the shot pattern on the skin
in inches is roughly equal to the distance from the muzzle
in yards."
•H
STATE OF PUNJAB v. RAJINDER SINGH 617

It is true that in cross examination P.W. 1 - Dr. Iqbal Singh 111

stated that the injury was possible from a rifle as well. However,
in view of the categoric statement in his examination in chief
that the injury was possible with a single projectile 12 bore
cartridge the use of a shot gun becomes suspect, as single
projectile cartridges are not available in India and even, E=
,.., otherwise can be used with a measure of accuracy only in
-I
specialised shot guns. We also find from the statements of P.W.
9 - ASI Devinder Singh the first investigating officer, that on
preliminary investigation he had found that as per the statement
of Mohinder Singh, one of the injured though not an accused, c
a .315 bore rifle belonging to Anil Kumar and a 12 bore gun
belonging to Madan Lal had been used in the occurence and
had caused the injuries including the fatal one on Harinder
Kumar (although as pointed out by Mr. H.M. Singh), this fact
had been denied by Inspector Malinder Singh, the subsequent 01
Investigating Officer. Be that as it may, in the fact that the eye
witness account does not support the medical evidence and
vice versa, we are of the opinion that some serious doubt is
cast on the prosecution story.

It would also be seen that the second ground taken by the E
High Court in the impugned judgment is the non-explanation of
the injuries on Rajinder Singh and Mohinder Singh. The injuries
found are given below:-

"Mohinder Singh F
1. Obliquely and partially amputated terminal phalanx
of right little finger of right hand. The distal portion of the
terminal phalanx of right little finger had been cut through
and through. There was raw surface 2.Scmx. X 1.Scm
present. Bleeding from the wound was present. cut and of G
the terminal phalanx of right little finger was seen and felt

-' in the wound.

2. Obliquely and partially amputated terminal pahalnx
of right ring finger of right hand the distal portion of the H
618 · SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A terminal phalanx of right ring finger had been cut through
and through. There was surface 2.5 cm X 1.75 ems. (1.75}
present. Bleeding from the wound was present. Cut end
of the terminal phalanx of right ring finger was seen and
felt in the wound. General condition of the injured was
B satisfactory. Pulse was 78 per minute. BP 120 X 80 mm
of HG.

3. Respiratory rate was 18 per minute. Pubils were
equal and reacting. No vomiting was present.
c RAJINDER SINGH

1. Irregular/lacerated wound 15 ems X 7 ems muscle
deep on back of right lower leg in calf region about 9 ems.
from the popliteal fossa and going downwards and
D medically from the upper outer end. There was tattooing
of skin 1.75 ems X 1.5 ems., on upper and outer part of
~.
upper end of a wound and on sides ,of upper end of the
wound. The heirs were partially burnt in the ara. The upper
and outer end of the wound for 3 ems. was bruised and
E blackened and the margins of the wound in this area were
inverted.

The margins of the wound turned inwards at this point
that is 3 ems from upper and outer end. The muscle for
about 1.5 ems depth was lacerated. Subcutaneous tissues
F and; muscles were blackened in upper and outer part of
the wound. Bleeding was present from the wound. There
were three holes in the right side leg of the pyjama and
the pyjama was also blood stained. There was blackening
around two smaller holes in the pyjama. X-ray of the right
G lower leg were impaired and painful. Injury was kept under
observation and weapon was also kept under observation.
The probable duration of the injury was within 6 hours."

A bare look at these injuries would reveal that they could
not have been self inflicted ar:id it is not even the suggestion of
H
STATE OF PUNJAB v. RAJINDER SINGH 619

the prosecution that it was so. The High Court has, accordingly, A
held that the prosecution story was clearl;vsuspicious and fell
• within the scope of the principles laid down for acquittal in the
case of non-explanation of the injuries on the person of an
accused in Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar (1976) 4 sec
394. The following observations from the aforesaid judgment B
I are relevant:
~
"In murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries
./
sustained by the accused at the time of the occurrence or

..
in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance
t
from which the Court can draw the following inferences:- c
( 1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis
and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not
presented the true version.
D
(2) that the witnesses, who have denied the presence
.J of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a
most material point and therefore their evidence is
; unreliable.

(3) that in case there is a defence version which E
explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is
rendered proabable so as to throw doubt on the
prosecution case.

~ The omission on the part of the prosecution to F
explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes
much greater importance where the evidence consists of
interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives
a version which competes in probability with that of the
; .. prosecution one."
G
There is yet another circumstance on this aspect which
creates suspicion. As per the defence version, the injuries had
" been caused by Madan Lal and his son Anil Kumar to the
members of the accused party and a reference to this fact has
been made by P.W. 9-ASI Devinder Singh in his evidence. It H
620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A also appears that on re- investigation two senior police officers
D.W. 1 - Manminder Singh, DSP and D.W. 5 - SP Narinder ~
Pal Singh too had come to the conclusion that the defence put
up by the accused was in fact the correct one and that they had
been the victims of an attack, rather than the other way around.
B We also observe that a shot gun and a rifle (both licensed)
belonging to Madan Lal and Anil Kumar had been taken into )

)--
possession and though two empty catridges of a .315 rifle had j

been recovered about 120 feet away from the spot on the 30th
November, 1999 they had not been sent to the forensic
c laboratory for comparison with Anil Kuma(s weapon. Mr. Sushi! '" ...

Kumar is, therefore, justified in submitting that the investigation "'
in this matter was tainted and the aefence version had not even
been taken into consideration by the investigating officer, more
particularly when two senior officers had given a report
D favourable to the accused.
~.
We have also examined the scope of inference by this
Court with regard to an appeal against acquittal in State of U.P.
v. Banne (2009) 4 SCC 271 wherein after referring to a large ;-

'
number of cases earlier decided, it was concluded as follows:
E
"Following are some of the circumstances in which
perhaps this Court would be justified in interfering with the
judgment of the High Court, but these are illustrative not
exhaustive:
~
F
(i) The High Court's decision is based on totally
erroneous view of law by ignoring the settled legal position;

(ii) The High Court's conclusions are contrary to
evidence and documents on record;
G
(iii) The entire approach of the High Court in dealing
with the evidence was patently illegal leading to grave )

miscarriage of justice; "'

H (iv) The High Court's judgment is manife~tly unjust
STATE OF PUNJAB v. RAJINDER SINGH 621

and unreasonable based on erroneous law and facts on A
the record of the case;

(v) This Court must always give proper weight and
consideration to the findings of the High Court;
8
(vi) This Court would be extremely reluctant in
interfering with a case when both the Sessions Court and
~ the High Court have recorded an order of acquittal. "

Applying the parameters aforesaid, we are of the opinion
that the judgment of the High Court calls for no interference. The C
appeal is dismissed.

RP. Appeal dismissed.