Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
AMARJIT SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB
DATE OF JUDGMENT27/07/1995
BENCH:
NANAVATI G.T. (J)
BENCH:
NANAVATI G.T. (J)
MUKHERJEE M.K. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC Supl. (3) 390 JT 1995 (5) 529
1995 SCALE (4)555
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
M.K. MUKHERJEE. J.
This appeal under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected
Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984 is directed against the
Judgment and order dated March 26, 1985 rendered by the
Additional Judge, Special Court, Hoshiarpur convicting the
appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Fenal Code for
committing the murder of his grand-father Mehar Singh on
March 6, 1984 and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.
The prosecution case is that the deceased Mehar Singh
owned 22.1/2 willss of land in village Swal’ and 10.1/2
killas of land in village Alfuke. About four years before
his death Mehar Singh had divided his land in village Swal
in three equal shares and given one share to his son Mangat
Singh, another to his son Kirpal Singh, father of the
appellant, and retained the balance. While Mangat Singh,
with whom Mehar Singh used to live cultivated his share of
that land and also that of Mehar Singh, the appellant
cultivated the land given to his father. Being apprehensive
that Mehar Singh might give his share of land in village
Swal as also his land in village Alfuke to Mangat Singh the
appellant was putting pressure upon him for a moiety share
in the land retained by him in village Swal and also the
land in village Alfuke. Since Mehar Singh was not yielding
to such demand the latter was very much annoyed with him.
On March 6, 1984, at or about 8 A.M. when Mangat Singh,
his brother-in-law Hazara Singh and Mehar Singh were
returning from the tubewell in their village the appellant
came from the opposite direction on a bicycle armed with a
Kirpan. He stopped Mehar Singh, barked his bicycle by the
side of the pathway and told him that as he had decided to
transfer his share of land to Mangat Singh and did not
accede to his demand he would not leave him alive. With
these words he started infliciting repeated Kirpan blows
upon Mehar Singh as a result of which he fall down dead.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
Before however Mangat Singh and Hazare Singh, who were
little behind Mehar Singh, could reach there the appellant
fled away with the Kirpan through the fields leaving behind
his bicycle, shoes and turban. Mangat Singh immediately left
for the police station asking Hazara Singh to guard the dead
body. On the way he met ABI Avtar Singh near village Mewa
Singh Wala and narrated the incident to him. ABI Avtar Singh
recorded the statement of Mangat Singh (EX.P.F) and sent it
to the police station with his endorsement thereon
(EX.P.F(17) to register a case. Accompanied by Mangat Singh,
Avtar Singh then went to the spot, held inquest upon the
dead body of Mehar Singh and forwarded it for post-mortem
examination. From the spot he seized some blood stained
earth, cair of shoes. Bicycle and guroan and then prepared a
rough sketch plan.
In course of the investigation he arrested the
appellant on March 11, 1984 and pursuant to his statement
recovered a blood stained Kirpan (EX.P.1). Avtar Singh sent
all the blood stained seized articies for chemical
examination and on receipt of report of such examination
submitted charge-sheet against the appellant.
The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges
levellen against him and contended that Mehar Singh used to
live with him as his father was insane and his brother was
panalytic. He further contended that it was he - and not
Mangat Singh - who was cultivating the share of Mehar Singh
and that it was Mangat Singh who pressing the deceased to
give half share out of the land retained by him out the
latter did not agree. As regards the incident the appellant
s version was that as usual Mehar Singh had gone to the
tubewell in the morning but he was in his house. While in
the house, he learnt through the chowkidar that Mehar Singh
had been killed. On getting that information he went to the
spot and found a number of persons present. According to him
it was Mangat Singh who registered a false case against him.
His further defence was that Hazara Singh was also enimical
towards him as his wife (daughter of Mehar Singh) did not
get any share out of the property of Mehar Singh and,
therefore, he was siding with Mangat Singh.
That Mehar Singh met with a homicidal death on the
fateful day stands conclusively proved by the overwhelming
evidence on record. In fact, this part of the prosecution
case was not challenged by the appellant. Apart from the
evidence of Mangat Singh (P.W.4) and Hazara Singh (P.W.5)
there is the evidence of Investigating Officer ASI Avtar
Singh (P.W.7), who deposed that he found the dead body on
the wheat field, and that of Dr. Jasbin Singh (P.W.3) who
held postmortem examination on the dead body and found as
many as 24 injuries on his person. According to P.W.3 all
the injuries were ante mortem and were sufficient to cause
death in ordinary course.
The next and the most crucial question that falls for
consideration is whether the prosecution has succeeded in
conclusively proving that the appellant was responsible for
the homicidal death of Mehar Singh. To prove this part of
its case the prosecution relied, needless to say,
principally upon the evidence of Mangat Singh (P.W.4) and
Hazara Singh (P.W.5). Both these witnesses testified that
while they were coming back from the tubewell after their
morning ablutions along with Mehar Singh, who was a little
ahead of them, they saw the appellant coming from the
opposite direction on a bicycle with a Kirpan in his hand.
They next testified that the appellant accosted Mehar Singh
and said that as he had not yielded to his demand he will
not allow him to live. With these words, he inflicted a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
number of blows with his Kirpan upon Mehar Singh resulting
in his instantaneous death. P.W.4 also testified about the
genesis of the trouble, detailed earlier.
Having regard to the fact that Mangat Singh (P.W.4) and
Hazara Singh (P.W.5) were closely related to the deceased we
have considered and assessed their evidence with more than
ordinary care and caution. Having done so we do not find any
reason for disbelieving them more particularly when nothing
could be elicited in cross-examination to discredit them. On
the contrary, we find, that the evidence of Mangat Singh
(P.W.4) stands fully corroborated by the First information
Report which was lodged by him within two hours of the
incident and contains the substratum of the entire
prosecution case. The next corroboration of the evidence of
P.W.4 and P.W.5 is furnished by the evidence of Dr. Jasbir
Singh (P.W.3) when he said that all the injuries found by
him on the person of the deceased could be caused by a sharp
edged weapon like a Kirpan or any other heavy weapon with
sharp edges. When the Kirpan (EX.P.1) seized during the
investigation was shown to him, the doctor opined that it
could cause the injuries found on the person of the
deceased.
Another circumstance, on which the prosecution relied
in support of its case was that the blood stained Kirpan
(EX.P.1) was discovered pursuant to the statement made by
the appellant to the effect that he has concealed it. We
have carefully considered the evidence adduced by the
prosecution in this regard, particularly that of P.W.7. and
have found the same convincing and reliable. Coupled with
the above evidence is the report of the Serologist which
shows that human blood was found on the Kirpan.
The evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 that after the
appellant fled away his turban, shoes and bicycle were found
there gets support from the seizure of these articles from
the spot by P.W.7. From the chemical analysis report we
further get that human blood was found on the turban but the
origin of the blood found on the shoes could not be
determined as it was disintegrated. It was however,
contended on behalf of the appellant that the story of the
prosecution that the appellant left behind his turban, shoes
and bicycle was a purely concocted one for it was absurd to
believe that the appellant would leave behind those articles
to implicate himself. According to the learned counsel for
the appellant, if the incident took place in the manner
alleged by the prosecution the appellant would have
certainly fled away on the bicycle - rather than on foot -
to ensure a speedier escape. We are not at all impressed by
this contention. Considering the manner in which the
appellant gave repeated blows upon the deceased and the
resistence the latter but by trying to ward off the blows -
which is evident from the fact that both his hands were
chopped off - the droping down of the turban was not
unlikely. As regards the shoes and the bicycle, the
appellant had left those behind obviously because he made
the wheat fields his escape route: and the best and
convenient way to make good an escape through such a route
would be to run barefooted.
It was also contended on behalf of the appellant that
the learned court below should not have discarded the
evidence of Smt. Inder Kaur (D.W.1) who fully supported the
appellant s version and accepted that of her brother P.W.4
as relationshipwise they stood on the same footing. To
appreciate this contention we have carefully considered her
evidence as also the reasons which weighed with the trial
Court in disbelieving her. The trial Court observed that if
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
the appellant had been cultivating the lands of Mehar Singh
all along, as testified by her, the appellant’s name must
have been appearing as the cultivator in the record of
rights and that document would have been the best evidence.
The trial Court further observed that according to her
evidence the police had gone to the village at 6 or 7 A.M.
on the fateful day but it was nobody’s case that the
incident had occurred by then. The trial Court fastly held
that if really D.W.1 felt that the appellant had been
falsely implicated, it was expected of her to approach the
Investigating Officer, who according to her was present in
the village, and testify about the same. All the above
considerations, in our view, are germane to discredit the
defence witness. While on this point it will be pertinent to
mention that even if us proceed on the assumption that the
motive ascribed by the prosecution for the incident in not
true and that the defence version as given out by D.W.1 in
this regard is acceptable still then we will not be
justified in discarding the prosecution case altogether, for
law is now well settled that where the positive evidence
against the accused is clear, cogent and reliable the
question of motive and, for that matter, proof thereof pale
into insignificance.
For the foregoing discussion we do not find any merit
in this appeal and dismiss the same. The appellant who is on
pail will now surrender to his ball bond to serve out the
sentence.