PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. RESPONDENT: JAGIR SINGH AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT06/08/1973 BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ ALAGIRISWAMI, A. CITATION: 1973 AIR 2407 1974 SCR (1) 328 1974 SCC (3) 277 CITATOR INFO : RF 1973 SC2773 (25) R 1977 SC 472 (13) R 1983 SC 867 (25) ACT: Criminal practice and procedure-Appreciation of evidence and sentence. HEADNOTE: The respondents were convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The High Court acquitted them in appeal. In appeal to this Court, setting aside the acquittal, HELD : (1) A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and phantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures. [337F-H] In the present case, the High Court has rejected the prosecution evidence which was ex facie of a convincing nature on grounds which partake of the nature of conjectures and surmises. The view taken by the High Court is manifestly unreasonable and has resulted in miscarriage of justice. A perusal of the judgment of the High Court shows that in acquitting the accused respondents, the High Court approached the entire matter in a spirit of distrust and suspicion of the various officers who dealt with the case. [337H-338B] (2) The High Court, while rejecting the prosecution evidence, made unwarranted criticism couched in harsh language about the magistrate who received the copy of F.I.R., the doctor, the investigating officer and the Sessions Judge who tried the case. [337E-F] (3) In view of the fact that more than two years had elapsed since the High Court acquitted the respondents, it would be more appropriate to sentence the accused to imprisonment for life instead of to the extreme penalty. [338B-C] JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 7 of
1972.
Appeal by special Leave from the judgment and order dated
25-2-1971 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl.
Appeal No. 1031/70.
A. N. Mulla and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
Nuruddin Ahmed and R. L. Kohli, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KHANNA, J. Nine accused Jagir Singh (27), Baljit Singh
(36), Karam Singh (30), Amarjit Singh (38), Atma Singh (27).
Chsnan Singh (22), Tarlok Singh (19), Joginder Singh (22)
and Swarn Singh (23) were tried in the court of Sessions
Judge Gurdasnur in connection, with an occurrence which took
place on July 8, 1948 in village Longowal Khurd. In the
course of that occurrence Labh Singh (35), Joginder Singh
(30,) and Lakha Singh (25) received fatal in-
329
juries. Injuries were also received by Ajit Singh, Jarnail
Singh, Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh PWs. Learned
Sessions Judge convicted Jagir Singh and Baljit Singh under
section 302 Indian Penal Code on two counts for causing the
death of Joginder Singh and Lakha Singh deceased and
sentenced them to death on each count. The said two accused
were also convicted under section 302 read with section 34
Indian Penal Code in connection with the murder of Labh
Singh and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on
that account. In addition to that, the aforesaid two
accused were convicted under section 307 Indian Penal Code
on four counts for the injuries caused to Mohinder Singh,
Ajit Singh, Jarnail Singh and Harbans Singh PWs and were
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
three years on each count. Karam Singh accused was
convicted under section 302 Indian Penal Code for causing
the death of Labh Singh deceased and was sentenced to death.
In connection with the death of Joginder Singh and Lakha
Singh, Karam Singh was convicted under section 302 read with
section 34 Indian Penal Code on two counts and was sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for life. Karam Singh was, in
addition, convicted under section 307 read with section 34
Indian Penal Code for injuries caused to Ajit Singh, Jarnail
Singh, Mohinder Singh and Harbans Singh and was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years on
each count. The remaining six accused were acquitted by
the, Sessions Judge. On appeal and reference, the Punjab
and Haryana High Court acquitted Jagir Singh, Baljit Singh
and Karam Singh by giving them the benefit of doubt. The
State of Punjab has now come up in appeal to this Court by
special leave against the judgment of the High Court
acquitting the above mentioned three accused respondents.
Out of the nine accused, Karam Singh, Amarjit Singh and
Baljit Singh are brothers. Likewise, Jagir Singh, Joginder
Singh and Tarlok Singh accused are brothers. Chanan Singh
accused, who is a constable in the Border Security Force,
add Swarn Singh accused too are brothers. Atma Singh
accused is the maternal uncle of Jagir Singh. Amongst the
three deceased persons, Labh Singh and Joginder Singh were
brothers. Chanan Singh (PW 8) and Mohinder Singh (PW 27)
are the brothers of those two deceased persons. Harbans
Singh (PW 21 ) is brother of Lakha Singh deceased.
The prosecution case is that the relations between the party
of the accused and that of the deceased persons were
strained for about 10 or 12 years before the occurrence, and
the two groups had since then been involved in a number of
cross criminal cases. About two years before the
occurrence, Lakha Singh deceased along with some others had
caused injuries to Atma Singh and Puran Singh, uncle of
Jagir Singh accused. A criminal case was on that account
pending in. the court of Magistrate Batala. July 8, 1968
was the date of hearing in that case and on that day Chanan
Singh (PW 8) accompanied Lakha Singh to the court at Batala
for pursuing that case. After the proceedings of the case
were over, Chanan Singh (PW 8) came back with Lakha Singh
deceased to his house in village Longowal Khurd. Longowal
Khurd is at a distance of about two-and-a-half miles from
Batala. The house of Labh Singh deceased was at a short
distance from that
330
of Lakha Singh in Longowal Khurd. Chanan Singh (PW 8)
himself lived in Longowal Kalan which is at a distance of
about two and a half furlongs from Longowal Khurd.
When Chanan Singh (PW 8) was still present at the house of
Lakha Singh deceased, it is stated, they heard the noise of
changars (challenging shouts) from near the, house of Labh
Singh deceased. Hearing the noise of changars, Lakha Singh
deceased and his brother Harbans Singh, (PW 21) went to the
house of Labh Singh. Chanan Singh PW also followed them to
the house. of Labk Singh. On arrival there Chanan Singh (PW
8) found Labh Singh, Joginder Singh and Lahha Singh deceased
as well as Ajit Singh (PW 19), Jarnail Singh (PW 22),
Mohinder Singh (PW 27), Harbans Singh (PW 21), Bawa Singh
(PW 25) and Chanan Singh (PW 26), present in the courtyard
of Labh Sigh’s house. Joginder Kaufman, wife of Labh Singh,
and Harbans Kaur, wife of Bawa Singh, too were present
there. The nine accused are then stated to have come near
the compound wall of the courtyard of Labh Singh’s house.
The compound wall was about sixand-a-half feet high from
outside and four-and-a half feet high from inside because
the courtyard was at a higher level than the ground outside.
At the instigation of Tarlok Singh, Atma Singh and Swarn
Singh accused, it is stated, Jagir Singh and Baljit Singh
accused threw one hand-grenade each into the courtyard of
Labh Singh’s house. Both the hand-grenades exploded in the
courtyard as a result of which Labh Singh, Joginder Singh
and Lakha Singh deceased and Mohinder Singh, Jarnail Singh,
Ajit Singh and Harbans Singh PWs received injuries. All the nine
accused then came inside the courtyard of the house of
Labh Singh deceased. Karam Singh and Amarjit Singh accused
were armed with spears. Tarlok Singh, Joginder Singh, Atma
Singh, Chanan Singh and Swarn Singh accused had kirpans,
while Jagir Singh and Baljit Singh were empty handed. Karam
Singh accused on arrival delivered a spear blow in the left
flank of Labh Singh deceased. Amarjit Singh accused also
gave a spear blow on the right arm of Labh accused dealt
a kirpan blow on the nose of Harbans Singh PW, while Chanan
Singh accused gave a blow with his sheathed kirpan on the
back of Mohinder Singh PW. Swarn Singh accused stepped
towards Chanan Singh,. (PW 8) for attacking him with a
kirpan whereupon Chanan Singh (PW 8) took up a panda from
the courtyard of Labh Singh and brandished it towards Swarn
Singh. One blow with that danda was given on the left
shoulder of Swarn Singh accused. Those present in the
courtyard also raised alarm whereupon the nine accused ran
away.
Some water was then poured into the mouth of Labh Singh, but
he succumbed to the injuries received by Mm. Mohinder Singh
and Harbans Singh PWs then brought a cart from the house of
Charlie Singh (PW 8). Lakha Singh and Joginder Singh
deceased were laid an that cart. Chanan Singh (PW 8),
Harbans Singh, Sarjan Singh and Mohinder Singh then took
that cart to Batala hospital. When they arrived near the
hospital, Chanan Singh (PW 8) went to police station Sadar
Batala and lodged there report P.A. at 11.15 p.m.
331
Sub Inspector Kehar Singh (PW 30) then went to the hospital.
Before doing so, the Sub Inspector deputed two Assistant Sub
Inspectors and four constables to proceed to the place of
occurrence. Sub Inspector Kehar Singh found Lakha Singh and
Joginder Singh present in the hospital. Their injuries were
being examined by Dr. N. S. Dhillon when the Sub Inspector
arrived there. On the applications of the Sub Inspector,
Dr. Dhillon made an endorsement that Joginder Singh and
Lakha Singh were in fit condition to make statements. The
Sub Inspector then deputed a head constable to call the
magistrate having jurisdiction in the area. It was raining
heavily at that time and as the magistrate did not arrive,
the Sub Inspector recorded the dying declarations of Lakha
Singh and Joginder Singh in the presence of Dr. Dhillon.
The condition of Lakha Singh and Joginder Singh was found to
be serious and so they were sent to V. J. Hospital Amritsar.
Sub Inspector Kehar Singh then went from Batala hospital to
the place of occurrence and reached there at 5 a.m. The Sub
Inspector found the dead body of Labh Singh lying on a cot.
The Sub Inspector prepared inquest report relating to the
dead body of Labh Singh. Blood-stained earth was taken into
possession from three places in the courtyard of Labh
Singh’s house. The, Sub Inspector also took into possession
lever PI, percussion cap P2 and four pieces of exploded
hand-grenade from the place of occurrence and put them into
a sealed parcel.
Injuries of Harbans Singh, Ajit Singh and Jarnail Singh were
examined by Dr. N. S. Dhillon on July 9. Harbans Singh was
found to have two lacerated wounds, one on his right index
finger and the other on the bridge of his nose. Both the
injuries were grievous. Ajit Singh was found to have one
punctured wound with averted lacerated margins on his right
thigh, while Jarnail Singh had one lacerated wound on the
right side of his neck. The injuries of Ajit Singh and
Jarnail Singh were found to be simple. Mohinder Singh was
examined by Dr. S. P. Mago on July 10, 1968 and was found to
have four simple injuries on his person.
Lakha Singh and Joginder Singh who were sent to V. J.
Hospital Amritsar succumbed to their injuries on July 10 and
11, 1968 respectively. Post mortem examination on the dead
bodies of Lakha Singh and Joginder Singh was performed by
Dr. Narinder Mohan on July 11, 1968.
The lever, precussion cap and the other parts of the hand-
grenades which had been recovered from the place of
occurrence were sent to PW 20 Shri J. M. John, Senior
Inspector of Explosives. Shri John expressed the opinion
that the above articles were the remnants of an exploded
hand-grenade.
At the trial the plea of the nine accused was denial
simpliciter. Chanan Singh and Swarn Singh accused, in the
course of their statements ‘ also added that they had heard
changers on the night of occurrence at about 10 p.m. from
the direction of guru dwarf. The explosion of a bomb was
also heard at that time but these two accused did not stir
out of their houses. Defence evidence was led on behalf of
the accused. The purport of the defence evidence was that
one
332
Bachan Singh had been admitted into Batala Hospital with
multiple injuries on the night between July 8 and 9, 1968.
A metallic substance was thereafter recovered from the body
of Bachan Singh on July 20, 1968. Defence evidence was also
led to show that Labh Singh deceased, who was a bus driver
of the Punjab Roadways, was away to Pathankot at about 7
p.m. on the day of occurrence.
Learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution case
against Joginder Singh, Baljit Singh and Karam Singh accused
had been proved beyond any shadow of doubt. He accepted the
ocular evidence produced in the case. Reliance was,
however, not placed upon the dying declarations of Lakha
Singh and Joginder Singh. The remaining six accused were
given the benefit of doubt and were acquitted. The High
Court on appeal and reference acquitted Jagir Singh, Baljit
Singh and Karam Singh also by giving them the benefit of
doubt for reasons which would be dealt with hereafter.
In appeal before us Mr. Mulla on behalf of the
appellant state has argued that the High Court was in error
in setting aside the conviction of the three accused-
respondents and the view taken by the High Court was
manifestly unreasonable. As against that Mr. Nuruddin on
behalf of the respondents has canvassed for the correctness
of the view taken by the High Court. There is, in our
opinion, considerable force in the stand taken on behalf of
the appellant. The evidence of Dr. Dhillon, who performed
postmortem examination on the body of Labh Singh, shows that
there were five injuries on the body of the deceased. Out
of them, three could be caused with a hand-grenade, while
two had been caused with a sharp pointed weapon. One of the
last two mentioned injuries was a punctured incised wound on
the back of the right forearm, while the other injury.was as
under :
“Punctured incised wound 1″X3/4″ with clean
cut margins, over 5th rib and 5th left
intercostal space in mid axillary line with
fracture of 5th rib, puncture of left lung
near the fissure, went through the entire
lung, cross punctured the walls of left
auricle, haematoma over the lung and pleural
cavity pleura punctured left side, pericardium
puncture”.
The above mentioned injury was sufficient in ordinary course
of nature to cause death. The evidence of Dr. Narinder
Mohan, who performed postmortem examination on the bodies of
Joginder Singh and Lakha Singh, shows that Joginder Singh
had three lacerated wounds which could be caused with a
hand-grenade. Likewise, Lakha Singh had two injuries which
could be caused with a hand-grenade. The following injury
of Joginder Singh was sufficient in ordinary course of
nature to cause death :
“A penetrating wound 1-1/2″ roundish, with
lacerated margins 1″‘ to the left of the mid-
epigastric line 3″ above the umbilicus with
omentum seen out of the wound. There was no
charring of the margins.”
333
In the case of Lakha Singh, the fatal injury was in the
abdominal cavity. Operation had been performed at the site
of the injury in an attempt to save Lakha Singh.
According to the prosecution case, the hand-grenade injuries
to the three deceased persons and injured prosecution
witnesses were caused by Jagir Singh and Baljit Singh
accused when they threw the handgrenades in the courtyard of
Labh Singh’s house. It is further the case of the
prosecution that the fatal punctured incised wound in mid
axillary line of Labh Singh deceased was caused by Karam
Singh accused when he gave the spear blow to Labh Singh
deceased. The prosecution in support of the above
allegations has examined Chanan Singh (PW 9), Ajit Singh (PW
19), Harbans Singh (PW 21), Jarnail Singh (PW 22), Bawa
Singh (PW 25), Chanan Singh s/o Sawan Singh (PW 26) and
Mohinder Singh (PW 27) as eye witnesses of the occurrence.
There appears, in our opinion. to be no cogent ground as to
why the evidence of the above mention’ed witnesses.
regarding the complicity of the accused-respondents be not
accepted. It is, no doubt, true as pointed out by Mr.
Nuruddin, that these witnesses belong to the party of the
deceased but that fact, in our opinion, would only make the
court scrutinise the evidence of these witnesses more
closely. If their evidence can stand that test, as it does
in the present case, there is no reason why it should not be
acted upon. Some of the witnesses are close relatives of
the deceased persons and it is most difficult to believe
that they would spare the real assailants and falsely
mention the names of innocent persons as having caused the
injuries to the deceased persons. Four of the eye
witnesses, namely, Ajit Singh (PW 19), liarbans Singh (PW
21), Jarnail Singh (PW 22) and Mohinder Singh (PW 27)
received injuries during the course of the present
occurrence and there can be hardly any manner of doubt re-
garding their presence at the scene of occurrence. It is
not possible to accept the contention that these witnesses
in spite of the attack upon them and the three deceased
persons failed to fix the identity of the assailants.
Another fact of which note should be taken is that the first
information report in this case was lodged at 11.15 p.m.,
within a few hours of the occurrence. Although Mr. Nuruddin
has urged that there was delay in lodging the first
information report, we find it difficult to accept this
submission. The occurrence, according to the prosecution
case, took place at 7.15 p.m. As a result of the occurrence,
Labh Singh died soon thereafter, while Joginder Singh and
Lakha Singh received serious injuries. In addition to that,
four prosecution witnesses also received injuries. It is
plain that the prosecution witnesses must have got stunned
because of the sudden occurrence in the course of which
three of their close relatives received injuries which
ultimately proved fatal and four others were also injured.
Attempt was made to pour water into the mouth of Labh Singh
deceased but Labh Singh died soon thereafter. It must have
taken some time for Chanan Singh and others to get out of
the state of shock and regain their composure’. They then
arranged for a cart which was brought from Chanan Singh’s
house in Longowal Kalan. Joginder Singh and Lakha Singh
were then laid in that cart and the same was taken to
Batala, at a distance of
334
two-and-a-half miles. It cannot, in the circumstances, be
said that the period of four hours which was taken in
lodging the report at the police station was in any way
inordinately long. The fact that the first information
report was lodged at the time it Purports to have been done
can also be not disputed because the first lnformation
report was received by the magistrate having jurisdiction in
the area at 1 a.m. as is borne out by the endorsement of the
magistrate on the report. The first information report,
lodged at the police station within a few hours of the
occurrence, contained all the, material facts and, in our
opinion, the first information report lends considerable
corroboration to the ocular evidence adduced at the trial.
The defence suggestion which was put in the cross
examination of the prosecution witnesses was that a number
of persons had Collected near the village gurudwara when a
hand-grenade exploded there and the three deceased persons
and the prosecution witnesses received injuries. This
suggestion, in the circumstances of the case, was, in our
opinion, wholly unfounded. The evidence of Sub Inspector
Kehar Singh shows that when he arrived at the scene of
occurrence, he found the different pieces of exploded hand-
grenade in the courtyard of the house of Labh Singh
deceased. This fact would tend to show that the explosion
had taken place in the courtyard and not at the gurudwar-.
It is also not clear as to what advantage the prosecution
would have derived in suppressing the actual place of
occurrence and in mentioning a wrong place of occurrence.
As would appear from the narration of facts, only members of
one party received injuries as a result of the explosion of
hand-grenade. If the hand-grenade had exploded in a large
gathering near the village gurudwara, it is not likely that
the splinters from the exploded hand-grenade would hit the
members of only one party and avoid those not belonging to
that party. Labh Singh deceased at the time of the present
occurrence was wearing only a kachha besides a parna, on his
head. It is not likely that Labh Singh would have gone in
that state without a shirt to the gatliering near the
village gurudwara. On the contrary, the fact that Labh
Singh was without a shirt points to the inference that the
occurrence took place in the courtyard of his house.
The High Court while rejecting the prosecution evidence
referred to the fact that in one of the plans, height of the
outer wall of the courtyard of Labb Singh’s house was
mentioned to be 6-1/2 ft. while in the other, it was
mentioned to be 4-1/2 ft. This discrepancy has been
explained by Bal Kishan Draftsman (PW 9), whose evidence
shows that the level of the courtyard of Labh Singh’s house
was higher than the ground outside. The height of the
boundary wall consequently measured to be 6-1/2 ft from
outside and 4-1/2 ft from inside. No question was put to
the witness in cross-examination, and we can find no cogent
reason as to why the evidence of Bal Kishan be not accepted.
There could also, in our opinion, be no difficulty for those
present inside the courtyard from seeing as to who were the
persons who threw the hand-grenades, because a 41 ft high
wall could not obstruct their view in fixing the identity of
the culprits.
335
Another circumstance which weighed with ‘the High Court in
rejecting the prosecution evidence was the nature of the
injury, on the nose of Harbans Singh (PW 21). According to
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the above injury
had been caused with a kirpan by Joginder Singh. The High
Court took the view that the said injury had been caused by
a hand-grenade splinter. It was ‘held that as the witnesses
had deposed that the injury had been caused by a kirpan
blow, the evidence of the witnesses was not trustworthy. In
this respect we find that the evidence of Dr. Dhillon shows
that he expressed the opinion in answer to a police query
that the injury on the nose of Harbans Singh could have been
caused with a kirpan. It is, no doubt, true that Dr.
Dhillon also expressed the opinion that the said injury
could have been caused by a missile or other object, but
this fact would not necessarily show that the eye witnesses
in this case have made false statements regarding the injury
on the nose of Harbans Singh. In order to draw an inference
about the falsity of the evidence of prosecution witnesses
in this respect, it is not enough to show that the injury on
the nose of Harbans Singh could have been caused either with
a kirpan or with a missile, it is also necessary to rule out
the Possibility of the said injury having been caused with a
kirpan. The evidence of Dr. Dhillon plainly does not rule
out such a possibility.
The High Court also appears to have been impressed by the
defence version that Labh Singh deceased was present in
Pathankot at about 7 p.m. on the day of occurrence.
Reliance in this context was placed upon tile testimony of
Radhey Sham (DW 3) who was conductor of Bus PNP 6972 and who
has deposed about Labh Singh having driven that bus to
Pathankot on the, day of occurrence and about that bus
having reached Pathankot at 7 p.m. We find it most difficult
to accept this statement of Radhey Sham in the face of other
evidence brought on the record and the surrounding
circumstances of the case. Dalip Singh (PW 11) is a yard
master of Punjab Roadways depot at Pathankot. The evidence
of this witness was given on the basis of the relevant
records. According to this witness, two drivers had been
allotted for the bus in question and they were Labli Singh
deceased and Piara Singh (PW 12). Dalip Singh’s testimony
shows that on the day of occurrence it was Piara Singh who
brought the bus in question to Pathankot at 7 p.m. As the
evidence of this witness is based upon the records , it is
difficult to discard his testimony. The evidence of Dalip
Singh gets corroboration from the testimony of Piara Singh
who has deposed that when the said bus arrived at Batala at
about 5 p.m. on the day of occurrence on its way from
Amritsar to Pathankot, the witness relieved Labh Singh
deceased. Labh Singn then got down from the-bus at Batala
and the witness took it to Pathankot. Another witness who
has been examined on the point is Yes Raj (DW 2), who was
the booking clerk of the Punjab Roadways office at
Pathankot. According to this witness, the advance way bill
of the bus in question showed that its driver was Labh Singh
when it left Amritsar for Pthankot. The witness, however,
admitted that the entry in the way bill was made at the
commencement of the journey. In the circumstances, the
evidence of the witness is quite consistent with Labh Singh
having been relieved by Piara Singh at Batala.
336
Labh Singh admittedly died during the course of this
occurrence. Had he been at Batala at 7 p.m. on the day of
occurrence, it is not likely that he could have reached his
village before 9.30 or 10 p.m. on the day of occurrence. It
is in evidence that a bus takes two hours to travel from
Pathankot to Batala. It is difficult to believe that a
report about the occurrence at Longowal Khurd could have
been lodged at Batala Sadar police station at 11-15 p.m. if,
in fact, the occurrence had taken place after 9.30 or 10
p.m.
We are also not impressed by the reasoning that the
occurrence took place at a late hour when it was not
possible to fix the identity of the assailants. The case of
the prosecution, as mentioned earlier, is that the
occurrence took place at 7.15 p.m. The sun set on the day of
occurrence ,it 7.28 p.m. There was full moon on July 9 and
the occurrence took place a day earlier than that. As the
occurrence took place before sun set there could, in our
opinion be no difficultly in fixing the identity of the
assailants. Even if the occurrence had taken place after
the sun-set time, there could still be no difficulty in
finding out as to who the assailants were. A number of
persons were present in the courtyard of Labh Singh’s house.
There is no suggestion that a lamp had been lighted at that
time. The fact that a large number of persons were present
in the courtyard without lighting a lamp would show that
there was enough light at that time. It is also significant
that the assailants gave two Barcha blows to Labh Singh de-
ceased. If there was enough light to enable the assailants
to fix the identity of Labh Singh before they gave Barcha
blows to him, it stands to reason that the same light would
be enough for others to see as to who the assailants were.
We, therefore, have no hesitation in rejecting, the argument
that there was not enough light at the time of occurrence to
enable the prosecution witnesses to fix identity of the,
culprits.
Another factor which weighed with the High Court in
discarding the prosecution evidence was that Bachan Singh
(DW 6) was admitted in Batala hospital a few minutes before
Joginder Singh and Lakba Singh deceased were brought there.
According to the testimony of Dr. N. S. Dhillon, a metallic
foreign substance was recovered from the arm of Bachan Singh
on July 20, 1968. The High Court took the view that Bachan
Singh too had been injured during the course of the present
occurrence and the fact that no reference was made to Bachan
Singh either in the first information report or in the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses would go to show that
the prosecution evidence is not worthy of credence. In this
respect we find that Bachan Singh was examined as a defence
witness. Bachan Singh in the course of his evidence denied
being present at the scene of occurrence and having been
injured at that time. According to Bachan Singh, he had
received an injury during the course of a dispute with his
father. Piaro, sister of Bachan Singh, was also examined as
DW 4. She too has denied that Bachan Singh was present at
the time of the present occurrence. It is, in our opinion,
not necessary to dilate upon the injury of Bachan Singh
because even if it may be assumed that Bachan Singh too
received an injury during the course of the present
occurrence, that
337
would not materially affect the substance of the prosecution
evidence regarding the guilt of the three accused-
respondents.
The learned judges of the High Court in rejecting the
prosecution evidence have made observations critical about
the magistrate, who received the copy of the first
information report, as well as about Dr. Dhillon, Sub
Inspector Kehar Singh and. the learned Sessions Judge. So
far as the magistrate is concerned, it observed that he was
an irresponsible lazy officer as he could not reach the
hospital at about 1 a.m. on the night of occurrence in spite
of heavy rain for recording the dying declarations of
Joginder Singh and Lakha Singh. As, regards Dr. Dhillon,
the criticism leveled is that he expressed an opinion in
answer to the query of the investigating officer that the
injury on the nose of Harding Singh could be caused with a
kirpan. It was observed that the doctor had gone out of the
way to please the investigating officer. The doctor was
also criticized for attesting the dying declarations.
Regarding Sub Inspector Kehar Singh, the High Court formed
the impression that he was a domineering police officer
because lie obtained opinion favorable to the prosecution
from Dr. Dhillon. It was also observed that the Sub
Inspector had tried to be over clever. There was enough
material available, according to the High Court, which could
have been made better use of by a more imaginative officer
without artificially or artfully advancing the time of
occurrence to day time. As regards the learned Sessions
Judge, the High Court observed that the present marathon
trial appeared to have strained his capacities to the
maximum limits. The criticism leveled by the High Court
against the above mentioned officers, in our opinion, was
not warranted and was couched in language, which was rather
harsh.
Perusal of the judgment of the High Court shows that in
acquitting the accused-respondents, the High Court
approached the entire matter in a spirit of distrust and
suspicion of the various officers who dealt with this case.
We further find that the judgment of the High Court is based
upon conjectures, surmises and suspicion. Looked at in the
context of the facts of the case, we find that the view
taken by the High Court is manifestly unreasonable. It is
consequently not possible to sustain the judgment of the
High Court.
A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one in
free to give flight to one’s imagination and phantasm. It
concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused
arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he
is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the
product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriv-
ing at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged
with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the
evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic
worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final
analysis would have to depend upon’ its own facts. Although
the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the
accused, the courts should not at the same time reject
evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are
fanciful or in the nature of conjectures.
The High Court in the present case, in our- opinion, has
rejected the prosecution evidence which was ex facie of a
convincing nature
338
on grounds which partake of the nature of conjectures and
surmises. The view taken by the High Court, as already
observed, is manifestly unreasonable and has resulted in
miscarriage of justice. We accordingly accept the appeal,
set aside the judgment of the High Court and convict the
accused-respondents for the offences for which they were
convicted by the trial court. As regards the sentence for
the offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code, we find
that a period of more than two years has elapsed since the
acquittal of the accused-respondents by the High Court. It
would, in the circumstances, be appropriate if the extreme
penalty for the offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code
is not exacted from the accused-respondents. We, therefore,
:sentence- the accused-respondents for the offence under
section 302 Indian Penal Code to imprisonment for life. The
sentences imposed upon the accused-respondents for the
offences under section 302 read with section 34, section 307
and section 307 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code are
maintained. The sentences of each of the accused-
respondents would run concurrently,
V.P.S.
Appeal allowed.
339