{"id":44184,"date":"1978-05-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1978-05-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-anr-vs-ajit-singh-and-anr-on-2-may-1978"},"modified":"2017-01-12T07:55:05","modified_gmt":"2017-01-12T02:25:05","slug":"mohan-lal-anr-vs-ajit-singh-and-anr-on-2-may-1978","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-anr-vs-ajit-singh-and-anr-on-2-may-1978","title":{"rendered":"Mohan Lal & Anr vs Ajit Singh And Anr on 2 May, 1978"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mohan Lal & Anr vs Ajit Singh And Anr on 2 May, 1978<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1978 AIR 1183, \t\t 1978 SCR (3) 823<\/div>\n
Author: P Shingal<\/div>\n
Bench: Shingal, P.N.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMOHAN LAL & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nAJIT SINGH AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT02\/05\/1978\n\nBENCH:\nSHINGAL, P.N.\nBENCH:\nSHINGAL, P.N.\nDESAI, D.A.\n\nCITATION:\n 1978 AIR 1183\t\t  1978 SCR  (3) 823\n 1978 SCC  (3) 249\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1979 SC1284\t (5)\n F\t    1989 SC1205\t (18)\n\n\nACT:\nEvidence Act, 1872-S.114 (a)-Presumption to be drawn against\nthe  accused is a matter which depends on the  circumstances\nof each case.\nCriminal  Procedure Code, 1973, s. 313-It is permissible  to\naccept\tthat  part of the statement which accords  with\t the\nevidence on the record and to act upon\tit--Evidence--Finger\nprint evidence at crime, scenes, reliability of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nNishan\tChand  (deceased),  son\t of  appellant\tMohan\tLal,\nresident  of Roranwali, was the Secretary of Roranwali,\t and\nPhulukhere  Co-operative Societies.  Respondent Ajit  Singh,\nNishan Chand's friend, was the Secretary of Roranwall  Patti\nSikhan\tCo-operative  Society.\t He also  lived\t in  village\nRoranwali, with his maternal uncle Gurdial Singh who was the\nvillage\t Chairman.  On June 17, 1974 both Nishan  Chand\t and\nthe  respondent\t left for villages Lambi and Malaut  on\t the\nformer's  bicycle  for\tdepositing the\tmoneys\trealised  on\naccount of the dues of the Co-operative societies.  They did\nnot,  however, return to Roranwali that night.\tOn the\tnext\nday, Satpal, the younger brother of Nishan Chand, found\t the\nbicycle\t of  his  brother lying at some\t distance  from\t the\nboundary  of  the village near a culvert and  his  brother's\nbody in a field at a short distance from there and  informed\nhis  father  Mohan Lal.\t Mohan Lal and\this  brother  Dharam\nChand  went to the place where the dead body lay.  The\tdead\nbody had many injuries, and a blood stained blade of a knife\n(Ex.  P3) was lying near it.  A black piece of cloth \"fifty\"\nwas  lying at some distance on the road, and as it was\tworn\nby Ajit Singh the-previous day, a report was lodged with the\npolice.\t  Ajit Singh was arrested on 21st June, 1974 and  on\nhis  information that he had buried a sum of 41.00\/-  and  a\ngold  ring  in his purse, tied in a handkerchief,  near\t the\nwater lift, and had concealed the blood stained clothes\t and\na  shoe\t inside the heap of cotton 'sticks' in a kiln  on  a\nroad,  the Police recovered those articles at his  instance.\nThe  bundle  of currency notes which was  recovered  at\t the\ninstance  of the respondent contained one currency  note  of\nRs.  100\/- which was suspected to have\tfingerprints.\tAjit\nSingh was tried and was convicted by the Additional Sessions\nJudge  of  offences under ss. 302, 392 and  397\t I.P.C.\t The\nAdditional  Sessions  Judge sentenced him to death  for\t the\noffence under secton 302 I.P.C. and to rigorous imprisonment\nfor five years and seven years respectively for the offences\nunder sections 392 and 397 I.P.C. On appeal, the High  Court\ngave him the benefit of doubt and acquitted him.  Mohan\t Lal\n(father\t of the deceased) and one Surinder Kumar  filed\t the\npresent appeal, by special leave.\nAllowing the appeal, the Court,\nHELD  : (1) While considering the statement of\tthe  accused\nunder  section\t313 Crl.  P.C., 1973 it\t is  permissible  to\nreject\tthe  exculpatory  part of the  statement  if  it  is\ndisproved  by the evidence on record, and to acts  upon\t it.\n[832 BC]\nNishikant Jha V. State of Bihar [1969] 2 SCR 1033; Applied.\n(2)The evidence on record was sufficient to show that  the\nstatement  of  the respondent which led to the\trecovery  of\ncertain articles was not only voluntary but fell within\t the\npurview of section 27 of the Evidence Act in as much as\t the\n\"fact  discovered\"  was\t the place from\t which\tthe  various\narticles  were produced by the respondent and his  knowledge\nof it.\tMoreover the actual recovery of the currency  notes,\nthe  ring  (bearing the initials of the\t deceased)  and\t the\npurse  (containing a library card having the address of\t the\nrespondent)  in\t pursuance of the information given  by\t the\nrespondent, and at his instance, was sufficient guarantee of\nthe truth of that information and it could safely have\tbeen\nrelied upon by the High Court. [834 C-D]\n(3)There  is  no gainsaying the fact that  a  majority\tof\nfingerprints  found  at crime scenes or crime  articles\t are\npartially smudged, and it is for the experienced and skilled\nfingerprint  expert  to\t say whether a\tmark  is  usable  as\nfingerprint\n824\nevidence.   Similarly  it is for a competent  technician  to\nexamine\t and  give his opinion whether the identity  can  be\nestablished, and if so whether that can be done on eight  or\neven less identical characteristics in an appropriate  case.\nIn  this  case there was the categorical  statement  of\t the\nDirector, Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur, that one particular\nimpression   on\t the  currency\tnote  was   photographically\nenlarged alongwith the right middle finger impression of the\nrespondent,  that it was comparable, and there\texisted\t not\nless   than   eight  points-of\tsimilarity   i.e.   matching\ncharacteristic details in their identical sequence,  without\nany  discordance,  between its comparable  portion  and\t the\ncorresponding portion of the photographically enlarged right\nmiddle\tfinger impression.  The Director graphically  showed\nthe  eight  points  of similarity, in their  same  form\t and\nposition and indicated the nature, direction and sequence of\neach  point.   He  clearly stated that\tso  many  points  of\nsimilarity  could  not be found to occur in  impressions  of\ndifferent  thumbs and fingers and that they  were  identical\nand were of one and the same person. [840 F-G, 841 D-E]\n(4)The recovery of incriminating articles in pursuance\tof\nthe  respondent's  information\tis  an\timportant  piece  of\nevidence  against him.\tThe question whether  a\t presumption\nshould\tbe  drawn  against him\tunder  illustration  (a)  of\nsection 114 of the Evidence Act is a matter with depends  on\nthe evidence and the circumstances of each case.  The nature\nof  the recovered articles, the manner of their\t acquisition\nby  the\t owner,\t the  nature of\t the  evidence\tabout  their\nidentification, the manner in which the articles were  dealt\nwith  by  the accused, the place and  the  circumstances  of\ntheir recovery, the length of the intervening period and the\nability or otherwise of the accused to explain the recovery,\nare  some  of those circumstances.  All these  factors\twere\nagainst the respondent.[841 G-H, 842 A]\nBaiju  Bharosa v. State of Madhya Pradesh<\/a>  [1978] 2 SCR\t 594\nreiterated.\n(5)The\tring  (Ex.   PI) was made of  gold  and\t bore  the\ninitials  of  the deceased, and the goldsmith  was  able  to\nestablish  that it belonged to the deceased.  It  was  found\ntied   in   a  handkerchief  alongwith\tother\ttwo   highly\nincriminating  articles, namely, the finger marked  currency\nnote  and  the respondent's own purse about  whose  identity\nthere  could  possibly\tbe no reason  for  any\tdoubt.\t The\nrespondent  knew  that he would be suspected  of  the  crime\nbecause\t the deceased was last seen in his company, and\t the\nfact that he buried the articles near the water lift in\t the\nmiddle\tof the way leading from Khankanwali to\this  village\nshows  that  he wanted the articles to lie  there  until  he\ncould feel reassured enough to dig them out.  It so happened\nhowever\t that he was suspected from the very beginning,\t was\narrested  within four days and gave the\t information  within\nthe next two days which led to the discovery of an important\nfact  within the meaning of section 27 of the Evidence\tAct.\nIt  must therefore be held that the  incriminating  articles\nwere acquired by the respondent at one and the same time and\nthat  it was he and no one else who had robbed the  deceased\nof the money and the ring and had hidden them at a place and\nin  a  manner  which was known to him.\tThen  there  is\t the\nfurther\t fact that the respondent was unable to explain\t his\npossession.  All these facts were not only proof of  robbery\nbut  were  presumptive evidence of the charge of  murder  as\nwell.[842 B-F]\nWasim  Khan  v. The State of U.P. [1956] SCR  191;  Tulsiram\nNanu v. The State, AIR 1954 SC 1; Sunderlal v. The State  of\nM.P.,  AIR<\/a> 1954 SC 28 Alisher V. State of U.P. [1974] 4\t SCR\n254; and Baiju @ Bharosa v. State of M.P., [1978] 2 SCR\t 594\nreiterated.\n(6)The High Court committed serious errors in reading  the\nevidence on the record and very often based its findings  on\nmere  conjectures.   Its finding that  the  prosecution\t had\nfailed\tto \"connect the accused with the commission  of\t the\ncrime\" was quite incorrect and must be set aside.  Reasoning\nof  High  Court examined with reference to  the\t direct\t and\ncircumstantial evidence on record. [838-C-D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 377 of
\n1975.\n<\/p>\n
From the Judgment and Order dt. 9th July, 1975 of the Punjab
\nand Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1423 of 1974.\n<\/p>\n
825<\/span><\/p>\n
S.   C. Manchanda and N. K. Agarwal for the Appellants.
\nD.   Mookerjee,\t S. K. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja and P. N.\tPuri
\nfor Respondent No. 1<\/span>
\nHardev Singh for Respondent No. 2.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSHINGHAL,  J.-This  appeal  by\tspecial\t leave\tis  directed
\nagainst\t the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana\t High  Court
\ndated  July 9, 1975, giving benefit of doubt  to  respondent
\nAjit  Singh (hereinafter referred to as the respondent)\t and
\nacquitting  him of offences under sections 302, 392 and\t 397
\nI.P.C. for which he was convicted by the Additional Sessions
\nJudge  of  Faridkot  on October 31,  1974.   The  Additional
\nSessions Judge had sentenced the respondent to death for the
\noffence\t under section 302 I.P.C. and to rigorous  imprison-
\nment  for  five years and seven years respectively  for\t the
\noffences under, sections 392 and 397 I.P.C.
\nNishan Chand (deceased); son: of appellant Mohan Lal (P.  W.\n<\/p>\n
5),  was  a  resident of Roranwali.   He  was  Secretary  of
\nRoranwali  and\tPhulu  Khera  Co-operative  Societies.\t The
\nrespondent was Nishan Chand’s friendand was Secretary of
\nRoranwali Patti Sikhan Co-operative Society. He also used to
\nlive  in village Roranwali with his  maternal-uncle  Gurdial
\nSingh who was the village Chairman.\n<\/p>\n
 It  is\t alleged that Nishan Chand and the  respondent\tleft
\ntogether on June 17, 1974, for villages Lambi and Malout  on
\nNishan\tChand’s\t bicycle, as they had to deposit  the  money
\nrealised by them.  They did not however return to  Roranwali
\nthat night.  Mohan Lal’s other son Satpal, who was, studying
\nin Class VIII in a school at Sikhanwala, saw Nishan  Chand’s
\nbicycle lying at some distance from the boundary of  village
\nRoranwali,  near a culvert, on the “Pakka” road\t leading  to
\nSikhanwala, and he also saw a man lying dead in a field at a
\nshort distance from there.  As the dead body appeared to  be
\nof Nishan Chand, Satpal went back to his house and informied
\nhis father Mohan Lal (P.  W. 5) at about 7 a. m. Mohan\tLal,
\n(P.   W. 5) and his brother Dharam Chand (P.  W. 8) went  to
\nthe  place  where  the dead body was  lying.   It  bad\tmany
\ninjuries and a blood stained blade of Knife (Ex’.  P. 3) was
\nlying near it.\tA black piece  of cloth (“fifty”) was  lying
\nat some distance towards the road.  As Nishan Chand used  to
\nbring home the money of the societies some times, Mohan\t Lal
\nsuspected  that the respondent might have murdered  him\t for
\nthe  money.It  seemed  to  him\tthat  the  black  piece\t  of
\ncloth (“fifty”) belongedto  the\t respondent  which  he\twas
\nwearing on the previous morning. Mohan Lal therefore  left
\nfor police station Lambi, which was at a distance of about 9
\nmiles  from  the  place\t of occurance.\t As  he\t found\tSub-
\ninspector Harnek Singh (P.  W. 19). it Sikhanwala bus stand,
\nhe  reported the matter to him at about 9.30 a.m.  The\tSub-
\nInspector  recorded Mohan Lal’s statement and sent it  along
\nwith  constable\t Mal  Singh  to\t police\t station  Lambi\t for
\nregistering a case.\n<\/p>\n
2 320 SCI\/78
\n826<\/span>
\nS.I. Harnek Singh went to the place of occurrence with Mohan
\nLal  and  found Dharam Chand (P.  W. 8) and  Nishan  Chand’s
\nmother\tSmt.  Agyawanti near the dead body.  He found  foot-
\nprints two of bare foot and one with the shoe near the\tdead
\nbody.\tThe blade of knife (Ex.\t P. 3) was also found  lying
\nnear  the dead body and a shoe was found lying in the  water
\nchannel at a distance of 7 or 8 ‘karams’ The small piece  of
\nblack  cloth  (“fifty”)\t (Ex.  P. 4) was found\tlying  at  a
\ndistance of 25 or 30 ‘karams’ from the dead body.  The\tSub-
\nInspector  recorded  the statement of Smt.   Agyawanti.\t  He
\nlifted\tmoulds\tof  the foot-prints and\t took  them  in\t his
\npossession.   The blood stained blade of knife (Ex.   P.  3)
\nwas  also taken in possession vide memorandum (Ex.   P.\t K.)
\nand was sealed.\t The Sub-Inspector took the shoe also in his
\npossession.  He prepared, an inquest report and sent  Nishan
\nChand’s\t dead  body for postmortem examination.\t Dr.  P.  K.
\nNarang (P.  W. 1) of Civil Hospital Gidderbaha examined\t the
\ndead  body  and found 12 injuries, all of which\t were  ante-
\nmortem.\t The doctor found that Nishan Chand’s death was\t due
\nto the injuries to vital organs of the brain as a result  of
\ninjuries Nos. 1 and 2 which were as follows,-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (i)A stab wound with clean cut edges 2. 5 X\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      0. 5 cm. on the front of left side of forehead
\n\t      just above the eye brow.\t Blood stained brain
\n\t      matter  was  coming out of  the  wound.\tBone
\n\t      underneath was cut, and the wound was directed
\n\t      backwards and downwards.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)A stab wound 3.5 X 1 cm. with clean  cut
\n\t      edges on the left temporal region of head\t 7.5
\n\t      cm.  above  the ear,  directed  downwards\t and
\n\t      inwards.\tBone underneath was cut.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  medical  officer expressed the opinion that  these\t two
\ninjuries were individually sufficient to cause death in\t the
\nordinary course of nature.\n<\/p>\n
it  was\t found during the course of the\t investigation\tthat
\nNishan\tChand  had collected the dues  of  the\tco-operative
\nsocieties from Atma Singh., Avtar Singh and Balli Singh\t and
\nothers on June 17, 1974, and had gone with the respondent to
\ndeposit\t the same in the Central Cooperative  Bank,  Malout.
\nInspector  Gurdial  Singh (P.  W. 14)  of  the\tCo-operative
\ndepartment  had also gone there to attend a meeting  of\t his
\ndepartment.  Nishan Chand and the respondent met him after 3
\nP.M.  and  asked  him to get the sum  of  about\t Rs.  2000\/-
\ndeposited  in  the Bank.  He could not\thowever\t succeed  in
\ndepositing  the\t money as the cash had been closed  by\tthat
\ntime.  It is alleged that Nishan Chand collected Rs.  4156\/-
\nand that be and the respondent met Darshan Lai (P.  W. 6) at
\nLambi  at  6.30\t p.m.  The prosecution\thas  relied  on\t the
\nstatement  of  Darshan\tLal (P.\t W. 6)\tfor  the  subsequent
\nconduct\t of the respondent and has led its evidence to\tshow
\nthat  he  was  searched\t but could not\tbe  found.   He\t was
\narrested  on  June 21, 1974, at about 8\t p.m,  near  village
\nFatuekhera.   He  was  interrogated  by\t the   Investigating
\nOfficer\t and  is alleged to have made statement\t Ex.P.O.  on
\nJune  23,  1974, to the effect that he had buried a  sum  of
\nabout Rs. 4100\/- and
\n827<\/span>
\na  gold\t ring in his purse tied in a handkerchief  near\t the
\nwater  lift  in the middle of the way leading  from  village
\nKhankhanwali  to Roranwali which he could recover, and\tthat
\nhe  had\t kept concealed his clothes and one shoe  under\t the
\nheap  of  cotton  “sticks” in a kiln  on  the  road  outside
\nKhankhanwali  village  which  also he  could  recover.\t The
\nrespondent’s  statement to that effect was recorded  in\t the
\npresence  of  witnesses Balbir Singh (P.  W.  7)  and  Avtar
\nSingh.\tThe respondent then went to the place near the\theap
\nof  cotton “sticks” and recovered the blood stained  clothes
\nEx.   P.  5 to P. 7, which were in jhola’ Ex.  P.  8,  along
\nwith  a shoe.  The recovered articles were taken  in  police
\ncustody\t vide  memorandum Ex.  P. 0. It is  further  alleged
\nthat  the respondent went to the, place near the water\tlift
\nand dug out a handkerchief which contained currency notes of
\nRs.  4142\/gold\tring  Ex.  P. 1 and purse  Ex.\t P.  9.\t One
\ncurrency  note\tNo. AD 53007632 of Rs. 100\/- (Ex.   P.\t10),
\nwhich  was at the ton of the bundle of currency\t notes,\t had
\nsome blood stained fingerprints.  The purse (Ex.  P. 9)\t was
\nof  plastic  on\t which\tGovernment  College,  Mukhtsar,\t was
\nwritten\t in Punjabi and English and it contained  a  library
\ncard  of  R.S.D.  College, Ferozepur,  which  contained\t the
\naddress of the respondent written in English.  The ring\t was
\nof  gold and weighed about 3 grams.  The initials  ‘N.\t C.,
\nwere inscribed on it.  All the articles were sealed and were
\ntaken in possession vide memorandum Ex.\t PR.  Mohan Lal\t (P.
\nW.  5) has identified the ring to be that of his son  Nishan
\nChand  which he was wearing when he left the house.   Kartar
\nSingh  (P.   W.\t 17) of village Lambi has  stated  that\t lie
\nprepared the ring for Nishan Chand 8 or 9 months before\t his
\nstatement and had made the inscription as desired by him.
\nThe  Sub-Inspector  made an  application  before  Magistrate
\nMukhtiar  Singh (P.  W. 3) on June 28, 1974, for taking\t the
\nmoulds\tof  the foot-prints of the respondent.\t The  moulds
\nprepared  by him were not found fit for comparison and\twire
\nagain  taken on July 4, 1974 in the presence  of  Magistrate
\nDina Nath (P.  W. 2).  They were sent for comparison to\t the
\nDirector of Forensic Laboratory who has made his report\t Ex.
\nP.  FF stating that the impressions on the crime mould\twere
\nfound to tally with the test moulds.\n<\/p>\n
 Finger impressions (Ex.  PF\/2) of the respondent were\talso
\ntaken by Magistrate, Mukhtsar, and were sent for  comparison
\nalong with the finger impression on the currency note of Rs.
\n100\/-  (Ex.   P.  10) to the  Director\tFingerprint  Bureau,
\nPhillaur.  The Director’s report Ex. P. BB is on the record.
\nHe  photographically enlarged the impressions and  expressed
\nthe  opinion that there were eight points of  Similarity  in
\nrespect of the form and the position, which were graphically
\nshown  by him in his report, and that the nature,  direction
\nand  sequence  of  each\t point had  been  indicated  in\t its
\nrelevant circle.  According to the expert, so many points of
\nsimilarity could not be found to occur in the impressions of
\ndifferent  fingers and that they were “identical or  are  of
\none  and  the same person”.  The expert\t ignored  the  other
\nimpressions  which were sufficiently smudged or were  partly
\ninterfered with by the design and the printed writing of the
\ncurrency note or were faint.\n<\/p>\n
828<\/span><\/p>\n
The  respondent was medically examined an the very next\t day
\nof his arrest and the medical officer’s report Ex.  P.F\t has
\nbeen  placed on the record, according to which he had  three
\nsimple lacerated wounds of a duration of more-than 48  hours
\non the left ring finger.\n<\/p>\n
As  has\t been  stated,\tthe  Additional\t Sessions  Judge  of
\nFaridkot  found the respondent guilty of the offences  under
\nsections  302, 392 and 397 I.P.C. As the High Court has\t set
\naside the conviction by its impugned judgment dated July  9,
\n1975,  by  giving the benefit of doubt\tto  the\t respondent,
\nMohan Lal (P.  W. 5), father of Nishan Chand (deceased), and
\none Surinder Kumar have filed the present appeal by  special
\nleave.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court has examined the question of motive first  of
\nall  and  has  referred to the good  relations\tbetween\t the
\nrespondent and the deceased.  It has also made a mention  of
\nthe  statement\tof the respondent that he and  the  deceased
\nleft  village Roranwali on the bicycle of the deceased,\t for
\nMalout, on June 17, 1974, at about 7.30 a.m. The High  Court
\nhas then examined the evidence of the prosecution  regarding
\nthe  alleged collection of Rs. 4256\/- by Nishan\t Chand\tfrom
\nfour  persons on June 17, 1974, and his failure\t to  deposit
\nthe same in the Central Co-operative Bank at Malout and\t has
\ntaken  the view that the collection of the money  by  Nishan
\nChand had not been proved and that the motive for the  crime
\nhad not been established.\n<\/p>\n
The first item of collection relates to the recovery of\t Rs.
\n2000\/from  Avtar  Singh (P.  W. 10) at Malout  on  June\t 17,
\n1974.  Avtar Singh has stated that he had taken a loan\tfrom
\nthe  Co-opcrative Society of his village and had been  asked
\nby  the\t deceased  to repay it.\t He  promised  to  make\t the
\nrepayment  at Malout Mandi. He took his wheat there on\tJune
\n17,  1974, and asked his commission agent to pay Rs.  2000\/-
\nto  the deceased.  Rs. 2000\/- were accordingly paid  by\t his
\ncommission agent to the deceased. He has further stated that
\none Atma Singh (P.  W. 12) paid Rs. 623\/- in his presence to
\nNishan Chand.  Avtar Singh however did not obtain a  receipt
\nfor  the  payment  from Nishan Chand.  The  High  Court\t has
\ndisbelieved  the payment because the name of the  commission
\nagent was not disclosed by Avtar Singh and he” did not take.
\nany receipt or the signature of Nishan Chand in his bahi  in
\ntoken  of the payment.\tThe prosecution examined Behari\t Lal
\n(P.  W. 26) as the commission agent who had made the payment
\nof Rs. 2000\/- on behalf of Avtar Singh to the deceased.\t The
\nwitness\t produced his bahi entry Ex.  P. W. 26\/A in  respect
\nof  the\t payment, but the High Court rejected  the  evidence
\nbecause\t the signature of Nishan Chand Was not\tobtained  by
\nBehari\tLal.  As it was possible for the High Court to\ttake
\nthat view. we would leave it at that Atma Singh (P.  W.\t 12)
\nhas  stated that he paid Rs. 623\/- to the deceased  on\tJune
\n17, 1974, at 2 p.m. after obtaining the money from the\tfirm
\nof Shadi Ram Amar Nath of Malout. Avtar Singh (P. W. 10) has
\nalso  stated about the making of that payment by Atma  Singh
\nin  his\t presence,  but\t the High  Court  has  rejected\t the
\nevidence for want of Nishan Chand’s receipt for the payment,
\nand the failure
\n829<\/span>
\nto examine someone on behalf of the firm which had made\t the
\npayment.  Here again, it cannot be said that the view  taken
\nby  the High Court was not possible, and we would  therefore
\nnot disturb its finding in this respect also.
\nThe prosecution, however, examined Balli Singh (P.  W. 1  1)
\nwho  stated that he paid Rs. 856\/- to the deceased  on\tJune
\n17,  1974,  vide receipt Ex.  PS at Malout at 2\t p.m.  after
\nobtaining  the\tmoney  from his commission  agent.   It\t was
\nstated in the receipt that the payment had been made by\t way
\nof  recovery  of  the loan from Balli  Singh.\tIt  was\t not
\ndisputed that the receipt was signed by Nishan Chand, and it
\nis  not\t disputed before us that the name has  wrongly\tbeen
\nprinted\t as Nishan Singh in the paper book.  The High  Court
\nhowever rejected the evidence on the ground that Balli Singh
\ndid  not  state who  wrote the receipt Ex.  PS and  that  it
\nbore  the signature of Nishan Chand.  We have  gone  through
\nthe  statement of Balli Singh and we have no doubt  that  it
\nshows that the payment of Rs. 856\/- was made to the deceased
\nvide  receipt Ex.  PS.\tThere was as such  no  justification
\nfor  insisting on the disclosure of the name of, the  scribe
\nof the receipt, or the production of other evidence to prove
\nthe  signature of Nishan Chand thereon.\t There was  also  no
\njustification  for  the High Court to  reject  the  evidence
\nmerely because of the failure to examine a witness from\t the
\nshop  of the commission agent who had made the payment.\t  It
\nhas  to\t be  appreciated that there was in  fact  no  cross-
\nexamination worth the name regarding Balli Singh’s statement
\nabout  his liability to pay Rs. 856\/- to  the,\tCo-operative
\nSociety,  and  the  payment  of that money  by\thim  to\t the
\ndeceased against receipt Ex.  PS.
\nThe  prosecution has, all the same, relied on the  statement
\nof Inspector Gurdev Singh (P.W. 14) who was Inspector of Co-
\noperative Societies at Lambi, to prove the signature of\t the
\ndeceased  on receipt Ex.  PS.  The High Court  has  rejected
\nhis  evidence to this effect on the ground that the  witness
\ndid  not  state that he had seen Nishan\t Chand\tsigning\t and
\nwriting, and could identify his signature, and also  because
\nhe  did not state that “in the ordinary course\tof  business
\ndocuments  purported to be written by Nishan Chand had\tbeen
\nhabitually  submitted  to  him.” We have  gone\tthrough\t the
\nstatement  of Gurdev Singh (P.W. 14).  He was the  Inspector
\nof Co-operative ‘Societies, Lambi, and Nishan Chand was\t the
\nSecretary of two Cooperative Societies within his area.\t The
\nwitness\t was therefore in a position to state  that  receipt
\nEx.   PS was in the hand writing of Nishan Chand and  he  in
\nfact  made  a clear statement to that effect  in  the  trial
\ncourt.\t If the defence had any reason to think that he\t was
\nnot  a\tcompetent witness for the purpose of  expressing  an
\nopinion under section 47 of the Evidence Act, it was open to
\nit  to\tcross-examine him on the point.\t  The  fact  however
\nremains that this was not done.\n<\/p>\n
It  would  thus appear that the High Court  could  not\thave
\nrejected the evidence which was furnished by the prosecution
\nin  regard  to the payment of Rs. 856\/- by  examining  Balli
\nSingh (P.W. 11) and Gurdev Singh (P.W. 14) and by  producing
\nthe original receipt
\n830<\/span>
\nEx.  PS,  and  we have no hesitation in\t holding  that\tthe,
\nfinding\t of  the trial court in regard to that\tpayment\t was
\ncorrect and must be restored.\n<\/p>\n
Evidence has also been led to prove the payment of Rs. 667\/-
\nto  the\t deceased by one Budh Singh on June 17,\t 1974,\tvide
\npass  book entry Ex.  P. II.  It was stated by Gurdev  Singh
\n(P.W.  14) that the entry in the pass book had been made  in
\nthe  hand  writing  of\tNishan Chand,  but  the\t High  Court
\nrejected  that evidence for the reason already\tstated.\t  As
\nthere  was no justification for doing so, we  would  restore
\nthe  finding  of  the trial court  regarding  that  item  of
\npayment as, well.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court has gone to the extent of basing its  finding
\nto the contrary for the further reason that Mohan Lal  (P.W.\n<\/p>\n
5),  who was the father of the deceased, did not state\tthat
\nreceipt\t Ex.   PS and the pass book Entry Ex.  P. 1  1\twere
\nwritten and signed by his son Nishan Chand.  The High  Court
\nhowever forgot that Mohan Lal was an illiterate man who\t had
\nthumb-marked even. the first information report Ex.   P.G.\/1
\nand was not in a position to make a statement regarding\t the
\nhand-writing  or  the  signature  of  his  son\ton  the\t two
\ndocuments.\n<\/p>\n
So  even if the items of Rs. 2,000\/- and Rs. 623\/- are\tleft
\nout, the fact would still remain that the deceased had a sum
\nof about Rs. 1533\/- with him at the time of his murder.\t The
\nHigh  Court  has brushed aside the prosecution\tevidence  in
\nthis  respect  by observing that none of the  witnesses\t has
\ndeposed\t that  the respondent was with the deceased  at\t the
\ntime  when the payments were made to him.  Here\t again,\t the
\nHigh  Court lost sight of the statement of Inspector  Gurdev
\nSingh  (P.   W.\t 14) who as the\t Inspector  of\tCo-operative
\nSocieties  must have known the Secretaries or the  societies
\nwithin\this jurisdiction.  He has stated that a meeting\t was
\ncalled\tby the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies  at
\nMalout\ton  June  17, 1974, and that the  deceased  and\t the
\nrespondent met him in the Central Cooperative Bank at Malout
\nafter  3 p.m. The deceased asked him to get the sum of\tmore
\nthan Rs. 2,000\/- deposited in the bank and the witness\ttold
\nhim that as the cash had been closed by that time, the money
\ncould  not  be deposited.. He has further  stated  that\t the
\ndeceased  then told him that he would deposit the amount  of
\nRs.  5,000\/- the next day as he had some more recoveries  to
\nmake.\tNo effective cross-examination was directed  against
\nthe  statement\tof  the Inspector to  this  effect,  and  no
\neffective argument has been made before us why he should not
\nhave been believed.  The High Court thus failed to read\t the
\nstatement  of  Gurdev Singh correctly even though it  had  a
\ndirect bearing on the question of the respondent’s knowledge
\nof the money in the possession of the deceased.\t Its finding
\nto  the contrary must be set aside and it must be held\tthat
\nthe prosecution has succeeded in proving its case about\t the
\nrespondent’s  knowledge that the deceased had  collected  at
\nleast Rs. 2,000\/- by the time he met Inspector Gurdev  Singh
\nsome time after 3 p.m.
\n831<\/span>
\nThe  High Court has examined the question whether there\t was
\nevidence  to prove that the respondent had  absconded  after
\nthe  incident, and has found that it could not be said\tthat
\nhe did so to conceal his guilt.\t He was arrested on June 21,
\n1974, and it appears that the intervening delay would not by
\nitself be evidence of his guilt.\n<\/p>\n
While  dealing with the evidence that the deceased was\tlast
\nseen  in the company of the respondent, the High  Court\t has
\nmade a reference to the statement of Mohan Lal (P.W. 5)\t and
\nto  the\t respondent’s admission that he had  gone  with\t the
\ndeceased, on his bicycle, to Malout, on June 17, 1974.\t The
\nprosecution  has examined Darshan Lal (P.W. 6) in regard  to
\ntheir  movements  at about 6 p.m. in Lambi  and\t has  placed
\nreliance  on  the statement of Prita Singh  (P.W.  9)  about
\ntheir\tmovements  within  a  short  distance\tof   village
\nRoranwali.   We think that the view taken by the High  Court
\nin  regard  to\tthe  evidence  of  these  two  witnesses  is
\njustified and does not call for interference.
\nBut  the High Court went wrong in finding that there was  no
\nevidence  to  prove  that  the accused\twas  seen  with\t the
\ndeceased  “before  or  after the  occurrence.”\tThere  could
\npossibly  be  no evidence to prove that the  respondent\t was
\nseen with the deceased “after” the occurrence i.e. after his
\ndeath and the prosecution cannot be blamed for its inability
\nto  produce any such evidence.\tThe prosecution has  however
\nled its evidence to prove that the deceased was last seen in
\nthe  company  of the respondent, and it will  be  enough  to
\nrefer  to  two basic facts in this  respect.   Firstly,\t the
\nrespondent has admitted in his statement in the trial  court
\nthat  he  and Nishan Chand first went to Lambi on  June\t 17,
\n1974;  and  he did not deny that they went there  on  Nishan
\nChand’s bicycle at about 7.30 a.m. He has also admitted that
\nhe  was with Nishan Chand at Malout upto 10 a.m. He  claimed
\nthat  he  went to village Ferozepur thereafter to  meet\t his
\nelder  brother, but that was a matter for him to prove,\t and
\nthereby establish a good defence.  The fact however  remains
\nthat  he  did  not do so and his  leaned   counsel  has\t not
\nthought it possible to explain why he could not examine\t his
\nown  brother  to  establish  that plea,\t or  to\t invite\t our
\nattention  to any other evidence that may have been  led  in
\nthat  behalf.  Secondly, the High.  Court lost sight of\t the
\nfact  that  Inspector Gurdev Singh (P.\tW. 14)\tof  the\t Co-
\noperative Societies.  Department had clearly stated that  he
\nwent to Malout on June 17, 1974 to attend the meeting  which
\nhad  been  called  by the Joint\t Registrar  of\tCo-operative
\nSocieties  and that the respondent and the deceased met\t him
\nthere after 3 p.m. in the Central Co-operative Bank.  He has
\nfurther stated that the deceased asked him to get the sum of
\nRs.  2,000\/-  deposited in the bank, but that could  not  be
\ndone  as the cash had been closed.  The witness\t has  stated
\nthat a meeting was actually held in the Rest House that\t day
\nand that he had gone to the Bank to- collect the figures  of
\nrecovery for purposes of that meeting.\tThe presence of\t the
\ndeceased  and the respondent was therefore quite natural  as
\nit  explains  their  anxiety to make  as  much\trecovery  as
\npossible  before the meeting.  As has been shown, there\t was
\nno  reason for disbelieving the statement of  Gurdev  Singh,
\nand
\n832<\/span>
\nthe  High Court clearly misread the record in respect  of  a
\nmaterial particular in holding that there was no evidence to
\nprove  that the respondent was last seen in the\t company  of
\nthe deceased.\n<\/p>\n
An  attempt was made to argue that if the statement  of\t the
\nrespondent is to be considered at all, it must be taken as a
\nwhole and that it is not permissible to act upon one portion
\nof the statement which shows the presence of the  respondent
\nin the company of the deceased, and leave out those portions
\nwhich  are exculpatory.\t It will be enough to say  that\t the
\nmatter has been examined by this Court in Nishi Kant Jha  v.
\nState  of  Bihar(1),  and  as the  evidence  on\t the  record
\ndisproves the exculpatory part of the respondent’s statement
\nin the trial court, it is clearly permissible to accept that
\npart of the statement which accords with the evidence on the
\nrecord, and to act upon it.\n<\/p>\n
Another\t important piece of evidence against the  respondent
\nwas  his  statement  Ex.  P.O. dated June  21,\t1974,  under
\nsection 27 of the Evidence Act and the recoveries which were
\nmade  in pursuance thereof.  The statement was\trecorded  by
\nSub-Inspector  Harnek  Singh (P.W. 19) in  the\tpresence  of
\nAvtar Singh and Balbir Singh (P.W. 7). The prosecution\tgave
\nup Avtar Singh on the ground that lie had been won over, but
\nBalbir\tSingh  and Harnek Singh were examined in  the  trial
\ncourt.\t The.  High Court however rejected the\tentire\tevi-
\ndence  in that respect on the ground that the statements  of
\nthese two witnesses were contradictory and inconsistent with
\neach other and held that the making of disclosure  statement
\nand the alleged recovery were “concocted by the police.” The
\nonly  contradiction which has been pointed out by  the\tHigh
\nCourt\tis  that  while\t according  to\tHarnek\t Singh\t the
\ninterrogation of the respondent started on June 23, 1974  at
\nabout 12 noon and continued for two, hours, Balbir Singh has
\nstated that he and Avtar Singh reached the police station at
\nabout  12.30  p.m. and the respondent was  interrogated\t for
\nabout  5 or 7 minutes in their presence and that he did\t not
\nmake  the disclosure statement.\t The High Court\t has  stated
\nfurther\t that Balbir Singh has claimed that he\tadvised\t the
\nrespondent  to\tgive  the  articles  which  he\thad  in\t his
\npossession,  and then he made the disclosure  statement.   A
\nreference  to  the statements of Hamek Singh (P.W.  19)\t and
\nBalbir\tSingh  (P.W.  7)  shows however\t that  there  is  no
\ncontradiction  or inconsistency between them.  Balbir  Singh
\n(P.W. 7) has clearly stated that when be reached the  police
\nStation\t at  about  12.30  p.m.\t the  respondent  was  being
\ninterrogated   there.\tHis  further  statement\t  that\t the
\nrespondent was interrogated for five or seven minutes in his
\npresence,  cannot  therefore belie the statement  of  Harnek
\nSingh  that  the interrogation lasted for about\t two  hours.
\nThe  High  Court  therefore misread  the  evidence  in\tthis
\nrespect.   The\tHigh  Court also misread  the  statement  of
\nBalbir\tSingh when it observed that he bad admitted that  he
\ndid not “know” whether the disclosure statement (Ex.   P.O.)
\nwas recorded at the police station before the articles\twere
\nrecovered  or thereafter.  Here again a reference to  Balbir
\nSingh’s statement shows that what be stated was that he\t did
\nnot “remember”\n<\/p>\n
(1)  [1969] 2 S.C.R. 1033.\n<\/p>\n
833<\/span><\/p>\n
if   the  disclosure statement was recorded before or  after
\nthe recovery. He    however  proved statement Ex.  P.O.\t and
\nadmitted that he attested it.He\t also stated that  his\town
\nstatement was recorded after the recovery.  It was not found
\npossible  to point out any inconsistency in his\t version  in
\nthat  statement and his statement in the trial court.\tThe,
\nHigh Court, therefore, clearly fell into an error of  record
\nin  reaching the conclusion that the statement of  the\tSub-
\nInspector was belied by the statement of the witness.
\n The High Court has observed in this connection that  Balbir
\nSingh (P.W. 7) has stated that there were certain footprints
\nnear the place where the money was recovered, but no  moulds
\nwere prepared by the police even though it was incumbent for
\nit  to do so.  We have gone through the statement of  Balbir
\nSingh,\tbut he has not made any such statement.\t If  however
\nanything  turned  on the failure to take the moulds  of\t the
\nfootprints  at the place where the money was recovered,\t the
\nproper\tcourse\tfor  the defence was  to  cross-examine\t the
\nInvestigating  Officer concerned in that respect,  but\tthat
\nwas not done.  The High Court has disbelieved the  statement
\nof ‘Balbir Singh (P.W. 7) for the further reason that he had
\nbeen convicted on some occasions and his explanation that he
\nhad  gone  to the police station to inquire  from  the\tSub-
\nInspector whether they should continue to depute men to keep
\nwatch  on electricity installations and the  Sub-Inspector’s
\nreply in the negative, had not been entered in the record of
\nthe police station.  The High Court has obviously relied  in
\nthis  respect on Balbir Singh’s statement that no entry\t was
\nmade in the daily diary about his visit and inquiry from the
\nSub-Inspector, but it was not noticed by the High Court that
\nBalbir Singh was not in a position to depose anything  about
\nthe  making or not making of an entry in the  police  diary.
\nThat  was  a  matter which could be  established  by  cross-
\nexamining  the\tSub-Inspector  or  by  producing  any  other
\nevidence  which could show that the entry had not been\tmade
\nin the daily diary.  So here again the High Court cannot  be
\nsaid to have read the evidence on the record correctly.
\nThe High Court has gone to the extent of recording a finding
\nthat  the disclosure statement Ex.  P.O. was involuntary  as
\nthe respondent was “interrogated for several hours after his
\narrest”, and was hit by section 24 of the Evidence Act.\t The
\nfact however remains that even the respondent has not stated
\nthat he was compelled to make the disclosure statement,\t and
\nthere  is no other evidence to show that this was  so.\t The
\nHigh Court has arrived at its conclusion to the contrary  on
\nthe  basis of the statement of Harnek Singh (P.W. 19).\t The
\nrelevant portion of that statement reads as follows,-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “On 21st June, 1974, 1 interrogated him  where
\n\t      he  was  arrested.   He  was  then  taken\t  to
\n\t      Roranwali\t and was interrogated there  in\t the
\n\t      presence\tof  many  persons.   From  there  we
\n\t      returned\tto police station at 10-30  P.M.  On
\n\t      22nd  June, 1974 he was again interrogated  at
\n\t      the  police station.  But no other person\t was
\n\t      present at the time of the interrogation.\t  He
\n\t      did  not\tgive any disclosure  statement\tthat
\n\t      day.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      834<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      He  was interrogated regarding the  handle  of
\n\t      the  knife.   On\t23rd June,  1974  I  started
\n\t      interrogating  the, accused at about 12  noon.
\n\t      The  witnesses came to the police\t station  of
\n\t      their  own  accord.  I  interrogated  him\t for
\n\t      about two hours.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Three  facts therefore emerge from the statement : (i)\tthat
\nthe total period of interrogation was about two hours,\t(ii)
\nthe interrogation was made in the presence of many  persons,
\nand  (iii) the interrogation was regarding the discovery  of
\nthe  handle of the knife of which the blade was found  lying
\nnear  the  dead\t body.\tThere was thus no  evidence  on\t the
\nrecord\tto justify the finding of the High’ Court  that\t the
\nrespondent  was interrogated for several hours and that\t his
\ndisclosure  statement  was  involuntary\t so  as\t to  attract
\nsection\t 24 of the Evidence Act.  As it is, the evidence  on
\nthe record was sufficient to show that the statement was not
\nonly voluntary but it fell within the purview of section  27
\nof the Evidence Act in as much as the “fact discovered”\t was
\nthe  place from which the various articles were produced  by
\nthe respondent and his knowledge of it.\t As the\t information
\ngiven  by the respondent related to that important fact,  it
\nwas clearly admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act.
\nMoreover the actual recovery of the currency notes, the ring
\nand  the purse in pursuance of the information given by\t the
\nrespondent, and at his instance, was sufficient guarantee of
\nthe truth of that information and it could safely have\tbeen
\nrelied\tupon by the High Court.\t The High Court misread\t the
\nevidence on the record in taking a contrary view.
\n The disclosure statement led to the recovery of clothes  in
\nbag  Ex. P. 8 and a shoe underneath the cotton\t‘sticks’  in
\nthe  kiln  near the ‘phirni’ of\t village  Khankhanwali\tvide
\nmemorandum Ex.\tP.O. Then there was the recovery of a bundle
\nof currency notes of the value of Rs. 4142\/- on top of which
\nwas  the  currency note Ex.  P. 10 of Rs.  100\/-  which\t was
\nsuspected  to  have  some fingerprints, the ring  Ex.  P.  1
\nbearing the initials of Nishan Chand, and the purse Ex.\t  P.
\n9 containing the library card of R.S.D. College,  Ferozepur,
\nwith  the address of the respondent.  All these\t were  found
\ntied  in a handkerchief which was dug out by the  respondent
\nat  a  place near the water lift in the middle\tof  the\t way
\nleading from village Khankhanwali vide memorandum Ex.\tP.R.
\nThe  High Court brushed aside all this highly  incriminating
\nevidence simply on the ground that the respondent had stated
\n(in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C.) that the  purse
\nwas taken by the Sub-Inspector at the time of his arrest and
\nhe had obtained Rs. 4000\/- from his relations on the pretext
\nthat  he  would get him discharged but later on\t fastened  a
\nfalse  case on him.  The High Court went on to say  that  it
\nwas highly doubtful if the respondent would have buried such
\na  big amount of money and the ring in a field\tsituated  in
\nanother\t village  when he could have concealed them  in\t the
\nland or building of his maternal-uncle in village Roranwali.
\nThe High Court lost sight of the fact that while on one side
\nthere  was  the\t testimony on oath which  was  subjected  to
\ncross-examination on the other there was the bare  statement
\nof  the accused.  The High Court could not  reasonably\thave
\ndoubted the recoveries simply because the property was found
\nburied in a field in
\n835<\/span>
\nanother\t village  and  not in the land or  building  of\t his
\nmaternal  uncle.  As is obvious, the reasoning of  the\tHigh
\nCourt  was nothing more than a conjecture, for\twhich  there
\nwas  no\t evidence  or  justification.\tThe  respondent\t was
\nanxious to hide the ill gotten property as soon as possible,
\nand  the fact that it was recovered in pursuance of his\t in-
\nformation  under section 27 of the Evidence Act, and at\t his
\ninstance, by his digging out the place where it lay  buried,
\nwas  quite  sufficient\tto  prove  the\tgenuineness  of\t the
\nrecovery.  It appears that as the High Court had reached the
\nconclusion  that  the  information  under  section  27\t was
\ninvoluntary  and was not admissible in evidence, it did\t not
\nfind it possible to attach any importance to the recovery of
\nthe articles in pursuance of that information.
\nThe  High Court has disbelieved the statements of Mohan\t Lal
\n(P.W. 5) father of the deceased, and Kartar Singh (P.W.\t 17)
\ngoldsmith  of  Lambi, that ring Ex.  P. 1  belonged  to\t the
\ndeceased.   The statement of Mohan Lal has been\t disbelieved
\non  the ground that he did not know the name of\t the  person
\nwho  prepared  it,  he\tcould  not  tell  the  date  of\t its
\npreparation,  he  did  not  identify  the  ring\t at   attest
\nidentification and he did not state in the first information
\nreport\tthat his son Nishan Chand was wearing the ring.\t  We
\nhave gone through the evidence and it appears that the\tHigh
\nCourt did not read it correctly.  Mohan Lal has stated\tthat
\nthe ring was got prepared by his son Nishan Chand in village
\nLambi  two or four months before the incident.\tHe  was\t not
\ntherefore in a position to name the goldsmith or to give the
\ndate  of its preparation.  The ring was not put up for\ttest
\nidentification\tand there was therefore no evidence to\tshow
\nthat Mohan Lal did not identify it “from the other rings  of
\nthe  same  kind”.  As regards the omission  from  the  first
\ninformation report of the fact regarding the wearing of\t the
\nring  by  Nishan  Chand, the High Court did  not  take\tinto
\nconsideration  that part of Mohan Lal’s statement  where  he
\nhad  stated  that as his wife did not tell him\tthat  Nishan
\nChand  was wearing the ring, he could not mention that\tfact
\nin  the report.\t Moreover his wife did not accompany him  to
\nthe police station.\n<\/p>\n
The  High  Court disbelieved the statement of  Kartar  Singh
\n(P.W. 17) for  the reason that he did not pay income-tax  or
\nsales-tax and had   admitted that there was no special\tmark
\non  the ring to show that it had been prepared by  him.\t  In
\ntaking that view the High Court lost sight of the fact\tthat
\nKartar Singh was a goldsmith of a village like Lambi and, in
\nthe  absence of the evidence to the contrary, he  could\t not
\nhave been disbelieved merely because he did not pay  income-
\ntax  or\t sales-tax.  The statement of Kartar Singh  that  he
\nprepared  ring\tEx. P. 1, eight or nine\t months\t before\t the
\nrecording of his statements at the instance of Nishan Chand,
\nand  that  the\tinscription thereon was\t made  under  Nishan
\nChand’s\t instructions, was quite clear and categorical,\t and
\ncould  not have been rejected in the absence of evidence  to
\nthe  contrary.\t It is true that the ring did not  bear\t any
\nspecial mark to show its preparation by the witness, but the
\nHigh  Court  did  not  read  that  part\t of  Kartar  Singh’s
\nstatement where he had stated that he had started working as
\na goldsmith from the age of 12 years
\n836<\/span>
\nand that although he had prepared many rings, he could\ttell
\nwhich  ring  was  prepared by him on seeing  it.  there\t was
\ntherefore  no,\tjustification for rejecting  Kartar  Singh’s
\nevidence  and  for  dubbing him\t as  a\t“highly\t unreliable”
\nwitness.\n<\/p>\n
As has been stated, the purse Ex.  P.9 was also recovered at
\nthe instance of the respondent along with ring Ex.  P. 1 and
\nthe  currency notes and the fact of its recovery  could\t not
\nhave  been rejected merely on the basis of the\trespondent’s
\nstatement  under  section  313\tof  the\t Code  of   Criminal
\nProcedure  that it had been taken by the Sub-Inspector\tfrom
\nhis  pocket at the time of his arrest.\tApart from the\tfact
\nthat the explanation of the respondent was quite improbable,
\nwe find that he has not found it possible to establish it by
\nany evidence on the record.  The purse was of black coloured
\nplastic\t on which Government College, Mukhtsar, was  written
\nin  Punjabi and English and it contained a library  card  of
\nR.S.D.\tCollege,  Ferozepur.  on which the  address  of\t the
\nrespondent was written in English.  The fact that the  purse
\nwas found tied in the same handkerchief along with the\tring
\nEx.   P. 1 and the currency notes, could leave no  room\t for
\ndoubt  that  it\t belonged  to the  respondent  and  all\t the
\nrecovered  articles  were in his possession soon  after\t the
\nincident.\n<\/p>\n
As has been stated, the bundle of currency notes, which\t was
\nrecovered  at the instance of the respondent  contained\t the
\nhundred\t rupee\tcurrency note (Ex.  P. 10) No.\tAD  53007632
\nwith  fingerprints  thereon.  The High Court  rejected\tthat
\nimportant piece of evidence on the ground that Balbir  Singh
\n(P.   W.  7)  did  not state  that  the\t currency  note\t had
\nfingerprints, it was not explained why the currency note was
\nnot  sent to the Finger Print Bureau immediately why it\t was
\nsent there after the arrest of the respondent alongwith\t his
\nspecimen  impressions, and also because there was  no  proof
\nthat  the  specimen  fingerprint  impressions  were  of\t the
\nrespondent  and there was no evidence to show on  what\tdate
\nthey  were  taken.   The High Court has once  again  made  a
\nreference  to the statement of the respondent under  section
\n313  of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the Police\ttook
\nhis  fingerprint impressions on the currency note  while  be
\nwas in police custody, and rejected the report (Ex.  P.\t BB)
\nof the Director Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur.
\nWe have gone through the statement of Balbir Singh (P.W.  7)
\nand  we find that he has clearly stated that  “one  currency
\nnote contains fingerprint marks”.  The High Court  therefore
\nmisread the evidence in this respect also.
\nThe other reason about not sending the currency note to\t the
\nFinger\t Print\tBureau\tuntil  after  the  arrest   of\t the
\nrespondent, is equally untenable because the High Court lost
\nsight  of the fact that the currency note was  recovered  on
\nJune 23, 1974, only after the arrest of the respondent,\t and
\nthere  was  nothing  wrong  if it  was\tsent  alongwith\t his
\nspecimen  fingerprints which had necessarily to be  obtained
\nby making an application to a magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
837<\/span><\/p>\n
The  specimen  impressions Ex.\tPF\/2 of the fingers  of\t the
\nrespondent were taken by the Muktsar Magistrate on June\t 28,
\n1974.\tQuestion No. 28 was asked of the respondent  whether
\nthat  was  so,\tand lie gave a categorical  reply  that\t the
\nevidence  in  that respect was “correct”.   The\t High  Court
\ntherefore  again did not read a material part of the  record
\nin  taking the contrary view.  The High Court seems to\thave
\naccepted  the  statement of the respondent that\t the  Police
\ntook  his finger impressions on the currency note  while  he
\nwas  in\t Police custody, but it not only lost sight  of\t the
\nfact that there was no evidence to that effect, but also  of
\nthe  fact that the prosecution had succeeded in proving\t the
\nrecovery by the reliable evidence, on the record.   Moreover
\nif  the Police had forcibly taken the fingerprints, none  of
\nthem  would have been faint or smudged or on the printed  or
\nwritten portion of the note.\n<\/p>\n
It will be recalled that Dr. P. K. Narang (P.W. 1) performed
\nthe  post-mortem- examination on the body of  Nishan  Chand,
\nand  the  High Court has taken the view\t that  his  evidence
\nshowed that the injuries could not have been inflicted\twith
\nthe knife of which Ex.P. 3 was the blade and that  “possibly
\nthree  types  of weapons were used to cause  injuries”.\t  We
\nhave  gone  through the statement of Dr’  Narang  (P.W.\t 1).
\nWhat he has stated is that some of the injuries were  caused
\nby  a  sharp  pointed weapon, one injury  by  a\t sharp-edged
\nweapon\tand injuries Nos. 10, 11 and 12 by a  blunt  weapon.
\nThe witness clarified that injuries Nos. 11 and 12 could  be
\ncaused by a fall, and injury No. 10 being a linear  abrasion
\ncould  be caused by the point of any substance.\t As  regards
\nthe incised injuries, the witness has stated that it was not
\nnecessary  that the stab wounds could have been caused by  a
\nweapon of which both the edges were sharp.  The presence  of
\nthose injuries could not therefore justify the inference  of
\nthe  High Court that they required three types\tof  weapons.
\nBlade  (Ex.P.  3) was sent to the Chemical Examiner  to\t the
\nGovernment  of\tPunjab and his report Ex.P.  AA\t contains  a
\ndiagram\t of  its shape, which clearly shows that  it  was  a
\npeculiar blade with a pointed end as well as a sharp  blade.
\nThe High Court therefore erred in holding that the  injuries
\nwhich  were  found on the person of the deceased  could\t not
\nhave been inflicted with a knife having Ex.P.1 as its blade.
\nThe  High  Court rejected the prosecution evidence  for\t the
\nfurther\t reason that the bicycle of the deceased, which\t was
\nlying  on the road, was not in a damaged condition  and\t did
\nnot have blood stains, and also because the respondent could
\nnot  have dragged the deceased alone to a distance of 50  or
\n60  ‘karams’ and inflicted all the injuries with his  knife.
\nHere again, the High Court went beyond the record because it
\nwas  not  the case of the prosecution that the\tbicycle\t was
\ndamaged at the time of the incident, or that it was  stained
\nwith  blood, or that the incident took place near the  place
\nwhere  the bicycle was found by the witnesses so as to\thave
\nblood  stains  near  it. It was also not  the  case  of\t the
\nprosecution  that the respondent dragged the deceased  to  a
\ndistance of 50 or 60 ‘karams’ from the road.  As regards the
\ninfliction  of the injuries by the respondent singly,  there
\nwas  no\t reason\t for the High Court to think  that  was\t not
\npossible.   Blade of the knife was recovered near  the\tdead
\nbody of Nishan
\n838<\/span>
\nChand, without the handle, and it is not disputed before  us
\nthat  it  was  stained with human blood.   We  have  made  a
\nreference  of the diagram of the knife and the fact that  it
\nhad a pointed end and a sharp edge.  Dr. Narang (P.W. 1) has
\nstated\tthat the first two injuries were stab wounds on\t the
\nleft side of the fore-head and the left temporal region, and
\nwere individually sufficient to cause death.  They could  be
\ncaused\tby a sharp pointed weapon and there was\t nothing  to
\nprevent\t a  single  person  from  inflicting  one  of  those
\ninjuries initially and disabling the victim of his  capacity
\nto  resist  thereafter.\t It is the case of  the\t prosecution
\nthat  the deceased and the respondent were friends and\twere
\nmoving about on the bicycle of the deceased.  ‘The  deceased
\nmust therefore have been caught unawares when the respondent
\ndealt  him the first fatal blow on a vital part of the\tbody
\nand  would  not\t have  been in\ta  position  to\t resist\t him
\nthereafter.  The handle of the knife gave way, and that also
\nshowed that it was used with force.\n<\/p>\n
It  would  thus\t appear that the High  Court  committed\t the
\naforesaid  serious  errors in reading the  evidence  on\t the
\nrecord\t and   very  often  based  its\tfindings   on\tmere
\nconjectures.  Its finding that the prosecution had failed to
\n“connect  the accused with the commission of the  crime”  is
\nquite incorrect and must be set aside”.\n<\/p>\n
The  evidence  against\tthe  respondent\t in  this  case\t  is
\ncircumstantial.\t  We  have  discussed a\t part  of  it  while
\nexamining  the\tfindings of the High Court, and it  will  be
\nenough\tto mention those facts and circumstances which\thave
\nbeen established against the respondent beyond any doubt.
\nIt has been stated by Mohan Lal (P.W. 5) that his son Nishan
\nChand and the respondent had good relations with each  other
\nand that they left for Malout on June 17, 1974, together, on
\nNishan Chand’s bicycle.\t This has in fact not been  disputed
\nbefore\tus.   We have examined the  evidence  regarding\t the
\ncollection of at least Rs. 1523\/- by Nishan Chand from Balli
\nSingh  (P.W. 11) and Budh Singh and have given\tour  reasons
\nfor the finding that the deceased had\tat  least that\tmuch
\nmoney  with  him when he and the  respondent  met  Inspector
\nGurdev\tSingh  (P.W. 14) at Malout. The prosecution  has  in
\nfact  led  its\tevidence  to prove  that  the  deceased\t bad
\ncollected  Rs. 4156\/-  on  that\t day, but  as  a  matter  of
\nabundant caution we have leftout  two of those\tcollections
\nin holding that at least Rs. 1523\/- bad been  collected\t  by
\nhim.   We  have\t also  made  a\tmention\t of  Gurdev  Singh’s
\nstatement  that the deceased asked him to get a sum of\tmore
\nthan  Rs. 2000\/- deposited in the Central Co-operative\tBank
\nat  Malout  in\tthe  presence  of  the\trespondent  and\t his
\ninability  to  do  so. as the cash  had\t been  closed.\t The
\nallegation of the prosecution that the respondent  committed
\nthe murder of Nishan Chand for the purpose of robbing him of
\nthe  money has been established by the fact that Rs.  4142\/-
\nwere  actually recovered at the instance of the\t respondent.
\nin pursuance of the information furnished by him in Ex.\t  P.
\nO. on June 23, 1974, and at his instance within two days  of
\nhis arrest.\n<\/p>\n
839<\/span><\/p>\n
The respondent has himself admitted that he and the deceased
\nwent  to  village Lambi on June 17, 1974, at 7.30  a.m.\t and
\nthen went to Malout.  Inspector Gurdev Singh (P.W. 14)\thas,
\nstated\tthat  his aforesaid talk with Nishan  Chand  in\t the
\npresence  of the respondent took place when they met him  at
\nMalout after 3 p.m. on June 17, 1974.  The respondent stated
\nin the trial court that he left Nishan Chand at Malout at 10
\na.m.  He  did  not however lead any evidence  to  prove\t his
\ncontention,  which  has\t in  fact  been\t disproved  by\t the
\nstatement of Inspector Gurdev Singh that they were  together
\nwith  him  until  some\ttime after 3  p.m.  that  day.\t The
\ndeceased  was  not  seen alive after he\t had  met  Inspector
\nGurdev\tSingh  in  the company of  the\trespondent  and\t the
\ncategorical  statement\tof the Inspector Gurdev\t Singh\tthat
\nthey  both went away leaves no room for doubt that  was\t the
\nlast  occasion\twhen they were, seen  together.\t  Mohan\t Lal
\n(P.W.  5) has stated that neither his son Nishan  Chand\t nor
\nthe  respondent returned to the village in the evening,\t and
\nthe  next  day\this son’s bicycle was  found  lying  on\t the
\n“pakka”\t road going from Roranwali to Sikhanwala and  Nishan
\nChand’s dead body was also found nearby.\n<\/p>\n
The  respondent tried to take the plea, in his statement  in
\nthe  trial court, that he was at Ferozepur on the  night  of
\nthe alleged incident ‘as he had gone there to meet his elder
\nbrother who was a conductor in the Punjab Roadways.  He\t did
\nnot however lead any evidence in support of that  statement.
\nOn the other hand, Sub-Inspector Harnek Singh (P.W. 19)\t has
\nstated that after recording the first information report  he
\nmade  a search for the respondent in villages Roranwali\t and
\nKhankbanwali and even stayed in village Khankhanwali for the
\nnight,\tHe has stated further that the respondent  could  be
\narrested only on June 21, 1974, at about 8 p.m. near village
\nFatuekhera.  The respondent has not succeeded in  explaining
\nhis  absence or his movements during the intervening  period
\nand  has failed in his attempt to establish his presence  at
\nFerozepur on the fateful night.\t A halting attempt was\tmade
\nby  the\t respondent to set up the explanation  that  he\t was
\nproduced before the police on June 18, 1974, by his relation
\nHazra Singh, but he did not find it possible to establish it
\nalso.\n<\/p>\n
We  have  referred  to\tour  finding  that  the\t  respondent
\nvoluntarily  made the disclosure statement Ex.P.O.  on\tJune
\n23,  1974,  and\t Rs. 4142\/-  in\t currency  notes  (including
\ncurrency note Ex.P. 10 having fingerprints), ring Ex.P.1 and
\npurse\tEx.P.  9  were\trecovered  in  pursuance   of\tthat
\ninformation, tied in a handkerchief, when the respondent dug
\nthem  out from a place near the water lift in the middle  of
\nthe  way  going from Khankhanwali to  Roranwall.   The\tring
\nEx.P.1 bore the initials of the name of the deceased and the
\npurse Ex. P. 9 contained enough particulars to show that  it
\nbelonged to the respondent and to no one else.\tIn fact\t the
\nidentity  of  the  purse,  as his  own\tproperty,  has\tbeen
\nadmitted  by  the respondent in his statement in  the  trial
\ncourt  where be merely contended that the  purse  containing
\nhis  address was taken by the Sub-Inspector from his  pocket
\nat the time of his arrest.  As has been stated, he could not
\nestablish  that contention, and we have no doubt that it  is
\nquite false.\n<\/p>\n
840<\/span><\/p>\n
As  regards  the  recovery  of\tRs.  4142\/-,  all  that\t the
\nrespondent could contend was that after his arrest the\tSub-
\nInspector asked his relations to give him Rs. 4000\/- on\t the
\npretext that he would get him discharged from the case,\t and
\nthat his relations contributed the amount and handed it over
\nto the Sub-Inspector who later on “foisted the amount on  me
\nto  implicate me falsely in this case.” Apart from the\tfact
\nthat  the respondent has not led any evidence to  prove\t his
\ncontention,  we find that the prosecution has  succeeded  in
\nproving\t beyond doubt that the hundred rupee  currency\tnote
\nNo.   AD 53007632, which was on the top of all the  currency
\nnotes\twhich  were  recovered\tat  the\t instance   of\t the
\nrespondent, bore fingerprints at least one of which has been
\nfound to be of the respondent and of no one else.
\nWe have given our reasons for rejecting the statement of the
\nrespondent that the police got his finger impression on\t the
\ncurrency  not,.-  while\t he was in  custody  at\t the  police
\nstation.   The\trespondent  was\t an  educated  man  who\t was
\nemployed as the Secretary of the local Co-operative  Society
\nand  who  had an influential maternal  uncle.\tThe,  police
\ncould  not therefore have obtained his fingerprints  in\t the
\nmanner\talleged\t by  him  and  the  respondent\twould\thave
\nresisted,  any such attempt to create irrebuttable  evidence
\nagainst\t him of a serious charge, like murder and he or\t his
\nuncle would have exposed it immediately.\n<\/p>\n
We  have examined the evidence of the prosecution  regarding
\nthe taking of specimen fingerprints of the respondent, their
\ncomparison  and\t examination  with the\tfingerprint  on\t the
\ncurrency  note\tby  the\t Director,  Finger  Print,   Bureau,
\nPhillaur, and his report Ex.  P. BB.  As the impression mark
\nA on the currency note was partly smudged and partly on\t the
\ndesign\tand  the printed writing,  it  was  photographically
\nenlarged  along with the right middle finger  impression  of
\nthe  respondent, and the two photographic enlargements\twere
\nmarked A\/A and 1\/1 respectively.  The Director has given the
\nopinion that the photographically enlarged impression marked
\nA\/A was “partly smudged but, otherwise, it is comparable and
\nthere\texist  sufficient  (not\t less  than  8)\t points\t  of
\nsimilarity  i.e.  matching ridge characteristic\t details  in
\ntheir identical sequence, without any discordances,  between
\nits comparable portion and the corresponding portion of\t the
\nphotographically enlarged right middle finger impression  of
\nAjit Singh marked 1\/1.” The Director has further stated that
\nhe  had\t graphically shown the 8 points\t of  similarity\t “in
\ntheir same form and position” and had indicated the “nature,
\ndirection  and\tsequence  of each point”  in  it’s  relevant
\ncircle.\t  He has expressed the categorical opinion  that  so
\nmany  points  of similarity could not be found to  occur  in
\nimpressions  of different thumbs and fingers and  that\tthey
\nwere  therefore\t “identical” or were “of one  and  the\tsame
\nperson.”  There were other impressions also on the  currency
\nnotes, but they were either sufficiently smudged and  partly
\ninterfered with by the design and the printed matter or were
\nsufficiently   faint   and  were  rejected  as\t unfit\t for
\ncomparison.\n<\/p>\n
Nothing- substantial has been urged to challenge the opinion
\nof  the, Director of the Finger Print Bureau, and  all\tthat
\nhas been argued is
\n841<\/span>
\nthat  as there were only,, 8; points, of  similarity,  there
\nwas  not  enough basic for the expert’s\t opinion  about\t the
\nidentity of the fingerprints. Reference in, this  connection
\nhas,  been made to B. L. Saxena’s. fixation of\tHandwriting,
\nDisputed   Documents,  Finger  Prints,\tFoot   Print.$\t and
\nDetection, of Foregeries”, 1968 edition, page 247, Walter R.
\nScott’s\t “Fingerprint Mechanics” page 62, and, M. K  Mehta’s
\n“The  Identification  of Thumb Impressions and,\t the  Cross-
\nExamination of Finger Print Experts” 2nd edition page  28.We
\nhave gone through these books but they do not really support
\nthe  argument  of- the learned counsel for  the\t respondent.
\nWhile referring to the old practice of looking for a minimum
\nof 12 identical characteristic details, Saxena has  admitted
\nthat  the  modern view is that six points of  similarity  of
\npattern\t are  sufficient to establish the identity  of\tthe,
\nfingerprints.  Walter Scott has stated that “as a matter  of
\npractice, most experts who work with fingerprints constantly
\nsatisfy\t themselves  as to identity with eight or  even\t six
\npoints of identity.  Mehta has also stated that in the\tcase
\nof  blurred  impressions  the view of  some  of\t the  Indian
\nexperts\t is that if there were three identical points,\tthey
\nwould be sufficient to prove the identity.
\nThere  is  no  gainsaying  the\tfact  that  a  majority\t  of
\nfingerprints  found  at crime scene or\tcrime  articles\t are
\npartially smudged, and it is for the experienced and skilled
\nfingerprint  expert  to\t say whether a\tmark  is  usable  as
\nfingerprint  evidence.\t Similarly  it is  for\ta  competent
\ntechnician  to\texamine\t and give his  opinion\twhether\t the
\nidentity  can be established, and if so whether that can  be
\ndone  on eight or even less identical characteristics in  an
\nappropriate  case.  As has been pointed out, the opinion  of
\nthe  Director  of the Finger Print Bureau in  this  case  is
\nclear  and  categorical and has been supported\tby  adequate
\nreasons.  We have therefore no hesitation in accepting it as
\ncorrect.\n<\/p>\n
It  will be recalled that the explanation of the  respondent
\nabout the recovery of Rs. 4142\/- from his purse Ex.  P. 9 is
\nquite unsatisfactory.  He has not found it possible to\tgive
\nany explanation why the deceased’s ring Ex.  P. 1 was  found
\ntied  with those articles in his handkerchief.\tWe  have  no
\ndoubt that the recovery of these articles is a strong piece,
\nof circumstantial evidence against him.\n<\/p>\n
The  prosecution  recovered some blood stained\tclothes\t and
\nshoes also and led its evidence regarding the taking of\t the
\nmounds,\t and their comparison.\tWe do not however  think  it
\nnecessary  to  examine it as it cannot be said to  be  quite
\nclear.\n<\/p>\n
The  recovery of the incriminating articles in pursuance  of
\nthe,  respondent’s  information\t is an\timportant  piece  of
\nevidence  against  him.\t As has been held by this  Court  in
\nBaiju  alias  Bharosa  v. State of  Madhya  Pradesh(1),\t the
\nquestion  whether a presumption should be drawn against\t the
\nrespondent  under  illustration (a) of section\t114  of\t the
\nEvidence  Act is a matter which depends on the evidence\t and
\nthe circumstances of each case.\t The nature of the recovered
\narticles, the, manner of their acquisition by the owner, the
\nnature of the evidence
\n(1) [1978] 2 SCR. 594.\n<\/p>\n
3-329 SCI\/78
\n842<\/span>
\nabout their identification, the manner in which the articles
\nwere,  dealt  with  by\tthe  accused  the  place  and\tthe,
\ncircumstances\tof  their  recovery,  the  length   of\t the
\nintervening  period  and  the ability or  otherwise  of\t the
\naccused\t  to  explain  the  recovery,  are  some  of   those
\ncircumstances.\t As the ring Ex.  P. 1 was made of gold\t and
\nbore the initials of the deceased, and the goldsmith  Kartar
\nSingh (P.W. 17) bad established its identity, there could be
\nno doubt whatsoever that it belonged to the deceased.  It is
\nalso  a matter of great significance that it was found\ttied
\nin   a\t handkerchief  alongwith  the\tother\ttwo   highly
\nincriminating  articles, namely, the finger marked  currency
\nnote  Ex.  P. 10 and the respondent’s purse Ex.\t P. 9  about
\nwhose  identity\t there\tcan possibly be no  reason  for\t any
\ndoubt.\t The respondent knew that he would be  suspected  of
\nthe crime because the deceased was last seen in his company,
\nand the fact that he buried the articles near the water lift
\nin  the middle of the way leading from Khankhanwali  to\t his
\nvillage\t Roranwali shows that he wanted the articles to\t lie
\nthere until he could feel reassured enough to dig them\tout.
\nIt  however so happened that he was suspected from the\tvery
\nbeginning,  was\t arrested  within four\tdays  and  gave\t the
\ninformation  within the next two days which led to the\tdis-
\ncovery of an important fact within the meaning of section 27
\nof  the\t Evidence Act.\tIt must therefore be held  that\t the
\nincriminating  articles were acquired by the  respondent  at
\none and the same time and that it was he and no one else who
\nhad  robbed the deceased of the money and the ring  and\t had
\nhidden\tthem at a place and in a manner which war, known  to
\nhim.  Then there is the further fact that the respondent was
\nunable\tto explain his possession of the ring and the  money
\nand  did not even attempt to do so.  The currency  note\t Ex.
\nP. 10 was found on the top of the bundle of currency  ‘notes
\nof  the value of Rs. 4142\/-, and we have given\tour  reasons
\nfor  holding that it bore the respondent’s fingerprint.\t  It
\nwill  be  recalled  that the  deceased\twas  undoubtedly  in
\npossession  of currency notes because of the realisation  he
\nhad made from the debtors of the Co-operative Society only a
\nlittle\twhile earlier, and the fact that the respondent\t hid
\nthe notes after tying them in a handkerchief, shows that  he
\nknew that their possessions with him would be  incriminating
\nand unexplainable.  The intervening period between the\tloss
\nof the money and the ring by the deceased and their recovery
\nwas not more than six days, which was quite a short  period.
\nAll  these  facts were not only proof of  robbery  but\twere
\npresumptive  evidence  of  the charge  of  murder  as  well.
\nReference in this connection may be made to the decisions in
\nWasim  Khan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh<\/a>(1), Tulsiram\tKanu
\nv.   The  State,(2)  Sunderlal\tv.  The\t State\t of   Madhya
\nPradesh<\/a>(3), Alisher v. State of Uttar Pradesh<\/a> (4) and  Baiju
\nalias Bharosa v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (supra).
\nIn  fact  it has, not been disputed before us  that  if\t the
\nrespondents  possession\t of the incriminating  articles\t was
\nheld proved, the circus stantial evidence against him  would
\nbe sufficient to justify the trial
\n(1)  [1956] S.C.R. 191.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  AIR 1954 S.C. 1
\n(3)  A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 28.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  [1974] 4 S.C.C. 254.\n<\/p>\n
843<\/span><\/p>\n
court’s\t finding  that he was guilty of\t the  offence  under
\nsection\t 302 for committing the murder of Nishan  Chand\t and
\nthe  offence of robbery under section 392 read with  section
\n397 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed,\t the
\nimpugned  judgment  of\tthe  High Court\t is  set  aside\t and
\nrespondent  Ajit  Singh is convicted of the  offences  under
\nsections 302 and 392\/397 I.P.C. In the circumstances of\t the
\ncase, we think it sufficient to sentence him to imprisonment
\nfor   life  for\t the  offence  under  section  302  and\t  to
\nimprisonment  for seven years for the offence under  section
\n392\/397 I.P.C, Both the sentences will run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t       Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
S.R.\n<\/p>\n
844<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mohan Lal & Anr vs Ajit Singh And Anr on 2 May, 1978 Equivalent citations: 1978 AIR 1183, 1978 SCR (3) 823 Author: P Shingal Bench: Shingal, P.N. PETITIONER: MOHAN LAL & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: AJIT SINGH AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT02\/05\/1978 BENCH: SHINGAL, P.N. BENCH: SHINGAL, P.N. DESAI, D.A. CITATION: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-44184","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMohan Lal & Anr vs Ajit Singh And Anr on 2 May, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-anr-vs-ajit-singh-and-anr-on-2-may-1978\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohan Lal & Anr vs Ajit Singh And Anr on 2 May, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-anr-vs-ajit-singh-and-anr-on-2-may-1978\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1978-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-12T02:25:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"58 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-anr-vs-ajit-singh-and-anr-on-2-may-1978#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-anr-vs-ajit-singh-and-anr-on-2-may-1978\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohan Lal & Anr vs Ajit Singh And Anr on 2 May, 1978\",\"datePublished\":\"1978-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-12T02:25:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-anr-vs-ajit-singh-and-anr-on-2-may-1978\"},\"wordCount\":10195,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-anr-vs-ajit-singh-and-anr-on-2-may-1978#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-anr-vs-ajit-singh-and-anr-on-2-may-1978\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-anr-vs-ajit-singh-and-anr-on-2-may-1978\",\"name\":\"Mohan Lal & Anr vs Ajit Singh And Anr on 2 May, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1978-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-12T02:25:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-anr-vs-ajit-singh-and-anr-on-2-may-1978#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-anr-vs-ajit-singh-and-anr-on-2-may-1978\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohan-lal-anr-vs-ajit-singh-and-anr-on-2-may-1978#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohan Lal & Anr vs Ajit Singh And Anr on 2 May, 1978\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mohan Lal & Anr vs Ajit Singh And Anr on 2 May, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-anr-vs-ajit-singh-and-anr-on-2-may-1978","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohan Lal & Anr vs Ajit Singh And Anr on 2 May, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-anr-vs-ajit-singh-and-anr-on-2-may-1978","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1978-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-12T02:25:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"58 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-anr-vs-ajit-singh-and-anr-on-2-may-1978#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-anr-vs-ajit-singh-and-anr-on-2-may-1978"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohan Lal & Anr vs Ajit Singh And Anr on 2 May, 1978","datePublished":"1978-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-12T02:25:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-anr-vs-ajit-singh-and-anr-on-2-may-1978"},"wordCount":10195,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-anr-vs-ajit-singh-and-anr-on-2-may-1978#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-anr-vs-ajit-singh-and-anr-on-2-may-1978","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-anr-vs-ajit-singh-and-anr-on-2-may-1978","name":"Mohan Lal & Anr vs Ajit Singh And Anr on 2 May, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1978-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-12T02:25:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-anr-vs-ajit-singh-and-anr-on-2-may-1978#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-anr-vs-ajit-singh-and-anr-on-2-may-1978"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohan-lal-anr-vs-ajit-singh-and-anr-on-2-may-1978#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohan Lal & Anr vs Ajit Singh And Anr on 2 May, 1978"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44184","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=44184"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44184\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44184"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44184"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44184"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}