PETITIONER: PALA SINGH & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB DATE OF JUDGMENT23/08/1972 BENCH: DUA, I.D. BENCH: DUA, I.D. SHELAT, J.M. KHANNA, HANS RAJ CITATION: 1972 AIR 2679 1973 SCR (1) 964 1972 SCC (2) 640 CITATOR INFO : R 1973 SC2187 (8) R 1976 SC2304 (9) R 1985 SC 131 (13) RF 1992 SC2155 (2) ACT: Code of Criminal Procedure s. 417-Appeal in High Court against acquittal by trial court--High Court's power to reverse judgment of acquittal-Practice and procedure. Code of Criminal Procedure s. 157-Delay in sending occurrence report to magistrate-Whether whole investigation to be regarded as tainted. Constitution of India 1950, Art. 136-Interference by Supreme Court when justified. HEADNOTE: The appellants along with some other accused were tried for murder under s. 302 I.P.C. and connected offences. They were acquitted by the Sessions Judge. The High Court reversing the judgment of acquittal convicted the appellants. In appeal before this Court under article 136 of the Constitution it was contended that in apprising the evidence the High Court had not followed the principles laid down by this-Court in Sanwant Singh and other cases. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : (i) The contention that because the judgment of the trial court prima facie seemed reasonable there was no scope for reassessment of the evidence by the High Court was unacceptable. The Court of appeal has full power under the statute to go into the entire evidence and all the relevant circumstances of the case for coming to its own conclusion about the guilt or innocence of the accused bearing in mind the initial presumption of the innocence of the accused person and the fact that he was acquitted by the trial court. The High Court in the present case did not commit any error in the appraisal of the evidence on the record and in arriving at its own conclusion as to the guilt of the appellants. The criticism about the insertion of s. 120B in the site plan might raise a slight suspicion but in view of the trustworthiness of the prosecution evidence led in the case that could not in any way justify any grave suspicion of the prosecution story. It could not be said that the High Court had not followed the principles laid down in Sanwant Singh's case nor were its conclusions so erroneous as to justify interference by this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution. [971-F-H; 972A-B] Sanwant Singh v. State of Rajasthan, [1961] 3 S.C.R. 120, Rambhapala Reddy v. State of A.P., A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 46 and Bansidhar Mohanty V. State of Orissa, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 585, considered and applied. (ii) Section 157 Cr. P.C. requires an occurrence report to be sent forthwith by the police officer concerned to a magistrate empowered to take congnizance of the offence. This is really designed to keep the magistrate informed of the investigation of such cognizable offence so as to be able to control the investigation and if necessary to give appropriate direction under s. 159. But when it was found in the present case that the F.I.R. was actually recorded without delay and the investigation started on the basis of the F.I.R. and there- was no other infirmity brought 965 to the Court's notice, then, however, improper or objectionable the delayed receipt of the report by the magistrate concerned it could not by itself justify the conclusion that the investigation was tainted and the prosecution insupportable. It was not the appellants' case that they had been prejudicial by this delay. [970 C-E] JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 197 of
1969.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
May 15, 1969 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandi-
garh in Criminal Appeal No. 385 of 1967.
R. L. Kohli, R. C. Kohli and J. C. Talwar, for the
appellants.
Harbans Singh and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dua, J. This appeal by special leave under Art. 136 of the
Constitution of India is directed against the judgment dated
May 16, 1969 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
allowing in part the State appeal from the order of Shri
Kartar Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur,
acquitting the five accused, charged under ss. 302, 302/34,
120B and 302/309, I.P.C. and convicting on appeal Trilok
Singh and Pala Singh, appellants,the former under s. 302,
I.P.C. and the latter under S. 302 read with S. 34, I.P.C;
They were both sentenced to imprisonment for life.
The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are that
Atma Singh, resident of Basti Danish Mandan, Jullundur City
had purchased a plot of land measuring 58 kanals and 10
marlas in the aforesaid Basti in the year 1959 for a sum of
about Rs. 16,000 from the Government at a, public auction.
This piece of land was at that time being cultivated by
Hazara Singh, one of the five coaccused in the trial court
and his associates. As they were disinclined to give up
possession Atma Singh appointed Ram Singh (P. W. 14) and
Sham Singh (Deceased) as his attorneys to represent him in
the litigation concerning the said land. These two
attorneys obtained possession of the plot with the help of
the police and through the intervention of the revenue
authorities in June, 1963. A few days later Hazara Singh
and 7 or 8 others persons including Trilok Singh son. of
Surain Singh, accused no., I and Trilok Singh son of Inder
Singh, accused no. 5, threatened the two attorneys with
death unless they dissociated themselves with the litigation
relating to this land. Sham Singh, deceased, thereupon
applied, to the City Inspector of Police complaining against
this threat as a result of which Hazara Singh and Trilok
Singh son of Inder Singh were proceeded against under s.
107, Cr. P.C. The two attorneys, it appears, wanted to
plough the land in question but were afraid of the accused
persons. They approached the Superintendent of
966
Police for help which was made available to them against
payment of the prescribed fee. The land in question was
actually ploughed by the attorneys in the presence of the
police on June 26, 1963 when Hazara Singh, Trilok Singh son
of Inder Singh and Harnam Singh, father of Pala Singh, came
there armed with lathes but were apprehended. The police
stayed on the land in question for about 5 or 6 days. On
August 9, 1963 the crop standing on the said and was found
damaged. At the instance of Ram Singh (P.W. 14) the police
prosecuted Hazara Singh, his brother Tara Singh, his
employee Channan and Trilok Singh son of Inder Singh, all of
whom were found guilty and convicted. In November, 1963
Hazara Singh, Harnam Singh, Bulkar Singh (‘brother of Pala
Singh) and other persons were prosecuted for ploughing the
said land but: were acquited. On December 15, 1963 Hazara
Singh and 17 or 18 other persons attached Sham Singh,
deceased, and Ram Singh (P.W. 14). The police proceeded
against Hazara Singh, his wife Piar Kaur and his brother
Mahal Singh, wife of Tara Singh, brother of Hazara Singh and
Mangal Singh, brother of Trilok Singh son of Surain Singh
under s. 107, Cr. P.C. During the pendency of these
proceedings Sham Singh, deceased, and Ram Singh (P.W. 14)
were attached by six persons including Hazara Singh, the two
Trilok Singh’s (Trilok Singh son of Surain Singh, accused
no. 1 appellant no. 2 in this Court and Trilok Singh son of
Inder Singh accused no. 5 in the trial court) Channan Singh,
Harnam Singh and Nangal Singh who were committed to the
sessions court to stand their trial for an offence under s.
307, I.P.C. and other offences. Sham, deceased, and Ram
Singh (P.W. 14) were to appear as prosecution witnesses in
that case which was adjourned to June 3 1966 because of the
absence of Trilok Singh, appellant. On May 23, 1966 at
about 7.30 a. m. Laxman Singh (P.W.2) was coming from his
coal depot in Basti Danishmandan, to his residential house
situated in a lane in which Sham Singh, deceased, also
resided. The deceased was at that time going ahead of
Laxman Singh and Narinder Singh, brother of the deceased was
following Laxman Singh about 3 or 4 yards behind. When Sham
Singh reached near the shop of Babu Rain, barber, Tirlok
Singh, appellant, and Dhira (accused no. 2 in the trial
court) each armed with a kirpan and Pala Singh, accused, and
Trilok Singh son of Inder Singh armed with a Lathi each,
appeared at the spot. Trilok Singh son of Inder Singh
shouted that the enemy had come and should be murdered.
Dhira aimed a kripan blow at the head of Sham Singh,
deceased, who caught hold of the kirpan but the same was
pulled away by Dhira. Pala Singh there upon gave a lathi
below on the head of the deceased as a result of which he
fell on the ground face downwards. This was followed by
three or four kirpan blows by the appellant Trilok Singh on
the back of the next of the deceased. The occurrence was
witnessed by Gokal Chand (P.W.3) who practises in Ayurvedic
system of medicine and has a
967
shop nearby and Trilochan Singh (P.W. 9) a tractor driver
who happened to pass that way to attend to his duties as
such,
The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted all the ac-
cused persons holding that the Assistant Sub-Inspector,
Kashmiri Lal, who had investigated the offence had not
performed his duties in a fair and straight forward manner
and that the prosecution evidence was not trustworthy so as
to bring home the offence to the accused beyond the
possibility of a reasonable doubt. The trial court
expressed the view that the first information report had
been recorded after great delay and after there had been
consultation with the interested persons,. The special
report had also not reached the duty magistrate- till after
the expiry of 8 or 9 hours though the duty magistrate lives
in the same town. The inquest report prepared by A.S.I.
Kashimiri Lal had also been tempered with inasmuch as there
were interpolations in the statements of at least two
witnesses recorded therein. Gokal Chand (P.W.3) was also
disbelieved by the trial court and so was Trilochan Singh
(P.W. 9). The recovery of blood-stained sword at the
instance of Trilok Singh, appellant, was also discarded as
unreliable. The site plan prepared by A.S.I. Kashmiri Lal
was also held to have been prepared not, as it purposed to
be, before 9.45 a.m. but long thereafter when he had decided
to implicate Hazara Singh also as a party to the conspiracy
under s. 120B, I.P.C. As observed earlier, all the accused
were acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
On appeal by the State the High Court considered the entire
evidence in great detail and examined all the material
circumstances which had weighed with the trial court in
disbelieving the prosecution story, and in disagreement with
the trial court, cameto the conclusion that the
prosecution had fully proved the case against the two
appellants in this Court.
Shri R. L. Kohli, the learned counsel for the appellants,
took us through the relevant evidence and the judgments of
the two courts below. The principal argument passed by him
in support of this appeal was that the learned
Additional Sessions Judge had on a consideration of the
entire evidence come to a conclusion which is reasonable
and had, the basis of that conclusion held that the
prosecution witnesses were not reliable and that the accused
were, therefore, entitled to acquittal. The High Court,
according to this submission, was not justified in
reappraising the evidence for itself and in
disagreeing with the reasoning of the trail court for
convicting the appellants on appeal against acquittal.
We would first deal with the argument that the first
information report was recorded after a long delay, that the
inquest report was tampered with by A.S.I. Kashmiri Lal, and
that the special report was not sent to the duty magistrate
with the promptitude
968
expected under the Code of Criminal Procedure. P.W. 13,
S.I.Pritam Lal has deposed that on May 23, 1966 when he was
posted as Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Kotwal Jullundur he
received ruqa from Kashmiri Lal on the basis of which Ex.
PD/1 was recorded by him. He thereupon went to the spot in
Basti Danishmandan and reached there at 10 a.m. Dead body of
Sham Singh had by that ‘time already been despatched by
A.S.I. Kashmiri Lal This witness then took over the
investigation from Kashmiri Lal. There was no cross-
examination worth the name of this witness suggesting that
he had not told the truth in court. The F.I.R. purports to
have been recorded at 9.5 a.m. on May 23, 1966. The time of
occurrence is stated to be 7-30 a.m. on that very day and
the distance between the place of occurrence and the Police
Station is about 24 miles. If S.I. Pritam Lal reached the
place of occurrence at 10 a.m. as deposed by him, which
statement is not shaken by any cross-examination then
plainly the F.I.R. cannot be considered to have been lodged
after undue delay. Nor can it be said that the do-ad body
of the deceased was despatched from the place of occurrence
after undue delay. Kashmiri Lal, A.S.I. appeared as P.W.
21. According to his testimony on May 23, 1966 when he was
posted as A.S.I. in charge of police post no. 5, police
station, Jullunder City at about 7.40 a.m. he was present at
bus stand at Basti Gujan when Laxman Singh (P.W.3) appeared
before him and made statement Ex. PD/I which was forwarded
by the witness with his endorsement to the police station
Jullundur City for registration of the case at about 8.30
a.m. Kashmiri Lal accompanied Luxman Singh to the spot in
Main Bazar Basti Danishmandan reaching there at about 8.40
a.m. The dead body of Sham Singh was lying near the shop of
Babu Ram and Narinder Singh, Gokul Chand and several other
persons were present there. He prepared the inquest report
Ex. PC and recorded the statements of Narinder Singh and
Gokal Chand and sent the dead body with the inquest report
to the Mortuary for postmortem at about 9.45 a.m. through
constable Takhat Singh. In cross-examination it was
elicited from him that he had prepared a site plan Ex. PH/1
when the dead body was still there meaning thereby that he
had prepared the site plan before 9.45 a.m. The deceased was
at that time wearing only a banian and a chaddar. The
suggestion that it was he who had recorded the F.I.R. and
that he had prepared the site plan in the afternoon in
consultation with Luxman Singh, Narinder Singh and Ram Singh
(P.Ws) in the presence of Inspector Janak Raj was denied by
him. The inquest report Ex. P/C was subjected to strong
criticism by Shri Kohli on three counts. In the first
instance it was urged that the statements of Narinder Singh
and Gokal Chand which were attached to the inquest report
originally referred to two injuries caused by Trilok Singh,
appellant, with his sword, but later the
969
digit 4 in one and the word four in the other were added in
those statements so as to make them read as if two or four
injuries were inflicted by Trilok Singh by his sword.
According to Shri Kohli’s suggestion the medical examination
disclosed that there were five injuries on the person of the
deceased. From this it was sought to be concluded that the
inquest report was tampered with by A.S.I. Kashmiri Lal so
that the number of injuries mentioned therein may not differ
from the number suggested by the medical evidence. The
second criticism related to the insertion in the site plan
of S. 120B which only relates to Hazara Singh, whose name
had not been mentioned by anyone up to that stage. From the
insertion of S. 120B in the site plan it was inferred that
Kashmiri Lal had some enmity with Hazara Singh and that he
had, therefore, already made up his mind to falsely rope
Hazara Singh in. On this line of. reasoning it was
suggested that the investigation carried out by Kashmiri Lal
was far from honest, faithful and fair. It was contended
that when cross-examined Kashmiri Lal admitted that he had
inserted the offence under S. 120B in the site plan at the
same time, when the offence under s. 302/34, I.P.C., was
mentioned. The denial by this witness that he had recorded
the first information report and prepared the site plan late
in the evening in consultation with Laxman Singh, Narinder
Singh and Ram Singh, P.Ws. argued Shri Kohli, was not
correct. In our opinion the criticism levelled by Shri
Kohli does not justify the rejection of the F.I.R. or of the
site plan and the inquest report, as suggested by Shri
Kohli. It is noteworthy that in Laxman Singh’s information
to P.W. 21 there is a clear reference to Hazara Singh’s
grievance and his interest in the land in dispute. It
cannot, therefore, be said that in the site plan mention of
Hazara and of an offence under s. 120B, being a later
interpolation, is a suspicious circumstance suggesting
unfairness of the investigation.
P.W. 21, when asked, denied that he had made interpolations
by adding figure 4 in the statement of Narinder Singh and
word four in the statement of Gokal Chand. Now as stated by
P.W. 13, whom we see no reason to disbelieve, that the
inquest report was sent along with the dead body then that
report was prepared with due dispatch and sent in due course
without any delay. It was not improperly retained for any
sinister purpose of finalising it after consulting other
prosecution witnesses. It was suggested by Shri Kohli that
after the post-mortem examination, inquest report was handed
over to the police officers and they must have made the
necessary insertions in the two statements so as to make
them conform to the medical report. If that was the object,
when, one would have, expected the statements to convey that
there were five injuries and not merely two or four.
However, assuming without holding, that in the
970
inquest report the figure 4 and word four were added
afterwards, in our view, this by itself does not detract
from the general trustworthiness of the inquest report nor
does it render the investigation suspicious so as to be
fatal to the prosecution.
Shri Kohli strongly criticised the fact that the occurrence
report contemplated by S. 157, Cr.P.C. was sent to the
magistrate concerned very late. Indeed, this challenge,
like the argument of interpolation and belated despatch of
the inquest report, was developed for the purpose of showing
that the investigation was not just, fair and forthright
and, therefore, the prosecution case must be looked at with
great suspicion. This argument is also unacceptable. No
doubt, the report reached the magistrate at about 6 p.m.
Section 157, Cr. P.C. requires such report to be sent
forthwith by the police officer concerned to a magistrate
empowered to take cognisance of such offence. This is
really designed to keep the magistrate informed of the
investigation of such cognizable offence so as to be able to
control the investigation and if necessary to give
appropriate direction under s. 159. But when we find in
this case that the F.I.R. was actually recorded without
delay and the investigation started on the basis of that
F.I.R. and there is no other infirmity brought to our
notice, then, however improper or objectionable the delayed
receipt of the report by the magistrate concerned it cannot
by itself justify the conclusion that the investigation was
tainted and the prosecution insupportable. It is not the
appellants case that they have been prejudiced by this
delay.
Shri Kohli took us through the evidence of the- eye
witnesses and pointed out certain minor discrepancies. But
his main contention was based on the argument that the
judgment of the trial court was reasonable and it was open
to a court to come to the conclusion to which it came. The
High Court was, therefore, not justified in reversing the
judgment of acquittal into one of conviction. In support of
his submission he relied on three decisions of this Court
1. Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan(1).
2. Ramabhupala Reddy v. State of A p. (2).
3. Bansidhar Mohanty v. State of Orissa(3).
In the latest decision of this Court in Ramabhupala Reddy
(supra) it has been observed that the controversy in regard
to the scope
(1) [1961] 3 S.C.R. 120.
(2) A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 460.
(3) A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 585.
971
of an appeal against an order of acquittal has been settled
by this Court in Sanwant Singh (supra) in which the legal
position was summarised thus :
“1. An appellate Court has full powers to
review the evidence upon which the order of
acquittal is founded;
2. the principles laid down in Sheo
Swarup’s case (61 I.A. 398) afforded a correct
guide for the appellate court’s approach to a
case disposing of such an appeal;
3. the different phraseology used in the
judgments of this court such as :
(a) ‘substantial and compelling reasons’;
(b) good and sufficiently cogent reasons’;
(c)’strong reasons’ are not intended to
curtail the undoubted power of an appellate
court in an appeal against acquittal to review
the entire evidence and to come to its own
conclusion, but in doing so it should not only
consider every matter on record having a
bearing on the questions of fact and the rea-
sons given by the court below in support of
its order of acquittal but should express the
reasons in its judgment which led it to hold
that the acquittal was not justified.”
This, in our view, correctly summarises the legal position
as finally settled by this Court. The submission urged by
Shri Kohli, therefore,, that merely because the judgment of
the trial court prima facie seems reasonable there is no
scope for reassessment of the evidence by the appellate
court is unacceptable. The court of appeal has full power
under the statute to go into the entire evidence and all the
relevant circumstances of the case for coming to its own
conclusion about the guilt or innocence of the accused
bearing in mind the initial presumption of the innocence of
an accused person and the fact that he was acquitted by the
trial court. We do not think that the High Court
committed any error in the appraisal of the evidence on the
record and in arriving at its own conclusion as to the guilt
of the appellants. The criticism about the insertion of S.
120B in the plan Ex PH/1, in our view, may raise slight
suspecion but in view of the trustworthiness of the
prosecution evidence led in the case we do not think that
in any way justifies any grave suspicion of the prosecution
story.
Besides, the case is now before us under Art. 136 of the
Constitution. We allowed Shri Kohli not only to state the
case broadly
972
and to take us through the judgments of the two courts below
but also to take us through such evidence as he considered
proper for persuading us to hold that the High Court had not
followed the principals laid down in Sanwant Singh’s case
(supra) or that its conclusions were otherwise so erroneous
as to justify interference by this Court under Art. 136 of
the Constitution. We are not persuaded to hold that there
is any ground for differing with the conclusion of the High
Court.
The result, therefore, is that this appeal must fail and is
dismissed.
G.C. Appeal dismissed.
973