SUBA SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB
- Citation
- 1994 INSC 508
- Decided
- 9 November 1994
Holding
The appellate court upheld the conviction, finding the eyewitness testimony reliable and corroborated by forensic evidence, and dismissed the appeal.
Summary
Suba Singh was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Pritam Singh following a dispute that arose after a betrothal ceremony. The prosecution's case rested on the ocular testimony of two eyewitnesses, Jagtar Singh and Lahora Singh, who identified the appellant as the shooter, and was corroborated by the FIR, a site plan showing an electric post, and forensic evidence from the autopsy and blood‑stained soil. The appellant contended that he was not present at the ceremony, that there was insufficient lighting for identification, and that the empty stomach of the deceased undermined the prosecution's narrative. The appellate court rejected these arguments, holding that the witnesses were reliable, the identification was not mistaken, and the medical evidence supported the cause of death. Consequently, the appeal under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984 was dismissed and the conviction upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether the eye‑witness identification of the appellant is reliable and free from mistaken identity.
- Whether the forensic and medical evidence corroborates the prosecution's case.
- Whether the appellant's defence of non‑participation in the betrothal ceremony creates reasonable doubt.
- Whether the appeal under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984 can be allowed.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Judgment
A SUBA SINGH
V.
STATE OF PUNJAB
NOVEMBER 9, 1994
B [DR. A.S. ANAND AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.]
Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984-Jndian Penal
Code, 1860-S.14 /Section 302-Conviction u/s 302-Appeal-Death by
firing with a pistol-Eye witnesses-No scope for mistaken identity-
Parties known to each other from before-FIR promptly lodged-Medical
c evidence corroborating evidence of eye witnesses-No doubt regarding
place where incident took place-Conviction upheld
This statutory appeal u/s 14 of the Terrorist Affected Areas
(Special Courts) Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment and order
rendered by the Special Court convicting the appellant u/s 362 IPC and
D sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.
The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him
and asserted that he was falsely implicated owing to enmity.
To prove its case the prosecution relied primarily upon the ocular
E version of the incident as given out by PW3 and PWS. Both of them
stated that the appellant had participated in the betrothal ceremony of
· the brother of the deceased and thereafter consumed food and liquor.·
They next stated that at or about 11 p.m., the deceased asked the ·
appellant to leave the place and appellant felt insulted thereby. To .
avoid any untoward incident, the deceased and others took the
F appellant aside to escort him to his place of work in the village. After
they had proceeded a little distance, the appellant again took the
deceased to task tor insulting and humiliating him. He then brought out
a pistol from the fold of his loin cloth, fired at the deceased hitting him
on the abdomen and ran away. The deceased, while being taken to the
G hospital, succumbed to his injuries.
During cross examination an attempt was made by appellant to
prove that there was no light at the scene of occurrence so as to enable
them to identify the miscreant. Relying upon the finding in the medical
report that the stomach of the deceased was empty, it was argued that
H the case of the prosecution that after the betrothal ceremony food and
386
SUBA SINGH v. STATE OF PB. J.87
liquor were served stood completely belied. In his defence that he did A
not participate in the betrothal ceremony, the appellant examined DWI
who stated that while he had participated in that ceremony the
appellant did not. He further stated that after the ceremony was over
by 5 p.m. he and all other guests left.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court· B
HELD : 1.1. Through the site plan prepared by the Investigating
Officer and exhibited during the trial, the prosecution established that
there was an electric post there. This apart, considering the sequence of
events and the fact that the parties were known to each other from
before, there could not be any scope for mistaken identity. Having C
carefully gone through the evidence of PW3 and PW5 there is no
reason whatsoever to disbelieve them, particularly when nothing could
be elicited in cross examination to discredit them. The evidence of PW3
finds ample corroboration from the FIR which was promptly lodged
. within three hours of the incident and contains the substratum of the D
prosecution case. (389-E-F)
1.2. The next corroboration of their evidence is furnished by the
medical evidence of PWl who conducted autopsy on the body of the
deceased. According ·to PWI the death was due to shock and
haemorrhage caused by the injuries and that the injuries were E
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause. death. The
investigating officer seized some earth from the spot and sent the same
to the Chemical Examiner for examination. The report of Asstt.
Chemical Examiner indicates that blood was found thereupon and it
was reported that the same was stained with human blood. The above
reports also to some extent corroborate the evidence of the two eye F
witnesses regarding the place where the incident had taken place.
. (390-C-D)
1.3. Regarding the contention that the stomach of the deceased was
empty, there is no substance in this in absence of any question put to
either PW3 or PW5 as to whether the deceased had consumed food or G
drink. The Court also lost sight of the fact that since the betrothal was
of his own brother, the deceased as the host was expected to wait for his
dinner and drink till the guests had left. In any view of the matter, the
mere absence of drink or food in the deceased's stomach cannot make
the case of the prosecution untrustworthy. (390-E-F) H
388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A 1.4. In cross examination DWI admitted that even though he
appeared before the police, he did not make any such statement before
them. This conduct of DWI in not disclosing as to what happened in the
ceremony when the police came to investigate into the case makes his
0
evidence unworthy of credit. (390-H, 39I-A-)
B CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 286
of 1985.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.2.85 of the Special Court at
Ferozepur in Case No. 60of1984.
C K.G. Bhagat and S.K. Jain (NP) for the Appellant.
R.S. Suri and T. Topgay for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M.K. MUKHERJEE, J. This appeal under Section 14 of the Terrorist
D Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment
and order dated February 28, 1985 rendered by the Special Court, FP-rozpur
convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.
Shorn of details, the case of the prosecution is as under:
E
On April 18, 1984 the betrothal ceremony of Jagtar Singh brother of
Pritam Singh (the deceased) was to take place in village Takhtupura.
Amongst others, the appellant was an invitee thereto. After the ceremony
was over in the evening food and drinks were served to the guests. At or
about 11 p.m. Pritam Sing}, requested the appellant to leave as he, by then,
F had his food and drink. The appellant took serious exception to such
solicitation of Pritam Singh and retorted that the guests should not be
treated in that manner. To avoid any further untoward incident Pritam
Singh, Jagtar Singh, Lahora Singh and others took the appellant aside to
escort him to his place of work in the village. After they had proceeded a ·
G little distance, the appellant again took Pritam Singh to task for insulting
and humiliating him. He then brought out a pistol from the fold of his loin
cloth, fired at Pritam Singh hitting him on the abdomen and ran away.
J>ritam Singh, while being taken to the hospital, succumbed to his injuries.
In the meantime Jagtar Singh went to Nihalsinghwala Police Station and
lodeed an information about the incident. On that information a case was
H registered and ASI Prithi Singh (PW7) took up the investigation. He went
SUBA SINGH v. STATE OF PB. [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.] 389
to the place of occurrence, collected blood stained earth from the spot and A
sent the same to the Chemical Examiner for examination. After completion
of investigation he submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and in due
course the case was committed to the Court of Session.
The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him and
asserted that he did not participate in the betrothal ceremony. According to B
him, he was falsely implicated by Jagtar Singh owing to enmity.
To prove its case the prosecution relied primarily upon the ocular
version of the incident as given out by Jagtar Singh (PW3) and Lahora
Singh (PWS). Both of them stated that the appellant had participated in the
betrothal and thereafter consumed food and liquor. They next stated that at C
or about 11 p.m., Pritam Singh asked the appellant to leave the place and
that the apPellant felt insulted thereby. They then stated about the
subsequent conduct of the appellant which culminated in his firing at
Pritam Singh with a pistol. In their cross examination an attempt was made
on behalf of the appellant to prove that there was no light at the scene of D
occurrence so as to enable them to identify the miscreant but such attempt
failed. On the contrary, through the site plan prepared by the Investigating
Officer and exhibited during the trial (EX.P.3) the prosecution established
that there was an electric post there. This apart, considering the sequence of
events and the fact that the parties were known to each other from before,
there could not be any scope for mistaken identity. Having (:arefully gone E
through the evidence of PW3 and PW5 we do not find any reason
whatsoever to disbelieve them, particularly when nothing could be elicited
in cross examination to discreit them. Then again, the evidence of PW3
finds ample corroboration from the FIR which was promptly lodged within
three hours of the inci.dent and contains the substratum of the prosecution
case. F
The next corroboratio~ of their evidence is furnished by Dr. B.K. Goel
(PWl), who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. His
uncontroverted testimony shows that the deceased had the following
injuries on his person:
G
"1. A lacerated punctured wound l cm x 1.1 cm with
inverted margins on the frontal surface of the abdomen
midway between costrophrenic angle and umbilicus l cm
away from· midline towards left. The wound was
surrounded by marked blackening. H
390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A 2. Lacerated punctured wound 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm with everted
margins on the left flank of the abdomen just below enterior
superior iliac spine (left).
The direction of the wound was downwards and outwards.
Both the wounds communicated with each other. The
B stomach, the parts of small intestines were lacerated and the
abdomincal cavity was full of clotted blood."
According to PWl the death was due to shock and haemorrhage caused
by the aforesaid injuries and that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death. From the testimony of the Investigating
c Officer (PW7) we get that he seized some earth from the spot under seizure
memo (Ex.P.15) and sent the same to the Chemical Examiner for
examination. The report of the Asstt. Chemical Examiner (Ex.P.7) indicates
that blood was found thereupon and the report of the Asstt. Serologist
(Ex~P.6) indicates that the same was stained with human blood. The above
·n reports also to some extent corroborate the evidence of the two eye
witnesses regarding the place where the incident had taken place.
Relying upon the finding of Dr. Goel (PWI) that the stomach of the
deceased was empty, it was strenuously argued before us that the case of
the prosecution that after the betrothal ceremony food and liquor were
E served stood completely belied. We do not find any substance in this
contention in absence of any question put to either PW3 or PW5 as to
whether the deceased had consumed food or drink. While on this point we
cannot also lose sight of the fact that since the betrothal wa8 of his own
brother, the deceased as the host was expected to wait for his dinner and
drink, (if not a teetotaller) till the guests had left. In any view of the matter,
F the mere absence of drink or food in the deceased's stomach cannot make
the case of the prosecution untrustworthy.
As has already been noticed, the appellant's defence was that he did
not participate in the betrothal ceremony; and in support of his contention
he examined one Gurjant Singh (DWI). He stated that while he had
G participated in that ceremony the appellant did not. He further stated that
after the ceremony was over by 5 p.m. he and all the other guests left. He
also spoke about an altercation that took place between the appellant and
Jagtar Singh a few days before the incid~nt. In cross examinatiOn he
admitted that even though he appeared before the police, he did not make
any such statement before them. We are in complete agreement with the
SUBA SINGH v. STATE OF PB. [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.] 391
learned Trial Judge that this conduct of DWI in not disclosing as to what A
happened in the ceremony when the Police came to investigate into the case
makes his evidence unworthy of credit.
On the conclusions as above we uphold the impugned judgment and
order of the Trial Court and dismiss the appeal. The appellant, who is on
bail, will now surrender to his bail bond to serve out the sentence. B
A.G. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.