Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8
PETITIONER:
SARBIR SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB
DATE OF JUDGMENT11/02/1993
BENCH:
SINGH N.P. (J)
BENCH:
SINGH N.P. (J)
REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)
CITATION:
1993 SCR (1)1027 1993 SCC Supl. (3) 41
JT 1993 (2) 159 1993 SCALE (1)573
ACT:
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Conviction under-Murder-
Proof of-Circumstantial evidence-Appreciation of evidence by
Court-Duty of Court-Evidence adduced by prosecution clear
and unambiguous-Effect of.
HEADNOTE:
The prosecution case was that the appellant and the deceased
were intimate friends. The appellant nursed a grudge
against the deceased, as he misbehaved with the wife of the
appellant.
On July 8, 1979 in the morning the deceased accompanied the
appellant to Mohali, where the appellant wanted to do
business. At Mohali, the appellant went to the brother of
his wife (P.W. 11) and borrowed a bicycle, leaving the
deceased at a shop. later both left the shop on the bicycle.
The deceased was pedalling the bicycle while the appellant
was sitting behind on the carrier of the bicycle. P.W. 5
saw them going by the side of the Gurdwara, Sahib Singh
Sabha. At about 2.45 P.M. on the same day, P.W. 5 when went
to the Gurdwara, one Om Parkash came there and told P.W.5
that an injured Sikh gentleman was lying on the ground in
the campus of the Gurdwara. P.W. 5 accompanied by one
Balwinder Singh came to the spot. He identified the victim
lying on the ground bleeding profusely. The members of the
Gurdwara Committee were summoned. The members who were
available reached. The victim succumbed to the injuries in
the meantime. P.W. 5 accompanied by one Chatter Singh
lodged the First Information Report at 4.00 p.m., the same
day.
The prosecution case was based solely on the circumstantial
evidence and it could prove the chain events beyond
reasonable doubt by the evidences of its witnesses.
The appellant was convicted under section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
life by the trial Court.
1027
1028
Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
HELD : 1.01. It is said that men lie but circumstances do
not. Under the circumstances prevailing in the society
today, it is not true in many cases. Sometimes the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8
circumstances which are sought to be proved against the
accused for purpose of establishing the charge are planted
by the elements hostile to the accused who find out
witnesses to fill up the gaps in the chain of circumstances.
[1031D]
1.02. In countries having sophisticated modes of
investigation, every trace left behind by culprit can be
followed and pursued immediately. Unfortunately it is not
available in many parts of this country. That is why Courts
have insisted (i) the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first
instance be fully established; (ii) all the facts so
established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of
the guilt of the accused and should be such as to exclude
every hypothesis but the one sought to be proved; (iii) the
circumstances should be of a conclusive nature; and (iv) the
chain of evidence should not have any reasonable ground for
a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.
[1031E-F]
1.03. If at a trial the prosecution adduces direct
evidence to prove the charge, the Court is primarily
concerned whether the witnesses who have testified about the
role of the accused are reliable. Once the Court is
satisfied that the witnesses who Pre said to have seen the
occurrence are trustworthy and inspire confidence, the
finding of guilt has to be recorded, if otherwise the
accused has to be acquitted. But in a case based on
circumstantial evidence neither the accused nor the manner
of occurrence is known to the persons connected with the
victim. [1031B-C]
1.04. Suspicion and conjecture should not take place of
legal proof. It is true that the chain of events proved by
the prosecution must show that within all human probability
the offence has been committed by the accused, but the Court
is expected to consider the total cumulative effect of all
the proved facts along with the motive suggested by the
prosecution which induced the accused to follow a particular
path. The existence of a motive is often an enlightening
factor in a process of presumptive reasoning in cases
depending on circumstantial evidence. [1032C-D]
1.05. The evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution
is clear,
1029
unambiguous and in unmistakable terms establish that the
appellant is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing has
been brought to Court’s notice which leaves any gap in the
circumstances to establish the guilt of the appellant
[1036B]
Reg v. Hodge, (1838) 2 Lewin 227; Hanumant Govind Nargundkar
v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343; Deonandan Mishra
v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 801; Govinda Reddy v.
State of Mysore, AIR 1960 SC 29; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v.
State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622; Ashok Kumar
Chatterjee v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1989 SC 1890 and
State of U. P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840,
referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 918 of
1981.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.8.81 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in Crl. A. No. 417 DB of 1980.
U.R. Lalit, M. Qmaruddin and Mrs. M. Oumaruddin for the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8
Appellant.
Ranbir Singh Yadav and R.S. Suri (NP) for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
N.P. SINGH, J. The appellant has been convicted under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for life, for causing the murder of
Paramjit Singh.
It is said that the appellant and the deceased were intimate
friends and they used to visit frequently each other’s
house. But Paramjit Singh (hereinafter referred to as
’deceased’) misbehaved with the wife of the appellant and
because of that the appellant had nursed a grudge. On July
8, 1979 in the morning the appellant asked the deceased to
accompany him to Chandigarh and Mohali where he wanted to
take some suitable shop for his business. They boarded a
bus of the Road Transport Corporation at Patiala for
Chandigarh at about 9.59 A.M. Gurcharan Singh (PW-8) also
came to Chandigarh by the same bus. The appellant and the
deceased reached Chandigarh at about 11.30 A.M. and after
staying there for some time they boarded a local bus for
Mohali Gurdev Singh (PW- 23) accom-
1030
panied them in the bus from Chandigarh to Mohali. At Mohali
after getting down from the bus the appellant went to Raj
Kumar Singh (PW-711) brother of his wife and borrowed a
bicycle from him. During this period the deceased was
sitting at a shop and taking aerated water. Shortly
thereafter, the appellant arrived with the bicycle at the
said shop and both left on the bicycle. The deceased was
pedalling the bicycle and the appellant sat behind on the
carrier. Both were seen going on the bicycle by Jaimal
Singh (PW-5) by the side of the Gurdwara, Sahib Singh Sabha,
Mohali. Jaimal Singh (PW-5) after taking his meals went to
Gurdwara Sahib Singh Sabha at about 2.45 P.M. the same day.
One Om Parkash, came there and told him that a Sikh
gentleman was lying on the ground in the campus of the said
Gurdwara in an injured condition. Jaimal Singh (PW-5)
accompanied by Balwinder Singh, Sewadar, came to the spot
and found the victim lying on the ground and bleeding
profusely. He identified him to be the same person whom he
had seen earlier on the bicycle. The victim could not
speak. Jaimal Singh (PW-5) left Om Parkash and Balwinder
Singh, Sewadar, at the spot and summoned members of the
Gurdwara Committee. Some of the members who were available
reached. But in the meantime the victim succumbed to the
injuries. They searched for the assailant. Thereafter
Jaimal Singh (PW-5) accompanied by Chatter Singh went to the
Police Station Mohali and lodged the first information
report at 4.00 P.M. the same day.
It is further the case of the prosecution that near about
the time of the occurrence the appellant was seen coming
from the side of the Gurdwara Sahib Singh Sabha and was
noticed on the way by Joginder Singh (PW-9) with blood on
his hand. On being asked the appellant gave out that he had
a fight with someone. and he was going to the hospital to
get his injuries dressed. Gurdev Singh (PW-23) on his way
back from the hotel also saw the appellant going on the
bicycle and found him puzzled. He also saw the hand of
the appellant stained with blood and blood marks on his
clothes as well. On querry the appellant said that he had
got the injury through barbed wire and was going to the
doctor to get his wounds dressed. Last in the chain of
events, the appellant reached the house of Raj Kumar Singh
(PW-11) and returned him his bicycle.
It is also the case of the prosecution that next day on July
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8
9, 1979, the appellant made over the his shirt to Ram Gopal
(PW-6), Dry Cleaner,
1031
asking him to remove the stains from it. A copy of the
receipt prepared in connection with the aforesaid shirt was
produced during the trial. The doctor who held the post
mortem examination found several incised wounds on the
person of the deceased including injury on the abdomen.
There is no dispute that the prosecution case is based
solely on the circumstantial evidence. If at a trial the
prosecution adduces direct evidence to prove the charge, the
Court is primarily concerned whether the witnesses who have
testified about the role of the accused are reliable. Once
the Court is satisfied that the witnesses who are said to
have seen the occurrence are trustworthy and inspire
confidence, the finding of guilt has to be recorded, if
otherwise the accused has to be acquitted. But in a case
based on circumstantial evidence neither the accused nor the
manner of occurrence is known to the persons connected with
the victim. The first information report is lodged only
disclosing the offence, leaving to the investigating agency
to find out the offender.
It is said that men lie but circumstances do not. Under the
circumstances prevailing in the society today, it is not
true in many cases. Sometimes the circumstances which are
sought to be proved against the accused for purpose of
establishing the charge are planted by the elements hostile
to the accused who find out witnesses to fill up the gaps in
the chain of circumstances. In countries having
sophisticated modes of investigation, every trace left
behind by the culprit can be followed and pursued imme-
diately. Unfortunately it is not available in many parts of
the this country. That is why Courts have insisted (i) the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should in the first instance be fully established;
(ii) all the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should
be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one sought to
be proved; (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature; and (iv) the chain of evidence should not have any
reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused.
A note of caution has also been struck regarding the role of
imagination. In the case of Reg v. Hodge, (1838) 2 Lewin
227, it was said:
"The mind was apt to take a pleasure in
adapting circumstances to one another, and
even in straining them a little, if need be,
to force them to form parts of one
1032
connected while; and the more ingenious the
mind of the individual, the more likely was
it, considering such matter, to overreach and
mislead itself, to supply some little link
that is wanting, to take for granted some fact
consistent with its previous theories and
necessary to render them complete.’
It has been impressed that suspicion and
conjecture should not take place of legal
proof It is true that the chain of events
proved by the prosecution must show that
within all human probability the offence has
been committed by the accused, but the Court
is expected to consider the total cumulative
effect of all the proved facts along with the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8
motive suggested by the prosecution which
induced the accused to follow a particular
path. The existence of a motive is often an
enlightening factor in a process of
presumptive reasoning in cases depending on
circumstantial evidence.
Coming to the facts of the present case, Pritam Kaur (PW-
12), mother of the deceased, has deposed that the appellant
went to her house in the morning and took the deceased with
him saying that he win be accompanying him to Mohali because
the appellant had to select a suitable shop. Thereafter
both of them left together. There does not appear to be any
reason on the part of the mother of the victim to falsely
state about the deceased going along with the appellant in
the morning of July 8, 1979. Gurcharan Singh (PW-8) has
testified that at 9.30 A.M. he saw the appellant and the
deceased at the bus stand. He exchanged greeting with them.
They told him that they were going to Chandigarh or Mohali.
The deceased purchased two bus tickets for Chandigarh in his
presence. Gurcharan Singh (PW-8) travelled in the same bus
with the appellant and the deceased and all the three came
out from the bus at Chandigarh together. Sahib Chand (PW-
24), an employee of the Punjab Roadways Transport
Corporation, had sold two tickets. The yard control
register was produced before the Court to prove in respect
of sale of the two tickets which were recovered from the
person of the deceased at the time to the post mortem
examination. The two tickets were recovered on July 8,
1979, on the date. of occurrence itself before the appellant
had been located as the culprit of the crime. The two
tickets recovered from the person of the deceased
1033
establish that the deceased had travelled from Patiala along
with one another person who was close to him because the
deceased was keeping both the tickets in his pocket. This
circumstances corroborates the evidence of Pritam Kaur (PW-
12) as well as of Gurcharan Singh (PW-8).
The other circumstance in the chain of events, according to
the prosecution, is that the appellant and the deceased
boarded a local bus at Chandigarh for Mohali reaching there
at about 1.30 P.M. Gurdev Singh (PW-23), who was then
employee in Colonization Department, Sector 22, Chandigarh,
and residing at Badheri, also travelled in the same local
bus. He belonged to Patiala. Gurdev Singh (PW-23) saw the
appellant and the deceased getting down from the local bus
at Mohali. They also exchanged greetings with him and on
being asked the appellant told him that they were going to
select a shop. They walked together for a short distance
and thereafter Gurdev Singh (PW-23) went to take his meals
at a dhaba. Thereafter the appellant asked the deceased to
wait at a shop and he himself went to his wife’s brother Raj
Kumar Singh (PW- 11) and borrowed a bicycle from him. Raj
Kumar Singh (PW-11) although a close relation of the
appellant has testified that the appellant took his red
bicycle from his house at about 1.30 P.M. Jaimal Singh (PW-
5) saw the deceased taking aerated water at the shop and
later saw the appellant and the deceased both going together
on a red bicycle. The deceased was pedalling the bicycle
and the appellant was sitting on the carrier. Gurdev Singh
(PW23) aforesaid who had left the appellant and the deceased
while going to the dhaba for taking his meals, after taking
his meals, at about 2.30 P.M. again saw the appellant coming
on the same bicycle alone. The appellant appeared to be
puzzled and his hands were stained with blood. There were
also blood spots on his clothes. Gurdev Singh (PW-23) asked
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8
him. as to what had happened to him. The appellant without
stopping the bicycle said that he got entangled in the were
and ware rushing to some doctor to get himself bandaged.
Yet another witness Joginder Singh (PW-9) who had gone to
Mohali in search of some plot saw the appellant at about
2.15 P.M. coming on a red colour bicycle. He also noticed
the hand of the appellant stained with blood. On query the
appellant told Joginder Singh (PW-9) that he had a fight
with some person and was going to hospital for dressing of
his wounds. Thereafter the appellant went to Raj Kumar
Singh (PW-11) his brother-in-law to hand over the bicycle
aforesaid.
1034
It may be mentioned that in the Court Raj Kumar Singh (PW-
11) stated that this appellant had gone to his house at
about 1.30 P.M. and taken his red colour bicycle which he
returned the same day later. But he denied that he had
stated during investigation that he had seen injuries on the
hand of the appellant. He also denied that he had told the
police during investigation that the appellant was mentally
agitated. Still the fact that the appellant had taken from
him his red colour bicycle at about 1.30 P.M. which the
appellant returned to him later the same day has been
testified by him. If this part of the evidence of Raj Kumar
Singh (PW-11) is accepted which we find no reason to doubt
then his evidence corroborates the evidence of Jaimal Singh
(PW-5) and Gurdev Singh (PW-23) that the appellant was going
with the deceased on a red colour bicycle at about 1.30 P.M.
and about 2.30 P.M. the appellant was seen coming on the
bicycle alone. Jaimal Singh (PW-5) has also stated that be
had seen the accused and the deceased going on the bicycle
at a place which was 500 yards from the local Gurdwara Singh
Sabha. Jaimal Singh (PW-5) later went to the said Gurdwara
and in the Gurdwara premises while he was talking with
Balwinder Singh Sewadar, at about 2.45 P.M. one Om Parkash
came there and informed that a Sikh gentlemen was lying on
the ground in an injured condition. All of them went
towards the place where the injured was lying. Jaimal Singh
recognised the victim to be the same person whom he had seen
earlier taking aerated water at the shop and later on the
bicycle along with the appellant. Blood was coming out from
his abdominal region. The victim was not in a position to
speak. Jaimal Singh (PW-5) went to call the members of the
Gurdwara Committee. Two members of the Gurdwara reached the
spot. But by that time victim had succumbled to his
injuries. Therefore they went to the Police Station Mohali
where Jaimal Singh (PW-5) lodged the first information
report at 4.00 P.M. Jaimal Singh (PW-5) did not know either
the name of the appellant or that of the deceased but he
stated in the first information report that he had gone to
Dhaba and at about 1.30 P.M., while taking meals he saw a
fair complexioned Sardar taking aerated water in the
adjoining ’shop. After taking meals when he was going on
the road, again he saw the same Sardar pedalling a cycle
going towards Gurdwara Singh Sabha Mohafi and behind him a
young Hindu Mona was sitting on the cycle. Then he gave the
details as to how then at the Gurdwara, at about 2.45 P.M.,
one Om Parkash told him that one Sardar was lying in a comer
of Gurdwara in an injured
1035
condition. He went and-identified that he was the same
young man whom he had seen taking aerated water at the shop
and then on the bicycle. The first information report was
lodged within one-and-a-half hours of the occurrence giving
the aforesaid details. The statements made in the first
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8
information report corroborate fully the testimony of Jaimal
Singh (PW-5) in Court. Once the evidence of Jaimal Singh is
accepted, it supports and corroborates the evidence of
Gurdev Singh (PW-23) who had travelled with the appellant
and deceased in local bus from Chandigarh to Mohali and had
got down at Mohali at 1.30 P.M. He later saw the appellant
at about 2.30 P.M. returning on the bicycle with injuries on
hand and blood on clothes. Gurdev Singh (PW-23) knew the
appellant as well as deceased from before.
Apart from the evidence of the witnesses, who have proved
the different links in the chain of events, the shirt which
the appellant was wearing and on which blood had been
noticed by witnesses as already mentioned above was
recovered from the laundry of Ram Gopal (PW-6). According
to Ram Gopal (PW-6) on July 9, 1979 the appellant had given
that shirt to remove certain stains. He had issued a
receipt to the appellant and one chit was tagged with the
shirt for identification. The third was kept by way of
record. The shirt was seized and sent to the chemical
examiner who found human blood on the said shirt. The shirt
as well as the bicycle were produced as exhibits before the
Trial Court and have been identified by the witnesses who
were examined on behalf of the prosecution. None of the
witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution appear to
have been set up or planted by any inimical source. They
are neither interested in the deceased nor have any bias
against the appellant.
So far the motive which impelled the appellant to commit the
murder, it has been suggested on behalf of the prosecution
that the appellant and the deceased were intimate friends
but the appellant had a suspicion that the deceased was
misbehaving with his wife, for which the appellant had a
resentment. The resentment was never allowed to be surfaced
by the appellant by way of strong protest or confrontation.
However, he had mentioned this to Darshanjit Singh (PW-13),
Kanwaljit Singh (PW-14) and Sarup Lal (PW-15). ’rile three
witnesses aforesaid have deposed as to how the appellant was
carrying a suspicion and was tense from inside in respect of
the conduct of tile deceased. There is nothing on the
record to show that the aforesaid three witnesses were
either inimical to the appellant or
1036
interested in the deceased because of that they could have
concocted a motive for commission of the crime by the
appellant.
According to us the evidence adduced on behalf of the
prosecution is clear, unambiguous and in unmistakable terms
establish that the appellant is the perpetrator of the crime
and nothing has been brought to our notice which leaves any
gap in the circumstances to establish the guilt of the
appellant. The facts of the case stands the scrutiny and
tests as laid down by this Court in the cases of Hanumant
Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC
343; Deonandan Mishra v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC
801; Govinda Reddy v. State of Nysore, AIR 1960 SC 29;
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984
SC 1622; Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
AIR 1989 SC 1890 and State of UP v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava,
AIR 1992 SC 840.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
V.P.R.
Appeal dismissed.
1037
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8