Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 14
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 682-683 of 1996
PETITIONER:
Shingara Singh
RESPONDENT:
State of Haryana and another
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/11/2003
BENCH:
N. SANTOSH HEGDE & B.P. SINGH
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
WITH
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS.2106-2108 OF 1996
B.P. SINGH, J.
The appellants in these appeals and special leave
petitions are Suba Singh (A-1) and his son Shingara Singh
(A-2). They were both tried by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Sirsa in Sessions Trial No.46 of 1991 charged
variously of offences under Sections 302, 307, 302/34,
307/34 IPC and under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. The
learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment and
order dated March 6, 1992 acquitted A-2 of all the charges
levelled against him but found A-1 guilty of the offence
under Section 304 Part I holding that he had exceeded his
right of private defence. Accordingly, he sentenced A-1 to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and
to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default further to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Both the
appellants were acquitted of other charges levelled against
them.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Criminal Appeal No. 375-DBA
of 1992 was preferred by the State of Haryana before the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh against the
acquittal of A-2 under Sections 302 and 307 read with
Section 34 IPC. Suba Singh preferred Criminal Appeal No.
105-SB of 1992 against his conviction under Section 304
Part I IPC, while the informant Balbir Singh preferred a
Criminal Revision No.68 of 1993 against the same
impugned judgment and order acquitting the appellants of
the other charges levelled against them. The two Appeals
and the Criminal Revision have been disposed of by a
common judgment and order of the High Court dated March
6, 1992. The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the
State and held A-2 guilty of the offence under sections 302
and 307 IPC. A-1 was found guilty and convicted under
Section 302/34 and 307/34 IPC. A-1 was also found guilty
of the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. A-2 has
been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section
302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to
undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years. He
has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for 10 years under Section 307 IPC and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo further rigorous
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 14
imprisonment for one year. A-1 has been sentenced to
undergo life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC and to
pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo further
rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Under Section 307/34
IPC he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in
default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one
year. While so allowing the appeal preferred by the State
the High Court has in a mechanical manner allowed the
Criminal Revision preferred by the informant, which in
effect had become infructuous since an appeal had been
preferred by the State which was ultimately allowed. In any
event a Criminal Revision preferred by a private party
against an order of acquittal could not result in the
conviction of the accused.
The Criminal Appeal preferred by A-1 against his
conviction under Section 304 Part I was also disposed of in
the above terms.
The appellant Shingara Singh has preferred Criminal
Appeal Nos. 682-683 of 1996 while A-1 Suba Singh has
preferred Special Leave Petition Nos. 2106-2108 of 1996.
In the Special Leave Petition notice was issued with the
direction that the matter be heard along with Criminal
Appeal Nos. 682-683 of 1996 preferred by A-2. In fact,
there was no need for A-1 to file a Special Leave Petition
since in view of the provisions of Section 380 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, an appealable judgment and order
having been passed against co-accused Shingara Singh, A-2,
appellant Suba Singh, A-1 also had a right of appeal to this
Court. However, we grant special leave to Suba Singh and
proceed to dispose of these appeals by this common
judgment and order.
A-1, Suba Singh and Gurdeep Singh (father of the
deceased) lived in adjoining houses in Village Chak Sahban.
Suba Singh, A-1 and Gurdeep Singh are married to two
sisters and are therefore related as co-brothers. A-2,
Shingara Singh is the son of Suba Singh while the deceased
Surinder Singh was the son-in-law of Gurdeep Singh. It is
not in dispute that the courtyard of the two houses are
adjacent divided by a common wall. The courtyard of
Gurdeep Singh is at a slightly higher level than the courtyard
of A-1, Suba Singh. The case of the prosecution is that
Gurdeep Singh sold away his lands in village Chak Sahban
and purchased lands in village Mallewala. He also intended
to sell his house in village Chak Sahban and with that in
view he had entered into an agreement with A-1, Suba Singh
to sell his house in the village for a sum of Rs.52,000/-.
According to the prosecution, A-1 Suba Singh failed to pay
the amount within the time stipulated and therefore a dispute
arose between him and Gurdeep Singh. On July 1, 1991 the
matter was settled by a Panchayat consisting of relatives of
the parties who are themselves interrelated. In Panchayat it
was settled that A-1 Suba Singh will purchase the house and
will pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- by way of consideration. It is
not in dispute that immediately after the decision of the
Panchayat A-1, Suba Singh actually paid a sum of
Rs.45,000/- to Gurdeep Singh and honoured the decision of
the Panchayat.
The case of the prosecution is that later in the day at
about 6.30 p.m. Balbir Singh, PW-5 Raghbir Singh son of
Gurdeep Singh, Rur Singh, PW-6, Jagdip Singh and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 14
Gurdeep Singh were taking meals in the courtyard of
Gurdeep Singh. According to the evidence produced by the
prosecution there were cots on which food was being served
by Gian Kaur, PW-7, wife of Gurdeep Singh. The case of
the prosecution is that Suredner Singh (deceased) son-in-law
of Gurdeep Singh wanted to take away his cycle which
rested against the common wall of his courtyard. While he
was doing so the appellants climbed up the common wall
with the help of a ladder. While A-1 was empty handed, A-
2 was carrying a licenced gun belonging to his father. A-1
exhorted his son to kill Surinder Singh since he had been
helping his father-in-law in the dispute relating to the
purchase of the house in the village. A-2, thereafter fired at
Surinder Singh injuring him on his forehead as a result of
which he fell down. Gian Kaur, PW-7 rushed to the rescue
of her son-in-law but A-2 shot at her also causing injury on
the dorsal aspect of her right hand. On alarm being raised
both the appellants ran away.
After leaving the dead body in the care of Jeet Singh
who had come there by then, Balbir Singh, PW-5 left for the
police station. After covering a distance of two kilometers
he boarded a tractor and came to Sirsa where he met
Sukhdev Singh to whom he narrated the incident. They,
thereafter, went to the police station Sadar and PW-5 lodged
a report at 10 p.m.
Sub Inspector, Pohp Singh, PW-10, the Investigating
Officer came to the place of occurrence and held inquest
over the body of Surinder Singh. He, thereafter arranged to
get the body sent for post mortem examination. He also
lifted blood stained earth from the place of occurrence.
Thereafter, he went to the hospital and in the early morning
of July 2, 1991 recorded the statement of Gian Kaur, PW-7
and Rur Singh, PW-6. He again came back to the place of
occurrence and prepared a rough site plan Ex. RR.
Dr. Beena Garg, PW-1 conducted the post mortem
examination on the body of Surinder Singh at the General
Hospital, Sirsa on July 2, 1991 at 10 a.m.. She found the
following ante-mortem injuries on the person of deceased,
Surinder Singh.
"1. A lacerated wound with inverted margins of
2.5 cm. x 2 cm. on the middle of fore-head 4 cm. above
the base of nose on mid line. Abrasion of 2 cm area in
size was present surrounding this wound. Underlying
bones were fractured. Brain matter was seen to the
whole on dissection. Underlying bone fractured.
Direction of the wound was upward and posteriorly.
There was opening of 1.5 cm. x 1 cm. on the top of
occipital bone in the midline. There was fracture of
frontal both pariet alright temporal and occipital bone.
Small pieces of bone were present in fractured area of
occipital bone. Two flatent metallic pieces were
recovered from this area. These pieces were sealed and
handed over to the police.
2. 2.5 cm x 1 cm lacerated wound with coverted
margins present over the left frontal area, 5 cm above the
lateral margins of left eye brow. Underlying bones were
fractured. On dissection there was communication of
injuries No.2 and 3. Direction of the track was slightly
upward-backward and medially.
3. Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm with everted
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 14
margins over the left temporal region of scalp, 6 cm from
the pinna of left ear. On dissection, the underlying bone
was found fractured."
According to PW-1, the death was due to injuries to
the brain caused by a fire arms. The injuries were sufficient
to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and the time
that elapsed between the death and the post mortem
examination was 12 to 24 hours. Having regard to the
nature of injuries she opined that firing must have been done
from lower level to higher level. Deceased must have been
at a higher level than the person firing the gun. There were
no blackening scars around the wounds.
The case of the prosecution is that the accused were
arrested on July 3, 1991. Shingara Singh, A-2 produced
before the Investigating Officer the licenced gun of his
father (A-1) which was taken into possession by the
Investigating Officer. Suba Singh, A-1 is said to have
produced two empty and four live cartridges which were
also taken into possession.
On July 4, 1991 the site plan was drawn up by the
draftsman, PW-4 which was marked Exh.P-E. The said site
plan shows that the height of the wall on the side of the
courtyard of Gurdeep Singh was 4 feet 4 inches. According
to PW-4 he prepared the site plan as pointed out to him by
Balbir Singh, PW-5 and Raghbir Singh.
After investigation, the appellants were put up for trial
variously charged as noticed earlier. The defence of the
appellant Suba Singh as stated by him in his examination
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was that the occurrence did not
take place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. He
admitted that a Panchayat was convened for resolving the
dispute relating to the purchase of land by him. He also
admitted that in view of the settlement arrived at he paid a
sum of Rs.45,000/- to Gurdeep Singh. However, he denied
that he climbed up the wall with the help of a ladder and
exhorted his son Shingara Singh to kill Surinder Singh, who
was taking away his cycle which rested against the common
wall. He stated that it was Surinder Singh (deceased) who
had climbed the wall and was resorting to brick batting.
With folded hands he requested him not to do so. At that
time his son Shingara Singh, A-2 was not present. Despite
his pleadings, Surinder Singh (deceased) removed the bricks
from the wall and threw them at him which hit him. Gian
Kaur, PW-7 was supplying brick bats to Surinder Singh
from the wall. Surinder Singh (deceased) shouted that he
had got the amount reduced by Rs.7,000/-. When this was
happening he went inside his house, brought his gun and
fired shots in his self defence which might have hit him. He
stated that he had himself produced the gun before the
Investigating Officer as also the two empties on the very
first day i.e. July 1, 1991. A false case has been made out
against him and his son. In fact, his son was in the fields at
the time of occurrence but he had been falsely implicated on
account of his being his only son. Witness PW-6, Rur Singh
had old enmity with him and he had also appeared as a
witness against him in a civil case prior to the occurrence.
Same is the defence of Shingara Singh, A-2.
At the trial, the prosecution mainly relied upon the
testimony of three alleged eye witnesses viz. Balbir Singh
PW-5, Rur Singh PW-6 and Gian Kaur, PW-7. It also
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 14
appears from the record that though some other witnesses
were cited by the prosecution they were given up as being
unnecessary which included Gurdeep Singh, Raghbir Singh,
Jagbir Singh and some others.
The Trial Court on consideration of the evidence on
record came to the conclusion that the prosecution case as
alleged was not true and that the occurrence took place in all
probability in the manner alleged by the defence. It noticed
that all the three aforesaid eye witnesses had stated earlier
that both the appellants had climbed the common wall and
from there the firing took place resulting in injuries to
Surinder Singh (deceased) and Gian Kaur, PW-7. This
version was given by PW-5 in his FIR and the same version
was repeated by PWs 6 and 7 in their statements recorded
under Section 161 Cr. P.C.. However, at the trial all the
three witnesses consistently gave a different version so as to
bring the prosecution case in accord with the findings of the
Medical Officer who had opined, having regard to the nature
of injuries, that the injured must have been at a higher level
than the person using the fire arm. If really, the appellants
had climbed the wall and A-2 fired at Surinder Singh,
trajectory of the pellets would have shown a downward
movement and not an upward movement as found by the
Medical Officer. At the Trial all the three witnesses
changed their version by stating that only A-1, Suba Singh
climbed on the wall with the help of a ladder, while his son
Shingara Singh, A-2 was still on the ladder and had not
climbed the wall. He was standing on the ladder in a
manner that only his face was visible from the courtyard of
Gurdeep Singh. He placed the barrel of the gun on the wall
and without resting the butt of the gun against his shoulder,
fired at Surinder Singh. In this manner, it was sought to be
projected that Surinder Singh was at a higher level than the
level of the weapon of Shingara Singh, A-2 when he fired
the gun. The Trial Court concluded that the tailored version
given by the witnesses for the first time in the witness box
was only with a view to bring the prosecution case in accord
with the medical evidence on record and to negative the case
of the defence that it was Surinder Singh, who was standing
on the wall while the firing took place from the ground
level.
The Trial Court also found that Suba Singh, A-1 had
six injuries on his person. On being arrested he was sent for
medical examination by the Investigating Officer and was
examined by Dr. Chaudhary, DW-1 who found the
following injuries on his person:-
"1. A bruise 4 x 2 cm on dorso
lateral aspect of metacarpal of index
finger, with abrasion 1 cm x linear in the
space between right index finger and
thumb on dorsal aspect. Soft scalp of
light brown colour was present and
colour of bruise was brownish.
Tenderness was present and x-ray was
advised.
2. A lacerated wound 2 cm x 2 cm
x skin and tissue deep on the back of the
left leg, on lateral side, 7 cm above the
sole of the left foot. Serious fluid exuded
from the wound. The granolation tissue
was visible at places and edges of the
wound were irregular and inflamed, with
swelling of adjacent parts.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 14
3. Swelling 2 x 1 cm on the top of
scalp, left to the midline and 12 cm from
the base of nose.
4. Bruise 4 x 2 cm on left scapular
region above its upper border, placed
horizently of brownish colour.
5. Complaint of pain on the right
side of chest and infera axillary region,
with tenderness.
6. Abrasion = cm x linear on the
back of the right elbow."
It will be noticed from the above injuries that one of
the injuries was on the scalp and caused by a blunt
substance. The possibility of these injuries being caused by
brick-bats could not be ruled out. In cross- examination Dr.
Chaudhary admitted that the possibility of all the injuries
except No.3 having been caused by friendly hands could not
be ruled out. The Trial Court, therefore, concluded that the
presence of injuries on Suba Singh, A-1 which had not been
explained by the prosecution supported the defence version
and rendered it probable. Though the injuries were found to
be simple in nature and could have been self inflicted as
well, it was difficult to believe that so many injuries could
be self suffered by the accused.
The Trial Court found that the other evidence on
record also supported the defence version and rendered it
probable. The Investigating Officer, PW-10 admitted in his
cross-examination that when he visited the place of
occurrence he had found that some of the bricks had been
removed from the common wall. It was the case of the
defence that Surinder Singh (deceased) had thrown bricks at
Suba Singh, A-1 from top of the wall. Though it was the
case of the prosecution that A-1 climbed the wall and A-2
stood on the ladder and fired at the deceased, in the site plan
Exh. P-R which was prepared by the Investigating Officer
on July 2, 1991, the ladder has not been shown at all. A
second site plan was drawn to scale on July 4, 1991 by PW-
4 which is Exh. P-E. In that plan the point where the cycle
of the deceased had been kept has not been shown. PW-10
explained by saying that in the site plan drawn by him Exh.
P-R the cycle was shown at ’J’. He, however, admitted that
the cycle was not taken into possession. The Trial Court
found that point J the last point shown in the marginal notes,
seems to have been interpolated later. These facts, therefore
do not support the case of the prosecution that Surinder
Singh had gone to take his bicycle when he was fired upon
by A-2 who had climbed on top of the wall with the help of
a ladder. The medical evidence was only consistent with the
hypothesis, that having regard to the direction of the injury
on the head of Surinder Singh, he must have been at a
higher level when fired upon by someone who was at a
lower level. This was consistent with the case of the defence
that firing was resorted to from the ground level when
Surinder Singh (deceased) was throwing brick bats after
climbing the common wall. The Trial Court also found that
Rur Singh did not appear to be a reliable witness because he
denied the fact that A-1 had deposed against him in a Civil
Suit. This statement was proved to be false and the
deposition of A-1 was produced before the Court which
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 14
proved the fact that A-1 had deposed against him in a Civil
suit and this also established that Rur Singh was not on
good terms with A-1.
Having regard all aspects of the matter the Trial Court
concluded that the defence version appeared to be more
probable. It was also consistent with the medical evidence
on record. The prosecution witnesses had made vital
improvements in their deposition with a view to make their
evidence consistent with the medical evidence on record.
The prosecution failed to explain the injuries suffered by A-
1. The fact that some bricks had been removed from top of
the common wall supported the defence case that Surinder
Singh (deceased) had thrown bricks at A-1. The existence
of ladder and cycle was rendered doubtful because they were
not even shown in the site plans prepared by the
prosecution. Moreover, the appellants not only produced the
gun but also the empties which were found to have been
fired from the same gun. The Trial Court also considered
the question as to whether there was any motive on the part
of the appellants to commit the offence. It found that the
appellants could have no motive to commit the offence
because the dispute if any was amicably settled by the
Panchayat and respecting the decision of the Panchayat A-1
had promptly paid Rs.45,000/- to Gurdeep Singh. Having
done so, there was no reason for them to commit the
offence. On the other hand, so far as Gurdeep Singh and his
family members are concerned, they may have reconciled to
the fact that they had to receive Rs.7,000/- less than the
amount agreed to be paid, but Surinder Singh being a young
person was angry and aggrieved on account of the fact that
the Panchayat had reduced the price of the house to be sold
by his father-in-law. The motive if any could be entertained
only by Surinder Singh and not by the appellants. However,
as observed by the Trial Court motive was not of much
significance in a case where the prosecution sought to prove
its case by direct evidence of eye witnesses. The Trial
Court, therefore, concluded that the occurrence took place in
the manner stated by the defence. In all probability Shingara
Singh, A-2 was not present when the occurrence took place.
However, it held that though A-1, Suba Singh had a right of
private defence, he certainly exceeded that right in as much
as the facts and circumstances did not justify his using the
weapon in such a manner as to cause the death of Surinder
Singh (deceased). He, therefore, found him guilty of the
offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC.
In the appeals the High Court has reversed the
findings recorded by the Trial Court. The High Court held
that the Trial Court was not justified in holding that the
defence version was more probable since all the three
witnesses had improved upon their statements under Section
161 Cr.P.C. and made significant changes while deposing
before the Trial Court. The High Court considered the
deposition of these three witnesses namely PWs 5, 6 and 7
and came to the conclusion that they had not stated that the
firing was resorted to from the ground level. Their
deposition in Court proved that Shingara Singh, A-2 while
on the ladder fired at Surinder Singh.
In our view, the High Court has completely missed
the significance of the finding recorded by the Trial Court.
The Trial Court found that in the FIR as also statements
recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. the witnesses had
clearly mentioned that both the appellants had climbed on
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 14
top of the wall and from there Shingara Singh, A-2 fired at
Surinder Singh. If this version were to be accepted, the
injury caused would not have been of the nature found by
the Medical Officer who was clearly of the opinion, having
regard to the trajectory of injuries, that the person firing the
fire arm was at a lower level than the victim. Therefore,
with a view to bring their case in consonance with the
medical evidence on record, all the three witnesses made
significant changes while deposing in Court and all of them
thereafter consistently stated that while A-1 had climbed on
top of the wall A-2 stood on the ladder in such a manner that
only his face was visible from across the wall and while
standing in that position, keeping the barrel of the gun on the
wall and without resting the butt of the gun against his
shoulder, he fired at the deceased. There was no dispute
that their deposition in Court was consistent, but what was
observed by the trial court was that their version as to the
manner of occurrence as deposed to by them was at variance
with what was stated in the first information report by PW 5,
and in the statements of PWs 6 and 7 recorded under Section
161 Cr. P.C. When confronted with their earlier statements,
they could not give a satisfactory explanation, with the result
that their credibility was sufficiently impeached. The
change of version by each one of them, and to the same
effect, was deliberate and not merely accidental or an
account of lapse of memory. It cannot be disputed that this
was a very significant change. It cannot also be
disputed that the change was deliberately made by all the
witnesses, so that the prosecution case became consistent
with the medical evidence on record. We, therefore, do not
find any error committed by the Trial Court in coming to
this conclusion.
The High Court then held that the upward direction
of the wound could be on account of deflection of the
metallic pieces of the bullet after striking the occipital bone.
In the first instance there is no basis for this speculation. No
such question was put to the doctor PW-1, Beena Garg, nor
is there any other evidence to support this finding.
Moreover, this was not a case of bullet being fired at the
deceased. The doctor found pellet injuries caused to the
deceased. The pellets having penetrated the skull bone,
there was no possibility of its deflection because the brain
matter is soft and cannot cause deflection of pellets or bullet.
Be that as it may, it cannot be readily inferred, having regard
to the evidence of the prosecution itself, that the direction of
the injury was otherwise and not as found by PW-1. The
finding that the pellet must have got deflected is at best
speculative.
The High Court then found that the failure of the
prosecution to explain the injuries on Suba Singh, A-1 did
not affect the case of the prosecution. The reason assigned
by the High Court is that he was not medically examined on
the same day but was got examined by the police two days
later, on July 3, 1991. This reason does not impress us
because the medical evidence on record is consistent with
the injuries having been caused at about the time of
occurrence. The High Court then observed that according to
the doctor the injuries except one could be self suffered. It
therefore jumped to the conclusion that all the injuries may
have been self suffered. It is possible for one to conjecture
that the injuries may have been self suffered, but that does
not provide a good reason for setting aside a finding of fact
recorded by the Trial Court which came to the conclusion
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 14
that A-1, Suba Singh resorted to firing when Surinder Singh
(deceased) threw brick bats at him. The evidence of the
Investigating Officer, PW-10 also disclosed that some bricks
had been removed form top of the wall where the firing took
place. Unfortunately, the Investigating Officer does not
appear to have bothered to inspect the courtyard of the
accused and therefore it is not possible to conjecture as to
whether some brick bats were lying in the court yard of the
accused, which may have further supported the defence
case. The High court has observed that no such brick bats
were found on the spot, but in doing so the High Court has
not correctly appreciated the evidence of the Investigating
Officer who does not appear to have at all inspected the
courtyard of the accused. The High Court, further, observed
that removal of the bricks from the wall would have been
shown by the Investigating Officer in the site plan and also
by the drafts-man who prepared another site plan, but these
two witnesses have not shown the removal of the bricks
from the wall in the site plans prepared by them. No doubt
it is so, but what the High Court has failed to notice is the
factual statement made by PW-10, the Investigating Officer
who after consulting the case diary stated before the Court
that he had noted the fact that some of the bricks had been
removed from the common wall.
If such be the factual position, the failure to show that
in the site plans cannot prejudice the case of the defence.
The High Court then found that the appellants had a motive
to commit the offence and it held so for the reason that A-1,
Suba Singh had to make payment and part with money to
buy the house after he had backed out of the agreement. In
our view, having regard to the fact that the price of the house
had been reduced by the Panchayat, Suba Singh, A-1 could
hardly entertain a grudge on this account. Moreover, he
readily paid Rs.45,000/- to Gurdeep Singh immediately after
the settlement, before the occurrence took place on that day,
which only shows that he was more than happy to buy the
house at a reduced price. Therefore, in our view, he had no
motive to commit the offence and we entirely agree with the
finding of the trial court in this regard.
By its impugned judgment the High court reversed the
order of acquittal in so far as Shingara Singh, A-2 is
concerned and convicted him of the offence under section
302 IPC. It further convicted accused No.1 Suba Singh of
the offence under section 302 read with section 34 IPC
instead of section 304, Part I for which he was convicted by
the trial court. We are of the view that the High Court was
not justified in setting aside the order of acquittal of A-2
under section 302 IPC having regard to the facts of the case.
It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal the High
Court is entitled to re-appreciate the entire evidence on
record but having done so if it finds that the view taken by
the trial court is a possible reasonable view of the evidence
on record, it will not substitute its opinion for that of the trial
court. Only in cases where the High Court finds that the
findings recorded by the trial court are unreasonable or
perverse or that the court has committed a serious error of
law, or where the trial court had recorded its findings in
ignorance of relevant material on record or by taking into
consideration evidence which is not admissible, the High
Court may be justified in reversing the order of acquittal.
We do not find this case to be one where the High Court was
justified in reversing the findings recorded by the trial court.
At best, it may be contended that the view taken by the High
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 14
Court is also a reasonable view of the evidence on record.
However, we cannot say that the view taken by the trial
court was not another reasonable view of the evidence on
record. It is well settled that where two views are
reasonably possible on the basis of the evidence on record,
the one that favours the accused must be accepted. In any
event in a case of acquittal if the view of the trial court is a
possible reasonable view of the evidence on record,
interference by the High Court may not be justified.
Apart from the reasons given by the trial court we
find that there are many other features which create a serious
doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. The
case of the prosecution was that the prosecution witnesses
and others were having their meals at about 6.30 p.m. sitting
on cots in the court-yard of Gurdeep Singh. PW-5, Balbir
Singh has stated that there were three such cots lying in the
courtyard of Gurdeep Singh when PW-10 the Investigating
Officer came there. But he further admits that the existence
of these cots is not sown in the site plan prepared by him nor
was it shown in the site plan prepared by PW-4.
The second aspect of the prosecution case is that the
cycle of Surinder Singh was resting against the common
wall and when he went to bring the cycle he was shot at by
Shingara Singh A-2. However, PW-10, the Investigating
Officer has admitted in his deposition that the cycle was not
shown in the site plan prepared by him. He then stated that
it was shown in the site plan Ex. PR at J shown in the note.
The trial court looked at the site plan and came to the
conclusion that the note in the site plan showing the
presence of the bi-cycle was an interpolation. We also had a
look at the site plan Ex. PR and we are not in a position to
say that the trial court was not justified in making that
observation.
So far as the ladder is concerned, PW-5, Balbir Singh
stated that the ladder was in the same position when the
Investigating Officer came to the place of occurrence but he
could not explain why it was not shown in the site plan
prepared by the police. Even PW-10 the Investigating
officer had to admit that in the site plan the position of the
ladder was not shown. These features of the prosecution
case also support the conclusion reached by the trial court
that the occurrence must have taken place in a manner
different than the one deposed to by the alleged eye
witnesses. The evidence on record with regard to the
existence of cots in the court-yard of Gurdeep Singh, the
existence of a bicycle, as also about the existence of a ladder
is rather unsatisfactory and creates a serious doubt as to
whether the prosecution witnesses are telling the truth. The
omission to show them in both the site plans cannot be
attributed to a mere lapse on the part of the investigating
agency. In fact so far as the site plans are concerned, the
case of the prosecution is that they were prepared in the
presence of PW 5 and another witness and on their pointing.
However, PW 5 denied that the plans were prepared in his
presence. The other witness was not examined.
We are, therefore, of the considered view that the
High Court was not justified in setting aside the order of
acquittal passed in favour Shingara Singh, A-2. On
appreciation of the evidence on record it appears to us that
the occurrence in all probability may have taken place in
the manner alleged by the defence, and not in the manner
alleged by the prosecution. If that be so we must hold that
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 14
Shingara Singh, A-2 was not even present when the
occurrence took place. He, therefore, is entitled to acquittal.
However, so far as the case of Suba Singh, A-1 is
concerned, we agree with the findings of the trial court that
he had exceeded the right of private defence. In the facts
and circumstances of the case there was no justification for
using his gun in such a manner as to cause the death of the
deceased. We, therefore, find him guilty of the offence
under section 304 Part I IPC but in the facts and
circumstances of the case sentence him to rigorous
imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine he shall undergo
imprisonment for further period of one year.
Accordingly the appeals preferred by Shingara Singh,
A-2 are allowed. The appeals preferred by Suba Singh, A-1,
are partly allowed and he is found guilty of the offence
punishable under section 304 Part I IPC instead of section
302 IPC and sentenced as indicated above.
L.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T...
....T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T....R.
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited#Collector of Centra
l Excise, Chandigarh#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI###
Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey and Ors.#State of Bihar#2003-
11-25#25623#104-106#DORAISWAMY RAJU###
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 10906 of 1996#1996#Shanti Kumar Panda#Shakutala Devi#2003-11-
03#25624#10906#R.C. LAHOTI###
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 11483 of 1996#1996#Amrendra Pratap Singh#Tej Bahadur Prajapat
i & Ors.#2003-11-21#25625#11483#R.C. LAHOTI###
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 9130 of 2003#2003#Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd.#Shapoorji Da
ta Processing Ltd.#2003-11-18#25626#9130#CJI###
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 14178-14184 of 1996#1996#Brij Behari Sahai (Dead) through L.R
s., etc. etc.#State of Uttar Pradesh#2003-11-28#25627#14178-14184#Doraiswamy Raju###
Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 1968 of 1996#1996#Goa Plast (P) Ltd.#Chico Ursula D’Souza#2003-
11-20#25628#1968#B.P. Singh###
Writ Petition (crl.)#Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003#2003#Ashok Kumar Pandey#The State of
West Bengal#2003-11-18#25629#199#DORAISWAMY RAJU###
Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 20 of 2003#2003#Surendra Paswan#State of Jharkhand#2003-11-28#2
5630#20#DORAISWAMY RAJU###
Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 278 of 1997#1997#Vidyadharan#State of Kerala#2003-11-14#25631#2
78#DORAISWAMY RAJU###
Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 292 of 1997#1997#State of Madhya Pradesh.#Awadh Kishore Gupta a
nd Ors.#2003-11-18#25632#292#DORAISWAMY RAJU###
###State of Punjab & Anr.#M/s Devans Modern Brewaries Ltd. & Anr.#2003-11-20#25633##CJI.###
Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 331 of 1997#1997#Shriram#State of Madhya Pradesh#2003-11-24#256
34#331#DORAISWAMY RAJU###
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 3630-3631 of 2003#2003#The Prohibition & Excise Supdt., A.P.
& Ors.#Toddy Tappers Coop. Society, Marredpally & Ors.#2003-11-17#25635#3630-3631#CJI.###
Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 371-372 of 2003#2003#Ram Dular Rai & Ors.#State of Bihar#2003-1
1-27#25636#371-372#S.B. Sinha.###
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4075-4081 of 1998#1998#Nair Service Society#Dist. Officer, Ke
rala Public Service Commission & Ors.#2003-11-17#25637#4075-4081#CJI.###
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4698-4700 of 1994#1994#State of U.P. & Ors.#Lalji Tandon (Dea
d)#2003-11-03#25638#4698-4700#R.C. LAHOTI###
Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 506 of 1997#1997#State of Karnataka#Puttaraja#2003-11-27#25639#
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 14
506#DORAISWAMY RAJU###
Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 519-521 of 2003#2003#Goura Venkata Reddy
Vs.#State of Andhra Pradesh#2003-11-19#25640#519-521#DORAISWAMY RAJU###
Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 530-531 of 2003#2003#Bhargavan & Ors.
#State of Kerala #2003-11-17#2564
1#530-531#DORAISWAMY RAJU###
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 7371 of 2002#2002#N.D. Thandani (Dead) By Lrs.
#Arnavaz Rustom Printer & Anr. #2003-11-24#25642#7371#R
.C. LAHOTI###
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 9205-07 of 2003#2003#The Land Acquisition Officer, Nizamabad,
District, Andhra Pradesh #Nookala Rajamallu and Ors. #2003-11
-21#25643#9205-07#DORAISWAMY RAJU###
Transfer Petition (crl.)#Transfer Petition (crl.) 77-78 of 2003#2003#K. Anbazhagan
#The Superintendent of Police & ors.#2003-11-18#25644#77
-78#S.N. VARIAVA###
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 7868 of 1995#1995#ITW Signode India Ltd.
#Collector of Central Excise #2003-11-19#25645#7868#CJI###
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 14
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 14
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh
#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN.
###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS
25671