{"id":64706,"date":"2002-04-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-04-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhchain-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-24-april-2002"},"modified":"2015-03-11T09:01:57","modified_gmt":"2015-03-11T03:31:57","slug":"sukhchain-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-24-april-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhchain-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-24-april-2002","title":{"rendered":"Sukhchain Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 24 April, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sukhchain Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 24 April, 2002<\/div>\n
Author: Sethi<\/div>\n
Bench: R.P. Sethi, Doraiswamy Raju<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.) 57  of  1996\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nSUKHCHAIN SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t24\/04\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nR.P. Sethi & Doraiswamy Raju\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
(With Criminal A.No.58\/96)
\nJ U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
SETHI,J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThese appeals are directed against the order of the
\nHigh Court acquitting the respondents who, upon trial, were
\nfound guilty and convicted by the trial court for the
\ncommission of the offence punishable under Section 302 read
\nwith Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.  They were
\nsentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000\/-
\neach to be paid, on realisation, to the widow of the
\ndeceased.  It is contended that the judgment of the High
\nCourt is perverse, based upon assumptions and conjectures,
\ncompletely ignoring the reliable legal evidence and has
\nresulted in miscarriage of justice which is sought to be set
\nright.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe occurrence in which one Raj Karan aged about 23
\nyears was murdered, took place in Village Siwah near Panipat
\nin the State of Haryana.  Report of the occurrence was
\nlodged on the same day at about 10.30 a.m. at the police
\nstation which is 8 kms. away from the place of occurrence.
\nThe copy of the said report was sent to the Area Magistrate
\nunder Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. which reached the
\nMagistrate at 11.00 a.m.<\/p>\n
\tThe deceased along with his 7 other brothers was living
\nin the said village Siwah where they owned their lands.\t One
\nof his brother Sukhchain Singh (PW1) was a practicing lawyer
\nat Panipat while permanently residing in the village.  The
\ndeceased and Sukhchain Singh (PW1) were living jointly
\nwhereas all the remaining brothers lived separately.  In
\ntheir neighbourhood lived Hardwari Lal and Suraj Mal who
\nwere in litigation with each other for partition of the
\nland.  As Raj Karan was on visiting terms with Suraj Mal,
\nHardwari Lal’s nephew Bishna and his grand-son Balbir,\tboth
\naccused, had conceived ill-will against Raj Karan, deceased
\nwhom they considered as the apple of discord.  On the night
\nintervening 2nd and 3rd of May, 1989, Sukhchain Singh
\n(PW1), Raj Karan, deceased and Jai Karan, cousin of PW1 were
\ncarrying chaff loaded in a trolley from the fields of the
\nvillage.  At about 4 a.m. on 3rd May, 1989, the deceased
\nafter loading the trolley tied it with the tractor and drove
\nit near their house where the chaff was to be stacked in the
\nadjoining rooms.  Sukhchain Singh (PW1) and Jai Karan (PW2)
\nwere coming to their house on foot by a short-cut passage
\nafter Raj Karan had left the fields.  After reaching near
\nthe house Raj Karan started waiting for his brother and
\ncousin to reach.  At that time both the accused persons,
\narmed with lathis (sticks), came out of their house, raised
\na lalkara declaring that they will teach a lesson to Raj
\nKaran for helping Suraj Mal and finish him.  They surrounded
\nthe deceased and inflicted lathi blows on his head.  The
\ncommotion and the noise attracted the attention of Sukhchain
\nSingh (PW1) and Jai Karan (PW2) who saw the occurrence.
\nThey saw Balbir and Bishna giving blows on the head of Raj
\nKaran as a consequence of which the injured became
\nunconscious and fell down on the ground.  When the witnesses
\nraised hue and cry and sought help of the villagers, the
\naccused persons fled away from the spot with their lathis.
\nSatinder Kumar, another brother of the deceased, also
\nreached on the spot.  All the persons present on the spot
\narranged a trolley and removed Raj Karan in an injured
\ncondition to Civil Hospital, Panipat for treatment but at
\n6.45 p.m. the injured succumbed to his injuries in the
\nHospital.  When the injured was brought to the Hospital, the
\ndoctor had sent a note to the Police Station, Sadar, Panipat
\non the receipt of which Bullan Singh, Assistant Sub-
\nInspector (PW5) reached the Civil Hospital and recorded the
\nstatement of complainant Sukhchain Singh (PW1) at 8.30 a.m.
\nwhich was later treated as First Information Report and
\nmarked Exh. PA\/3.\n<\/p>\n
\tAfter completing the investigation, the accused were
\nsent for their trial under Section 302 read with Section 34
\nof the Indian Penal Code.  In order to prove its case
\nprosecution examined Sukhchain Singh (PW1), Jai Karan (PW2),
\nDr.Mahesh Parkash (PW3), Balak Ram (PW4), Assistant Sub-
\nInspector Bhullan Singh (PW5), Head Constable Hanu Ram (PW6,
\nHead Constable Chandi Ram (PW7), Head Constable Tasveer
\nSingh (PW8), Sub-Inspector Mehar Singh (PW9) and Constable
\nOm Parkash (PW10). As earlier noticed, Sukhchain Singh (PW1)
\nand Jai Karan (PW2) are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence.
\nRelying upon the testimony of the eye-witnesses, the trial
\ncourt held both the accused guilty of the offence punishable
\nunder Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
\nCode and sentenced them to life imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
\tNot relying upon the testimony of PWs1 and 2, the High
\nCourt acquitted the accused persons vide the judgment
\nimpugned in these appeals.  Feeling aggrieved by the
\njudgment of the High Court Criminal Appeal No.57 of 1996 was
\nfiled by the complainant and Criminal Appeal No.58 of 1996
\nby the State of Haryana.\n<\/p>\n
\tTo arrive at the conclusion that PWs1 and 2 were not
\nthe eye-witnesses of the occurrence, the High Court noted:\n<\/p>\n
“PW1 Sukhchain Singh stated at the trial that he
\nbrought his injured brother Raj Karan to Civil
\nHospital, Panipat in a tractor-trolley.\t He was
\naccompanied by Satinder Kumar, Sukhdarshan alias
\nSukhdev and Jai Karan; but from the medico-legal
\nreport, it is shown that injured Raj Karan (since
\ndeceased) was brought to the Hospital by
\nSukhdarshan alias Sukhdev and none else.  On the
\nmedico-legal report Exhibit PE, in the column
\n“name of relative and friend”, the name of
\nSukhdarshan alias Sukhdev was written.\tIt is
\nagain clear from the medico-legal report Exhibit
\nPE that the certificate to the effect that the
\ninjured was not previously medico-legally examined
\nwas also signed by Sukhdarshan.\t At the end of the
\nmedico-legal report where it is printed as
\nsignatures of thumb-impression of private party,
\nthere also the name of Sukhdarshan is written.
\nDate of arrival and medical examination of Raj
\nKaran is given as May 3, 1989, 6.30 a.m. by the
\nDoctor.\t Immediately after the medical examination
\nof injured Raj Karan the doctor had sent ruqa
\nExhibit PF to the Station House Officer, Police
\nStation Sadar, Panipat, which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“To<\/p>\n
\tSHO,
\n\tSadar, Panipat<\/p>\n
\tIt is for your information that an
\nunconscious patient Mr.Raj Karan, S\/o Sh.Kehar
\nSingh is admitted in G.H. Panipat alleged to have
\nbeen beaten up by somebody.\n<\/p>\n
\tKindly note and take the necessary action.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\tDoctor 3.5.1989
\n\t\t\t\t\tat 6.35 a.m.”\n<\/p>\n
Immediately after receipt of ruqa Exhibit PF from
\nthe Hospital in the police station which is
\nadmittedly at a distance of about 200 yards from
\nthe Hospital, an entry Exhibit PF\/1 in the Daily
\nDiary Register was made in the police station
\nwhich reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
P.S. Sadar Panipat\tCopy of Rapat\tDistrict Karnal<\/p>\n
SI\/SHO\t\t\tOn receipt of\t3.5.1989 Time
\n\t\t\t\tthe ruqa of\t6.55 a.m.
\n\t\t\t\tthe Doctor and
\n\t\t\t\tDeparture of
\n\t\t\t\tASI<\/p>\n
At this time a ruqa of the doctor has been
\nreceived from G.H. Hospital through the Ward
\nServant with following subject.\n<\/p>\n
It is for your information that unconscious
\npatient Mr.Raj Karan S\/o Kehar Singh is admitted
\nin G.H. Panipat alleged to have been beaten up by
\nsomebody.  Kindly note and take the necessary
\naction.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\tDOCTOR
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t3.5.1989  6.30 a.m.<\/p>\n
FROM THE POLICE STATION:\n<\/p>\n
\tOn receipt of the ruqa of the doctor with the
\nabove subject, I the ASI along with H.C. Tasvir
\nSingh No.1012 and Davinder Singh No.183, started
\ntowards G.H. Panipat for recording the statement
\nof injured.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\tP.S. SADAR
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tPANIPAT
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t3.5.1989.”\n<\/p>\n
From the evidence mentioned above, one thing is,
\nhowever, clear that immediately after arrival of
\ninjured Raj Karan, the Doctor who had conducted
\nmedico-legal examination was informed by Sudarshan
\nthat injured Raj Karan was beaten up by someone.
\nThe accused were not named as the assailants
\nbefore the Doctor.  Even PW1 had stated at the
\ntrial that Sukhdarshan alias Sukhdev gave
\ninformation to the Doctor about the particulars of
\nthe injured and PW2 Jai Karan had stated at the
\ntrial that Sukhdarshan had made enquiries from
\nthem as to who had caused injuries to Raj Karan
\nand they had told him as to who had caused
\ninjuries to Raj Karan.\tIt has come in evidence of
\nPW5 Assistant Sub-Inspector Bhullan Singh that
\nwhen he reached the Hospital at 7.10 a.m., on May
\n3, 1989 there was none with Raj Karan Injured
\n(deceased) except the Doctor.  He had searched for
\nrelations\/attendants of Raj Karan, but he could
\nnot find any.  It was only at 8.30 a.m. on that
\ndate that Sukhchain Singh (PW1) met him in the
\nlawn of the Hospital who was alone at that time
\nand he recorded his statement.\tIt was only at
\nthat stage that the appellants were named as
\naccused in this case by PW1 Sukhchain Singh, the
\nreal brother of the deceased.  Earlier to that,
\nneither Sukhchain Singh, the first informant nor
\nothers including Jai Karan, Satinder Kumar or
\nSukhdarshan alias Sukhdev were available to the
\npolice in the Hospital nor any one of them had
\ninformed the police regarding the occurrence,
\nthough the police station was hardly 200 yards
\nfrom the Hospital (the distance of 200 yards from
\nthe Hospital to Police Station has come in the
\nevidence of PW1 Sukhchain Singh).  Again it is
\nclear from the evidence on record that Sukhdarshan
\nmet the Doctor who prepared the medico-legal
\nreport Exhibit PE and he did not name these two
\naccused-appellants as the assailants.  It is
\nfurther fortified by the fact that Sukhdarshan who
\nwas a material witness in this case and signed the
\nmedico-legal report and had taken the injured to
\nthe Hospital had not been produced by the
\nprosecution having been left over as unnecessary
\nand particularly so when PW1 had stated at the
\ntrial that Sukhdarshan had given information about
\nthe injured to the Doctor.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court further found that except the alleged
\nbald assertions of PWs1 and 2, there was no evidence of
\ntransporting the chaff from the field to the house of the
\ncomplainant.  The room where the chaff was to be stacked was
\nheld to be not in possession of the complainant and in fact
\nleased out to Anganbadi because in one of rooms there hung a
\nsign-board with the words “Agan Badi Village Siwah”.  The
\ntransportation of the chaff was also held to be not proved
\nby the High Court because of the non seizure of the tractor
\ntrolley or the chaff by the investigating officer.  As some
\nsemi digested food was found in the stomach of the deceased,
\nthe High Court held PWs1 and 2 to be untrustworthy as they
\nhad consumed their food at 8.30 p.m. and the deceased was
\nwrongly stated to have taken his food at 10-11 p.m.  The
\nHigh Court concluded that it was the case of blind murder
\nand the occurrence had not taken place at 4 a.m. in view of
\nthe finding of the Doctor regarding semi-digested food in
\nthe stomach of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.U.R. Lalit, Senior Advocate who appeared for the
\naccused persons supported the judgment of the High Court and
\nsubmitted that it was a fit case where this Court should not
\ninterfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
\nIt is submitted that the view taken by the High Court, on
\nappreciation of evidence, was a probable view which did not
\nrequire to be substituted by another view even that view is
\npossible to be taken.  Learned counsel also justified, on
\nfacts, the conclusions arrived at by the High Court in the
\nimpugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.J.P. Dhanda, the learned counsel appearing for the
\nState of Haryana submitted that the finding of the High
\nCourt being perverse and based upon assumptions and
\npresumptions required to be rectified.\tHe contended that in
\nview of the elaborate judgment of the trial court, there was
\nno ground or occasion for the High Court to have passed the
\nimpugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is true that generally this Court does not interfere
\nwith the finding of fact arrived at after proper
\nappreciation of evidence by the Courts below.  But if such a
\nfinding is perverse, based upon no evidence or based upon
\nsuch evidence which is inadmissible or is the result of
\nimaginative hypothesis, conjectures, illegal assumptions and
\npresumptions, the Court is entitled to re-appreciate the
\nevidence to ascertain the validity of its judgment.  In
\nPritam Singh v. The State [AIR 1950 SC 169] this Court held
\nthat special leave to appeal can be granted only if it is
\nshown that the exceptional and special circumstances exist
\nto show that substantial and grave injustice has been done
\nand the case in question presents features of sufficient
\ngravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed
\nagainst.  In Sadu Singh Harnam Singh v. The State of Pepsu
\n[AIR 1954 SC 271] it was observed that this Court does not,
\nby special leave, convert itself into a court of review to
\nreview evidence for a third time.  But where, however, the
\ncourt below is shown to have failed in appreciating the true
\neffect of material change in the version given by the
\nwitnesses, it would be right for this Court to interfere to
\navert the failure of justice.  In Duli Chand v. Delhi
\nAdministration<\/a> [1975 (4) SCC 649], Ramniklal Gokuldas & Ors.
\nv. State of Gujarat[1976 (1) SCC 6], Mst.Dalbir Kaur & Ors.
\nv. State of Punjab<\/a> [1976 (4) SCC 158], State of Jammu &
\nKashmir v. Hazara Singh & Anr.<\/a> [AIR 1981 SC 451], Ramanbhai
\nNaranbhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat [2000 (1) SCC
\n358] the scope of the appellate jurisdiction under Article
\n136 of the Constitution was considered in detail and
\nguidelines provided for the exercise of the power.  In its
\nlatest judgment in State of Punjab v. Jugraj Singh & Ors.<\/a>
\n[JT 2002 (2) SC 147] this Court held:\n<\/p>\n
“It is now well established that this Court does
\nnot, by special leave, convert itself into a court
\nto review evidence for a third time.  However,
\nwhere the High Court is shown to have failed in
\nappreciating the true effect and material change
\nin the version given by the witnesses, in such a
\nsituation it would not be right for this Court to
\naffirm such a decision when it occasions a failure
\nof justice.  The power under Article 136 of the
\nConstitution of India is, no doubt, extraordinary
\nin amplitude and this Court goes into action only
\nto avert miscarriage of justice if the existence
\nof perversity is shown in the impugned judgment.
\nUnless some serious infirmity or grave failure of
\njustice is shown, this Court normally refrains
\nfrom re-appreciating the matter on appeal by
\nspecial leave.\tThe findings of the High Court
\nhave to be judged by the yardstick of reason to
\nascertain whether such findings were erroneous,
\nperverse and resulted in miscarriage of justice.
\nIf the conclusions of the courts below can be
\nsupported by acceptable evidence, the Supreme
\nCourt will not exercise its overriding powers to
\ninterfere with such a decision.”\n<\/p>\n
\tAs in the medico-legal report Exh.PE, name of PW1 was
\nfound not mentioned, the High Court presumed that he had not
\naccompanied the injured.  Such an assumption is not
\nreferable to any legal or factual presumption.\tIt is in
\nevidence that Sukhchain Singh, accompanied by his cousin Jai
\nKaran and other relatives had taken the injured to the
\nHospital.  In the report Exh.PE\t in the column “Name of
\nrelatives and friends”, the name of Sukhdev Singh is
\nmentioned by the Doctor.  Omission to mention the names of
\nother relatives in the said certificate cannot be attributed
\nto any of the prosecution witnesses.  No question is shown
\nto have been put to PW1 as to his presence or alleged
\nabsence at the time of preparation of medico-legal report
\nExh.PE.\t It is neither the requirement of law nor usually
\nexpected that names of all the relatives of the injured
\nshould be mentioned in the medico-legal report prepared by
\nthe Doctor in his discretion.  The mention of the injured
\nhaving been beaten by somebody in the Doctor’s intimation to
\nthe police station has been used to hold that in fact by
\nthat time the witness did not know the name of any of the
\nassailants and that the case was a blind murder case.  The
\nintimation given by the Doctor was regarding the admission
\nof the patient in unconscious position requesting the police
\nto take necessary action.  Mentioning of the names or
\nholding the inquiry regarding the occurrence was neither the
\nduty of the Doctor nor usually expected from him.  The High
\nCourt further held that as when Bhullan Singh, Assistant
\nSub-Inspector (PW5) reached the Hospital at 7.40 a.m., he
\ncould not find PWs1 and 2,  it should be  presumed that they
\nhad not come with the injured in the hospital and thus were
\nnot eye-witnesses.  Such an assumption by the High Court is
\nalso not referable to any legal evidence.  No question was
\nput to PW1 as to where he was at 7.40 a.m. when Assistant
\nSub-Inspector Bhullan Singh had come in the police station.
\nIt was not unusual for a brother to search for some good
\ndoctor or be busy in arranging better treatment for his
\ninjured brother.  Jai Karan (PW2) had very specifically
\nstated “We reached in the Civil Hospital Panipat at about
\n6.15 a.m..  From 6.15 a.m. to 8.30 a.m. I remained in the
\nHospital but during this period I had also gone for my blood
\ntesting in the Hospital itself as it was required by the
\nDoctor”.  After admission of the patient in the Hospital if
\nhis relations who were none else than brothers and cousin
\nwere not found standing by the side of the injured, it
\ncannot be imagined, by any stretch of imagination, that they
\nactually had not come to the hospital and  were telling
\nlies.  Non reporting and non-mentioning the names of the
\naccused at the police station before 8.30 a.m. is stated to
\nbe a reason to hold that the witnesses had not seen the
\noccurrence.  Such a finding, apparently, appears to be
\nperverse as it is in the evidence that the doctor had
\nreported to the police about the admission of the injured in
\nthe hospital in presence of the witnesses which justified
\nthem to pay more attention for the treatment of the injured
\nand wait for the police to come.  The investigating officer
\nhad categorically stated that he did not feel the necessity
\nof seizing the tractor trolley or the chaff as the same was
\nnot considered to be material evidence in the case.  Be that
\nas it may, the failure of the investigating agency to take
\nsteps which may have been required in strengthening to prove
\nthe guilt, beyond doubt, cannot be made a basis to reject
\nthe prosecution version or the statements of the eye-
\nwitnesses.  Similarly, the High Court was not justified in
\nholding that there did not exist any room where the chaff
\nwas to be stacked.  Shri Balak Ram, Draftsman (PW4) in his
\ndeposition in the Court had stated that he had prepared the
\nsite plan Exh.PJ wherein, in addition to one room shown in
\nExh.PJ he had seen two more rooms at Point “X” and “X1”
\nmarked in the said Exhibit.   What persuaded the court to
\nhold that the complainant  had no room to stack the chaff is
\nnot borne out from the record.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe statement of PW1 could not be rejected only because
\na special behaviour was expected of him on account of his
\nbeing an advocate.  Non mentioning of the fact that he had
\nnot hired a house in the town of Panipat where he was
\ncarrying on practice could not be made a basis for rejecting
\nhis testimony without seeking his explanation.\tIt has come
\nin evidence that Village Siwah was only 8 kms. away from
\nPanipat and was located on the GT Road and the witness was
\ncommuting every day.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel appearing for the accused then brought
\nto our notice some alleged improvements and contradictions
\nin the statements of the prosecution witnesses.\t The trial
\ncourt dealt with those discrepancies and rightly held them
\nto be minor discrepancies not affecting the merits of the
\ncase.  Otherwise also the alleged improvements and
\ncontradictions must be shown with respect to the material
\nparticulars of the case and the occurrence.  Every
\ncontradiction or improvement, not directly related to the
\noccurrence, is no ground to reject the testimony of the
\nwitnesses. The improvement and contradictions, pointed out
\nby the learned senior advocate have no reference to the
\nmaterial particulars of the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt has been argued in the alternative that the
\nintroduction of lalkara\t in the FIR was only to attract the
\nprovisions of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.  We are
\nnot impressed with this argument also.\tBoth the accused are
\nproved to have inflicted the injuries on the vital part of
\nthe body of Raj Karan which clearly show their intention.
\nIt is contended that the prosecution version, if accepted,
\nthe nature of the injuries would not show the commission of
\nthe offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
\nCode.  At the most accused are stated to have committed the
\noffence punishable under Section 326 or 304 (II) of the
\nIndian Penal Code.  We are not impressed with this argument
\nin view of the injuries found on the person of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tDr.Dilgulzar Singh, Medical Superintendent of
\nCivil Hospital (PW3), who conducted the post-mortem on the
\ndead body of Raj Karan, found the following injuries on his
\nbody:\n<\/p>\n
“1.\tStitched wound on the right side of the head
\nstarting 2 inch above the middle of the right
\neye-brow going upward and medially, 7 c.m.
\nlong T. shape from the middle of the wound
\n(stitched extending laterally towards the
\nright ear 7 c.m. long.\tThere was swelling of
\nthe whole right side of the head up to the
\neye lid.  Clotted blood was present.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tStitched wound just lateral to the occipital
\n5 c.m. long with swelling around was present.
\nClotted blood was present.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tlacerated wound on the left ear posterior at
\na base 1 cm long.  Clotted blood was present
\nin the left ear.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tTwo lacerated wound on the back of right ear
\n1 c.m. x  c.m. each was present.  Pinna was
\nswollen and clotted blood was present.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tContusion of the right arm (deltoid region) 4
\ninch x 1-1\/2 inch red in colour and swelling
\nwas present.\n<\/p>\n
On exploration of the skull, there was a big sub
\ncontaneous haematoma present on both side of the
\nskull.\tOn right side of the skull, anteriorly 1-
\n1\/4 inch above the right ear, there was a
\ndepressed fracture of the skull bone of the size
\nof 5 inch x 4 inch.  The piece of the skull bone
\nwere fractured in multiple pieces and embedded in
\nthe brain matter.  Clotted blood was present.  The
\nposterior part of the depressed fracture was
\nextending as a leniar fracture upto the occiput 4-
\n1\/2 inch in length. Medially the fracture was
\nextending on left side vertically upto the root of
\nthe left ear canal.  Linear in shape and was half
\nc.m. wide, clotted blood was present.  There was a
\nbig sub dural haemotoma on the right side of the
\nskull.\tThe membrance was lacerated at the
\ndepressed fracture sight.  Brain matter was also
\nlacerated.  On left side subdural haemotoma was
\npresent below the fracture sight and the clotted
\nblood was present.  It the left middle cranial
\ncavity.”\n<\/p>\n
According to him the cause of death was injury on the brain
\nleading to shock and haemorrhage.  Injury No.1 and its
\nimpact leaves no doubt in our mind that the accused had
\nintended to cause the death of the deceased and they shared
\nthe common intention as both are proved to have given the
\nblows with lathis which they had brought with them to
\ninflict the injuries to the deceased.  The trial court,
\ntherefore, had rightly held the accused guilty for the
\noffence\t of  murder  punishable\t under Section 302 IPC. We
\nare satisfied that in the instant case the High Court
\nerroneously held that PWs1 and 2 were not the eye-witnesses
\nand that the occurrence had not taken place in the manner
\nthey had deposed in the court.\tWe are of the opinion that
\nthe trial court had assigned valid and cogent reasons for
\nconcluding that the accused persons had committed the
\noffence and were guilty.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tBoth the appeals are allowed and the judgment of
\nthe High Court is set aside.  Upholding the judgment of the
\ntrial court, the respondents are convicted under Section 302
\nIPC and sentenced to life imprisonment besides paying a fine
\nof Rs.10,000\/- each, imposed by the trial court on them. The
\namount of fine, when it is realized, shall be paid to the
\nwidow of the deceased in terms of the directions of the
\ntrial court.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t…………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t(R.P. Sethi)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t…………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t(Doraiswamy Raju)
\nApril 24, 2002<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sukhchain Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 24 April, 2002 Author: Sethi Bench: R.P. Sethi, Doraiswamy Raju CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 57 of 1996 PETITIONER: SUKHCHAIN SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/04\/2002 BENCH: R.P. Sethi & Doraiswamy Raju JUDGMENT: (With Criminal A.No.58\/96) J […]<\/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-64706","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSukhchain Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 24 April, 2002 - 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\/sukhchain-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-24-april-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sukhchain Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 24 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhchain-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-24-april-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-11T03:31:57+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhchain-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-24-april-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhchain-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-24-april-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sukhchain Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 24 April, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-11T03:31:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhchain-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-24-april-2002\"},\"wordCount\":4141,\"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\\\/sukhchain-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-24-april-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhchain-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-24-april-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhchain-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-24-april-2002\",\"name\":\"Sukhchain Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 24 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-11T03:31:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhchain-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-24-april-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhchain-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-24-april-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukhchain-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-24-april-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sukhchain Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 24 April, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Sukhchain Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 24 April, 2002 - 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\/sukhchain-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-24-april-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sukhchain Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 24 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhchain-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-24-april-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-11T03:31:57+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhchain-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-24-april-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhchain-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-24-april-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sukhchain Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 24 April, 2002","datePublished":"2002-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-11T03:31:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhchain-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-24-april-2002"},"wordCount":4141,"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\/sukhchain-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-24-april-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhchain-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-24-april-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhchain-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-24-april-2002","name":"Sukhchain Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 24 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-11T03:31:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhchain-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-24-april-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhchain-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-24-april-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukhchain-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-on-24-april-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sukhchain Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 24 April, 2002"}]},{"@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\/64706","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=64706"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64706\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64706"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64706"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64706"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}