Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2024 INSC 312
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1052 OF 2009
KIRPAL SINGH …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred on behalf of the
th
appellant for assailing the judgment dated 28 February, 2008
passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 662-DB of 2003, whereby
the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed, thereby
th
affirming the judgment and order dated 26 July, 2003
rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc),
Hoshiarpur, vide which the appellant was convicted and
sentenced as below:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Deepak Singh
Date: 2024.04.18
17:08:38 IST
Reason:
1
(i). Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter
being referred to as ‘IPC’) - Imprisonment for life and to pay a
fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo
further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
(ii). Under Section 307 IPC – Rigorous imprisonment for a
period of five years and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of
payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for
a period of 15 days.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts: -
2. Sharan Kaur, the first informant(PW-5), wife of Balwinder
Singh (deceased) used to reside along with her family members
in the house which was situated on the backside of the grocery
and halwai shops owned by her husband Balwinder Singh
(deceased) at bus stop, Khudda. In the intervening night of
th th
12 /13 November, 1997, Balwinder Singh (deceased) went to
sleep in chaubara of the house which was not having any
shutter, whereas Sharan Kaur (PW-5) along with the other
family members slept in a room on the ground floor. It is
alleged that Sharan Kaur (PW-5) heard a knock on the door of
the room in which she was sleeping at about 2.30 a.m. She
2
thought that it was her husband who had knocked the door
and thus she opened the door. In the illumination of light
placed in the courtyard, she saw the accused appellant-Kirpal
Singh standing there armed with a knife like chura . The
appellant inflicted an injury with the weapon on the abdomen
of Sharan Kaur (PW-5). Another assailant who was
accompanying appellant Kirpal Singh caught hold of her arm.
She raised an alarm shouting ‘killed killed’ (‘maar ditta maar
ditta’), on which her sons Goldy and Sonu woke up. None of
these three persons could identify the other assailant. Both
the assailants fled away by opening the main gate, in between
the two shops. Sharan Kaur (PW-5) went upstairs to have a
look at her husband and found him lying severely injured on
the cot with blood oozing out of his mouth and head. Blood
pooled on the ground below. He was unable to speak. She
called her two sons and sent them to call her brother-in-law
Gurnam Singh with a vehicle. Sharan Kaur (PW-5) and
Balwinder Singh were taken to the Civil Hospital, Tanda but
on the way to the hospital, Balwinder Singh expired. First aid
was provided to Sharan Kaur (PW-5), thereafter, she as well as
the dead body of Balwinder Singh (deceased) was brought back
3
to their home in the same vehicle and by that time the police
had arrived. The prosecution alleges that the motive behind
the occurrence was that the appellant and his associate were
bearing jealousy on account of the roaring business being
done at the halwai shop of Balwinder Singh (deceased), which
was doing much better as compared to the halwai shop run by
the accused appellant. Swaran Dass(PW-9), SHO, Police
Station Dasuya recorded the statement of Sharan Kaur (PW-5)
wherein, the above allegations were incorporated and based
th
thereupon, FIR No.126 of 1997 dated 13 November, 1997
came to be registered at Police Station, Dasuya, District
Hoshiarpur for the offences punishable under Sections 302,
307 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. The said FIR was marked
as Exhibit-PG/2, during the course of trial. The Investigating
Officer prepared inquest report on the dead body of Balwinder
Singh(deceased) and forwarded the dead body to the Civil
Hospital, Dasuya for post mortem examination; rough site
plan of the crime scene was prepared; bloodstained earth was
collected from the spot and was sealed into a parcel. A spade
lying at the crime scene was seized, the blade whereof was
bloodstained. A ladder was also seized from the crime scene.
4
3. The dead body of Balwinder Singh was subjected to
autopsy at the hands of Dr. Naresh Kumar (PW-4), Medical
th
Officer, Civil Hospital, Dasuya on 13 November, 1997, who
examined the same and took note of the following injuries on
the body of the deceased:-
“i. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm bone deep on left side of forehead.
Placed transversely 2 cm above and lateral to outer end of left
eyebrow medical to this wound these was red coloured contusion
with depressed surface 3 x 4 cm in size 1.5 cm above and parallel to
left eye brow.
On dissection there was subaponeurotic hematoma in both
front regions. The frontal bone was found fractured into multiple
pieces were impacted into the underlying brain tissue, semi clotted
blood was present between membrane between and brain tissue and
within the brain tissue.
ii. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x l cm bone deep on left side of head
posterior to left pinna. It was transversally placed 2.5 cm below the
upper end of left pinna.
iii. Lacerated wound 2 cm x l cm on upper part of left pinna splitting
the pinna into two parts. It was transversally placed in lines with
injury No.2.”
4. The injuries were stated to be caused by blunt weapon
and the cause of death was opined to be the head injury,
which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of
nature.
5. Dr. Didar Singh (PW-1), Medical Officer, Civil Hospital,
Dasuya conducted medical examination of Sharan Kaur (PW-
5), the first informant, and took note of an incised wound
5
admeasuring 2½ x ½ cm elipitcal in shape present on the left
side of the abdomen 2 cms above the umblicus and 6 cms
lateral to the mid line. However, the wound was not probed for
finding of the depth and the case was referred to the Surgical
Specialist for opinion and treatment.
6. The case took a different turn, when the first informant
Sharan Kaur (PW-5) started raising allegations against the
Investigating Officer of conducting partisan and tainted
investigation in order to favour the police.
7. Sharan Kaur (PW-5) filed two petitions in the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana seeking transfer of investigation to the
CBI or some other independent agency. In both these
petitions, her allegation was that the second accused named
Kulwinder Singh had been left out of the case for oblique
reasons.
8. Be that as it may, two different police officials, conducted
the investigation and filed closure reports alleging that the first
informant-Sharan Kaur(PW-5) had falsely implicated the
accused. However, the Magistrate did not agree with the
opinion. The accused appellant-Kirpal Singh @ Lucky was
st
arrested on 21 November, 1997 and charge sheet was filed
6
against him for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC
and Section 307 IPC. Since both the offences were exclusively
triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge(Adhoc), Hoshiarpur
(hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’) for trial.
9. Learned trial Court framed charges against the accused
appellant, who abjured his guilt and claimed trial. An
application came to be filed by the prosecution under Section
319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter being
referred to as ‘CrPC’) which was allowed and the accused
Kulwinder Singh was summoned to face trial along with the
charge sheeted accused, i.e., the appellant herein. Fresh
charge for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307
read with Section 34 IPC were framed against both the
accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution examined ten witnesses to support its case.
10. The incriminating circumstances appearing in the
prosecution evidence were put to the accused while recording
their statements under Section 313 CrPC. The accused denied
those allegations and claimed to be innocent. Total four (04)
witnesses were examined in defence. After hearing the
7
arguments advanced by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor and the defence counsel, and upon appreciating
the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court vide
th
judgment dated 26 July, 2003 proceeded to convict the
accused appellant-Kirpal Singh and sentenced him as noted
hereinabove. However, by the very same judgment, the co-
accused Kulwinder Singh was acquitted of the charges. The
accused appellant-Kirpal Singh preferred Criminal Appeal
No.662-DB of 2003 challenging his conviction and sentence,
whereas the State preferred Criminal Appeal No.535-DBA of
2004 and the complainant preferred Criminal Revision
No.2259-DB of 2003 challenging the acquittal of Kulwinder
Singh before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
11. The learned Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana proceeded to dismiss both the appeals, one filed
by the State, and the other by the accused-appellant as well as
the revision filed by the complainant by a common judgment
and order dated 28.02.2008, which is assailed in this appeal
filed at the instance of the accused appellant-Kirpal Singh.
8
Submissions on behalf of the appellant: -
12. Shri Vineet Jhanji, learned counsel appearing for the
accused appellant vehemently contended that the findings
recorded in the impugned judgment are perverse and self-
contradictory and hence, the same are liable to be set aside.
He advanced the following pertinent submissions seeking
acquittal of accused appellant:
(i) The evidence of Sharan Kaur (PW-5), the first informant,
being the wife of the deceased and Daljit Singh @ Goldy(PW-6),
son of the deceased, is highly self-contradictory, vacillating
and unconvincing.
(ii) That the prosecution witnesses have tried to improve upon
the story put forth in the FIR at every stage of the proceedings
and hence, their evidence deserves to be discarded. The trial
Court as well as the High Court have found that the witnesses,
Sharan Kaur (PW-5) and Daljit Singh @ Goldy(PW-6) are not
wholly reliable witnesses and their allegations qua the co-
accused-Kulwinder Singh have been found to be unacceptable,
thereby recording his acquittal. Thus, the accused-appellant
(Kirpal Singh) also deserves the same treatment.
(iii) That the motive attributed to the accused appellant by
9
Sharan Kaur (PW-5) is absolutely cooked up and unbelievable.
Her bald allegation that the accused bore jealousy on account
of the booming halwai business of Balwinder Singh (deceased),
is just a figment of imagination and has not been corroborated
by any independent source. Rather the prosecution did not
even lead any evidence to show that the accused appellant is
involved in halwai business.
(iv) The accused appellant was admittedly closely related to
the deceased, but this fact was concealed in the FIR as well as
in the testimony of the material prosecution witnesses.
(v) That the story put forth by Sharan Kaur (PW-5) in her
evidence is totally unworthy of reliance because even as per
her own assertion, the accused appellant was bearing a grudge
against the deceased. In that event, once the accused had
succeeded in belaboring and killing Balwinder Singh
(deceased), by entering into the chaubara in a clandestine
manner using a ladder, there was no reason as to why the
accused would come down the stairs, knock the door and
alarm the other family members so as to expose himself.
(vi) That the conduct of the first informant-Sharan Kaur(PW-
5) and her family members in bringing back body of Balwinder
10
Singh to their house even after the doctor at Civil Hospital,
Tanda had declared him to be dead, brings the credibility of
these witnesses under a grave shadow of doubt. He urged that
admittedly, while coming back from Tanda, the Police Station
at Dasuya falls on the way and thus, if at all, there was any
truth in this version, the witnesses would have stopped at the
police station to report the matter. Furthermore, the doctor at
Civil Hospital would definitely have taken steps to report the
matter to the police since it was a clear case of homicide.
(vii) That the defence witnesses have categorically stated that
after thorough investigation, the allegations set out by the first
informant-Sharan Kaur(PW-5) were found to be false and
hence, closure reports were submitted by the police in the
concerned Court.
(viii) That it is an admitted case as elicited in the testimony of
Daljit Singh @ Goldy (PW-6), son of Balwinder Singh(deceased)
and first informant-Sharan Kaur(PW-5), that four servants
were sleeping with Balwinder Singh(deceased) in the chaubara
of the house but they were not examined in evidence.
Likewise, Gurmit Singh, the other son of deceased and the first
informant, was also not examined by the prosecution for the
11
reasons best known to them and hence, it is a fit case
warranting/drawing of adverse inference against the
prosecution.
On these grounds, learned counsel implored the Court to
accept the appeal and acquit the accused appellant.
Submissions on behalf of the State: -
13. Per contra , Mr. Siddhant Sharma, learned counsel
appearing for the State, vehemently and fervently opposed the
submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant. He
conceded that the story of the prosecution qua involvement of
accused-Kulwinder Singh has not found favour with the trial
Court and the High Court but as per him, that by itself cannot
be a valid reason so as to discard the entire prosecution case,
qua the accused appellant as well who was named in the FIR
and in the testimony of the material prosecution witness. He
fervently contended that trivial contradictions in the evidence
of the prosecution witnesses lend assurance that they are
truthful witnesses and are not created witnesses. He
submitted that the principle ‘ falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’
does not apply to the Indian criminal jurisprudence system
and thus, merely because one of the two accused named by
12
the prosecution witnesses has been acquitted by the trial
Court, the accused appellant cannot get the advantage thereof.
14. He further submitted that the trial Court as well as the
High Court, after appreciation and re-appreciation of the
evidence have separated the chaff from the grain and have
held the accused appellant guilty of the charges and thus, this
Court should be loath to interfere in such concurrent findings
of facts recorded by the trial Court and the High Court. On
these submissions, learned counsel appearing for the State,
urged that the appeal lacks merit and is fit to be dismissed.
15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced at the bar and have carefully perused
the judgments rendered by the High Court and the trial Court
and analysed the evidence available on record.
Consideration of evidence and submissions: -
16. The prosecution case as unfolded, in the evidence of the
first informant, Sharan Kaur (PW-5) (the star prosecution
witness who herself received an injury in the same incident), is
that she along with her two sons Daljit Singh @ Goldy (PW-6)
and Gurmit Singh was sleeping in the room on the ground
floor of the house, whereas, her husband[Balwinder
13
Singh(deceased)] was sleeping in chaubara , which has no gate.
The prosecution tried to canvass that the accused put up a
ladder on the wall of the house, climbed into the chaubara
with the aid thereof and hit Balwinder Singh(deceased) with a
spade, which resulted into grave injuries. The motive for the
incident, as is projected in the evidence of Sharan Kaur (PW.5),
was that the accused was bearing a jealousy on account of
flourishing halwai business of her husband whereas, the
business of the accused was not thriving. However, we may
state that other than this bald averment made by Sharan Kaur
(PW-5) attributing motive for the incident to the accused, no
corroborative material was collected by the Investigating
Officers to lend credence to this theory of motive. The
statement of Sharan Kaur (PW-5) on this aspect is also very
vague. There is nothing in her deposition, which can satisfy
the Court that merely on account of this so called jealousy, the
accused would go to the painstaking length of putting up a
ladder against the wall of the house, where Balwinder Singh
(deceased) used to reside with his family and then climb up
and murder him, that too in the presence of his family
members.
14
17. If the prosecution case is to be accepted, it is apparent
that the accused had painstakingly, planned out the murder of
Balwinder Singh (deceased), inasmuch as they put up a ladder
against the outer wall of the house, climbed into the house by
using the said ladder and attacked the deceased by spade.
Thus, the moment Balwinder Singh (deceased) had been
belaboured, the purpose of the accused was served and hence,
there was no rhyme or reason as to why the accused would
take the risk of being exposed to the other family members.
This precisely is the story portrayed in the evidence of Sharan
Kaur (PW-5) who stated that while she was sleeping in the
room on the ground floor with her two sons, she heard some
noise and opened the door of the flight of stairs connecting the
chaubara and saw the accused appellant-Kirpal Singh and his
companion standing therein. The accused appellant-Kirpal
Singh who was armed with a knife, stabbed her on the
abdomen whereas the other accused appellant caught her by
the arm. As per the prosecution, the accused appellant had
assaulted Balwinder Singh (deceased) with a spade which was
abandoned at the spot and then the accused came down with
a knife.
15
18. The story so set up by the prosecution, does not inspire
confidence for more than one reasons. As discussed above,
once the accused had achieved the objective of eliminating
Balwinder Singh(deceased) without being discovered, they had
all the opportunity in the world to escape from the spot by
using the very same ladder, which had been used to climb up
the chaubara . Thus, there was no reason for the accused to
risk discovery by coming down and alarming the family
members. Furthermore, as per the prosecution case, two
accused were involved in the incident. If at all the prosecution
case is to be believed, the accused after killing Balwinder
Singh(deceased), must have gone down to eliminate the other
family members and in that background, there was no reason
as to why the person accompanying the accused appellant was
unarmed. This again creates a doubt on the truthfulness of
the prosecution story. The first informant-Sharan Kaur (PW-5)
made a big issue regarding the conduct of the investigating
agency alleging that the investigation being conducted was
partisan and tainted. She filed petitions before different
forums including the Chief Minister and the High Court. She
was confronted with these applications extensively in her cross
16
examination and she virtually resiled from the averments
made therein. For illustration, we would like to reproduce
some excerpts from the cross examination of Sharan Kaur
(PW-5):-
“...We approached the Hon'ble High Court as my statement was
not being correctly recorded by the Police. On the directions of
the Hon'ble High Court my statement was recorded by the
Crime Branch.”
xxx xxx
“...I have seen the carbon copy of the application Addressed to
CM Punjab Chandigarh. It bears my signature and is Ex.DB.
My father used to get my signature on the Blank papers so I
can not say whether the application of Ex.DA was moved by me
on 15.12.97 after the completion of investigation by DSP Ajaib
Singh. The witness is not ready to answer the question whether
the application EX.DA bear the name of accused Kulwinder
Singh @ Neeta. In the application the name of Kulwinder Singh
@ Neeta is not written but some unidentified person has been
written. The witness has explained that she used to disclose the
name of Kulwinder Singh @ Neeta but the police was not
recording his name and the application Ex.DA might have been
drafted by his counsel at his own. The witness is not ready to
answer the question that the copy of the FIR was attached with
the writ petition/Crl. Misc application or that the name of
Kulwinder Singh @ Neeta was not mentioned in the said
petition or that in the petition also the name of unidentified
person was mentioned. The witness is also not ready to answer
the question whether there was some ommision in the petition
and that an application was moved for the correction of those
ommissions. The witness is also not ready to answer the
question that by way of amendment the name of Kulwinder
Singh @ Neeta was not incorporated in the amended
application. The witness is not ready to answer the question
whether the petition was withdrawn on 6.8.98.”
19. In her examination in chief, the first informant-Sharan
Kaur(PW-5) categorically stated that her statement was
17
th
recorded at the Civil Hospital, Dasuya on 13 November, 1997
at about 7:30 a.m. It was read over and explained to her, and
she signed it admitting it to be correct.
20. If that be so, the subsequent conduct of Sharan Kaur
(PW-5) in raising a hue and cry that investigation being
conducted was tainted and the police had intentionally
favoured the co-accused Kulwinder Singh by leaving out his
name from the array of offenders creates a great doubt on her
credibility.
21. Neither in the FIR (Exhibit-PG/2) nor in the application
(Exhibit-DA) signed by the first informant-Sharan Kaur(PW-5)
and addressed to the Chief Minister, Punjab, the name of the
second accused Kulwinder Singh is mentioned as one of the
assailants. There is no dispute that the acquitted accused
Kulwinder Singh and appellant Kirpal Singh, are closely
related to the family of the deceased and the first informant.
In that event, if the first informant had identified the offenders
at the time of the incident, there was no reason as to why she
would leave out the name of Kulwinder Singh while giving the
statement to the police officer, who recorded FIR (Exhibit-
PG/2). The witness was extensively confronted with the other
18
applications/petitions filed by her questioning the bonafides of
investigation being carried out by the Investigating Agencies
being Exhibit-DB, Exhibit-DG, etc., and she refused to stand
by the versions set out in these applications/petitions filed by
herself. Not only this, a statement (Exhibit-DL) of the first
informant was recorded by DSP, Rajender Singh, wherein it is
stated that some unknown person entered into their house
and caused injuries to the witness and her husband, who
expired in the incident. Though, the first informant denied
having given this statement but this fact definitely creates a
doubt on the truthfulness of her story. A serious doubt is
created on the credibility of the deposition made by the first
informant, when we consider the fact that she claimed in her
examination in chief that a van was brought by her son
wherein, she and her husband were taken to the Civil
Hospital, Tanda, where the medical officers opined that her
husband had expired and she was medically examined.
However, they did not believe in this opinion and took the
victim to Bhogpur where again the doctors reiterated that her
husband had expired. Only after this confirmation, the dead
body of Balwinder Singh was brought back to the house where
19
police was already present. This version, as set out in the
testimony of the first informant, Sharan Kaur(PW-5),
completely destroys her credibility. There cannot be two views
on the aspect that if a case of homicidal death is reported at a
Government hospital the doctors would immediately inform
the police and there is no chance that the dead body would be
allowed to be carried away by the family members.
22. It may be stated that the medical records of the Civil
Hospitals at Tanda and Bhogpur were not collected by the
investigating agency nor were the same brought on record by
the prosecution in its evidence. Dr. Didar Singh (PW-1)
Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Dasuya examined the first
th
informant-Sharan Kaur (PW-5) on 13 January, 1997 at about
07:05 a.m. In his cross examination, the doctor (PW-1) made
the following admissions:-
“...As per the record brought by me she has not given any
history of assault. It is correct that as stated by Sharan Kaur
that she has not been examined medico legally by any other
doctor. No opinion regarding the weapon used was sought from
me till today nor has any surgical opinion been received by me
till today. As per my record she was admitted in hospital
immediately after the medical examination.”
23. This version of Dr. Didar Singh, (PW-1) completely
destroys the story put forth by Sharan Kaur (PW-5) that she
20
and her family members had taken the victim to the
Government hospitals referred to above or that the body was
brought back to their home after such medical examination
was conducted. Apparently, the dead body was just lying in
the house till the police arrived who took both the victims to
the hospital.
24. This fact is firmly cemented when we consider the
deposition of Dr. Didar Singh (PW-1), who has stated that
Sharan Kaur (PW-5) told him that she had not been examined
medico legally by any other doctor and that she had been
admitted in the hospital immediately after the medical
examination. These inherent infirmities in the testimony of
Sharan Kaur (PW-5) completely destroys her evidentiary worth
and we have no hesitation in holding that she is a totally
unreliable partisan witness.
25. Daljit Singh (PW-6), being the son of the deceased
Balwinder Singh and the first informant-Sharan Kaur (PW-5),
stated that he woke up on hearing the cries of his mother and
saw that Kulwinder Singh had caught hold of his mother from
her arm and both the assailants ran away on seeing him. He
and his elder brother Gurmit Singh tried to pursue the
21
offenders. Thereafter they climbed up the stairs and saw that
their father was lying in a pool of blood. This witness (PW-6)
also stated that he along with his mother took his father in a
van to the Civil Hospital, Tanda where he was declared dead,
however they did not believe the opinion so given and hence,
they proceeded to Bhogpur and consulted Dr. Arora, who also
confirmed the fact regarding the death of Balwinder Singh.
Then they proceeded back to their house, where the police had
reached before their arrival. This witness (PW-6) was also
confronted with his previous statement (Exhibit-DB) wherein,
the name of Kulwinder Singh was not mentioned. Many
contradictions have been elicited in the cross examination of
this witness(PW-6) with reference to his previous versions, as
recorded by different investigating officers. In his cross
examination, the witness(PW-6) even admitted that he did not
remember the name of her mother’s brother, who met them on
that day. He further stated that he and his mother took
Balwinder Singh (deceased) to Civil Hospital, Dasuya. The
Police Station, Dasuya falls in the way to the Civil Hospital,
Dasuya but they did not go to the police station for lodging the
report. This fact again indicates that the conduct of PW-5 and
22
PW-6 was totally unnatural. Gurmeet Singh, elder brother of
Daljit Singh(PW-6), was not examined by the prosecution. We
find that Daljit Singh (PW-6) did not even utter a word that
appellant was having a weapon with him when he saw him
fleeing away from the crime scene. These inherent
improbabilities and loopholes in the evidence completely
destroy the fabric of the prosecution case which is full of holes
and holes which are impossible to be stitched together.
26. This Court in the celebrated case of Vadivelu Thevar v.
1
State of Madras , has observed as follows:-
“ 11 .…Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well- established
rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not
with the quantity of the evidence necessary for, proving or
disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this
context may be classified into three categories, namely:
(1) wholly reliable.
(2) Wholly unreliable.
(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
12. In the first category of proof, the court should have no
difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way - it may convict
or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found
to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness,
incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the
court, equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is
in the third category of cases, that the court has to be
circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material
particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial...”.
27. On going through the evidence of Sharan Kaur (PW-5)
1
AIR 1957 SC 614
23
and Daljit Singh (PW-6), with reference to other evidence
available on record, we are of the firm opinion that both these
witnesses fall in the second category, i.e., wholly unreliable.
No other tangible evidence was led by the prosecution to
connect the accused appellant with the crime.
28. As we have noted above, the prosecution’s story of motive
is very weak and rather far fetched so as to place implicit
reliance thereupon. Two investigating officers conducted
thorough investigation and found the entire case set up by the
first informant-Sharan Kaur(PW-5) to be false. The conduct of
the first informant is unworthy of reliance, when we consider
the fact that she tried to implicate Kulwinder Singh by filing
various petitions while the investigation was still ongoing and
even in her testimony during the trial. However, even in the
FIR (Exhibit-PG/2), which was admittedly registered on the
basis of her own statement, the first informant-Sharan
Kaur(PW-5) did not name the said Kulwinder Singh, as co-
assailant with the accused appellant herein. Even in the
petition i.e. Crl. Misc. Petition No. 2053-M-1998 filed before
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the name of the said
Kulwinder Singh was not mentioned.
24
29. The spade allegedly used to assault the deceased was
found lying at the crime scene. On going through the entire set
of prosecution witnesses, we find that no weapon of crime was
recovered at the instance of the accused appellant and thus,
there is no corroborative evidence so as to lend credence to the
wavering and unreliable testimony of Sharan Kaur (PW-5) and
Daljit Singh (PW-6).
30. Lajpal Singh(DW-3), DIG (Operation), Punjab was
examined by the defence, who in his cross examination stated
that in his investigation, he found the accused to be innocent.
31. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the entirety
of the material available on record, we are of the firm view that
evidence of Sharan Kaur (PW-5) and Daljit Singh (PW-6) is
wholly unreliable, does not inspire confidence in the Court so
as to affirm the conviction of the appellant. It may be
reiterated that no corroborative evidence was led by the
prosecution so as to lend credence to the testimony of these
two witnesses.
32. Consequently, the appellant deserves to be acquitted by
giving him the benefit of doubt. Resultantly, the judgments of
th
the trial Court and the High Court dated 26 July, 2003 and
25
th
28 February, 2008 respectively are hereby quashed and set
aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges. The sentence
awarded to the appellant was directed to be suspended by this
th
Court on 12 August, 2011, during the pendency of this
appeal and he is on bail. He need not surrender and the bail
bonds are discharged.
33. The appeal is accordingly, allowed.
34. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
............................J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
............................J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
April 18, 2024
26