Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Another  Insc 550 (4 November 2003)
Hegde & B.P. Singh
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NOS.2106-2108 OF 1996 B.P. SINGH, J
appellants in these appeals and special leave petitions are Suba Singh (A-1)
and his son Shingara Singh (A-2). They were both tried by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Sirsa in Sessions Trial No.46 of 1991 charged variously of
offences under Sections 302, 307, 302/34, 307/34 IPC and under Section 25/27 of
the Arms Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment and order
dated March 6, 1992 acquitted A-2 of all the charges levelled against him but
found A-1 guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part I holding that he had
exceeded his right of private defence. Accordingly, he sentenced A-1 to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-,
in default further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.
Both the appellants were acquitted of other charges levelled against them.
by the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Criminal
Appeal No. 375-DBA of 1992 was preferred by the State of Haryana before the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh against the acquittal of A-2 under
Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Suba Singh preferred Criminal
Appeal No.105-SB of 1992 against his conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC,
while the informant Balbir Singh preferred a Criminal Revision No.68 of 1993
against the same impugned judgment and order acquitting the appellants of the
other charges levelled against them. The two Appeals and the Criminal Revision
have been disposed of by a common judgment and order of the High Court dated March 6, 1992. The High Court allowed the appeal
filed by the State and held A-2 guilty of the offence under sections 302 and
307 IPC. A-1 was found guilty and convicted under Section 302/34 and 307/34
IPC. A-1 was also found guilty of the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
A-2 has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and
to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo further rigorous
imprisonment for two years. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years under Section 307 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-
in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. A-1 has been
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC and to pay a
fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for ten
years. Under Section 307/34 IPC he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to
undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. While so allowing the
appeal preferred by the State the High Court has in a mechanical manner allowed
the Criminal Revision preferred by the informant, which in effect had become infructuous
since an appeal had been preferred by the State which was ultimately allowed.
In any event a Criminal Revision preferred by a private party against an order
of acquittal could not result in the conviction of the accused.
Criminal Appeal preferred by A-1 against his conviction under Section 304 Part
I was also disposed of in the above terms.
appellant Shingara Singh has preferred Criminal Appeal Nos. 682-683 of 1996
while A-1 Suba Singh has preferred Special Leave Petition Nos. 2106-2108 of
Special Leave Petition notice was issued with the direction that the matter be
heard along with Criminal Appeal Nos. 682-683 of 1996 preferred by A-2. In
fact, there was no need for A-1 to file a Special Leave Petition since in view
of the provisions of Section 380 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an appealable
judgment and order having been passed against co-accused Shingara Singh, A-2,
appellant Suba Singh, A-1 also had a right of appeal to this Court. However, we
grant special leave to Suba Singh and proceed to dispose of these appeals by
this common judgment and order.
Singh and Gurdeep Singh (father of the deceased) lived in adjoining houses in
Village Chak Sahban.
Singh, A-1 and Gurdeep Singh are married to two sisters and are therefore
related as co-brothers. A-2, Shingara Singh is the son of Suba Singh while the
deceased Surinder Singh was the son-in-law of Gurdeep Singh. It is not in
dispute that the courtyard of the two houses are adjacent divided by a common
wall. The courtyard of Gurdeep Singh is at a slightly higher level than the
courtyard of A-1, Suba Singh. The case of the prosecution is that Gurdeep Singh
sold away his lands in village Chak Sahban and purchased lands in village Mallewala.
He also intended to sell his house in village Chak Sahban and with that in view
he had entered into an agreement with A-1, Suba Singh to sell his house in the
village for a sum of Rs.52,000/-.
to the prosecution, A-1 Suba Singh failed to pay the amount within the time
stipulated and therefore a dispute arose between him and Gurdeep Singh. On July 1, 1991 the matter was settled by a Panchayat
consisting of relatives of the parties who are themselves interrelated. In Panchayat
it was settled that A-1 Suba Singh will purchase the house and will pay a sum
of Rs.45,000/- by way of consideration. It is not in dispute that immediately
after the decision of the Panchayat A-1, Suba Singh actually paid a sum of
Rs.45,000/- to Gurdeep Singh and honoured the decision of the Panchayat.
case of the prosecution is that later in the day at about 6.30 p.m. Balbir Singh, PW-5 Raghbir Singh son of Gurdeep
Singh, Rur Singh, PW-6, Jagdip Singh and Gurdeep Singh were taking meals in the
courtyard of Gurdeep Singh. According to the evidence produced by the
prosecution there were cots on which food was being served by Gian Kaur, PW-7, wife
of Gurdeep Singh. The case of the prosecution is that Suredner Singh (deceased)
son-in-law of Gurdeep Singh wanted to take away his cycle which rested against
the common wall of his courtyard. While he was doing so the appellants climbed
up the common wall with the help of a ladder. While A-1 was empty handed, A- 2
was carrying a licenced gun belonging to his father. A-1 exhorted his son to
kill Surinder Singh since he had been helping his father-in-law in the dispute
relating to the purchase of the house in the village. A-2, thereafter fired at Surinder
Singh injuring him on his forehead as a result of which he fell down. Gian Kaur,
PW-7 rushed to the rescue of her son-in-law but A-2 shot at her also causing
injury on the dorsal aspect of her right hand. On alarm being raised both the
appellants ran away.
leaving the dead body in the care of Jeet Singh who had come there by then, Balbir
Singh, PW-5 left for the police station. After covering a distance of two
kilometers he boarded a tractor and came to Sirsa where he met Sukhdev Singh to
whom he narrated the incident. They, thereafter, went to the police station Sadar
and PW-5 lodged a report at 10 p.m.
Inspector, Pohp Singh, PW-10, the Investigating Officer came to the place of
occurrence and held inquest over the body of Surinder Singh. He, thereafter
arranged to get the body sent for post mortem examination. He also lifted blood
stained earth from the place of occurrence.
he went to the hospital and in the early morning of July 2, 1991 recorded the statement of Gian Kaur, PW-7 and Rur Singh,
PW-6. He again came back to the place of occurrence and prepared a rough site
plan Ex. RR.
Garg, PW-1 conducted the post mortem examination on the body of Surinder Singh
at the General Hospital, Sirsa on July 2, 1991 at
10 a.m.. She found the following
ante-mortem injuries on the person of deceased, Surinder Singh.
A lacerated wound with inverted margins of 2.5 cm. x 2 cm. on the middle of
fore-head 4 cm. above the base of nose on mid line. Abrasion of 2 cm area in
size was present surrounding this wound. Underlying bones were fractured. Brain
matter was seen to the whole on dissection. Underlying bone fractured.
of the wound was upward and posteriorly.
was opening of 1.5 cm. x 1 cm. on the top of occipital bone in the midline.
There was fracture of frontal both pariet alright temporal and occipital bone.
pieces of bone were present in fractured area of occipital bone. Two flatent
metallic pieces were recovered from this area. These pieces were sealed and
handed over to the police.
cm x 1 cm lacerated wound with coverted margins present over the left frontal
area, 5 cm above the lateral margins of left eye brow. Underlying bones were
fractured. On dissection there was communication of injuries No.2 and 3.
Direction of the track was slightly upward-backward and medially.
Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm with everted margins over the left temporal
region of scalp, 6 cm from the pinna of left ear. On dissection, the underlying
bone was found fractured."
to PW-1, the death was due to injuries to the brain caused by a fire arms. The
injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and
the time that elapsed between the death and the post mortem examination was 12
to 24 hours. Having regard to the nature of injuries she opined that firing
must have been done from lower level to higher level. Deceased must have been
at a higher level than the person firing the gun. There were no blackening
scars around the wounds.
case of the prosecution is that the accused were arrested on July 3, 1991. Shingara
Singh, A-2 produced before the Investigating Officer the licenced gun of his
father (A-1) which was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer. Suba
Singh, A-1 is said to have produced two empty and four live cartridges which
were also taken into possession.
July 4, 1991 the site plan was drawn up by the draftsman, PW-4 which was marked
Exh.P-E. The said site plan shows that the height of the wall on the side of
the courtyard of Gurdeep Singh was 4 feet 4 inches. According to PW-4 he
prepared the site plan as pointed out to him by Balbir Singh, PW-5 and Raghbir
investigation, the appellants were put up for trial variously charged as noticed
earlier. The defence of the appellant Suba Singh as stated by him in his
examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was that the occurrence did not take
place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. He admitted that a Panchayat
was convened for resolving the dispute relating to the purchase of land by him.
He also admitted that in view of the settlement arrived at he paid a sum of
Rs.45,000/- to Gurdeep Singh. However, he denied that he climbed up the wall
with the help of a ladder and exhorted his son Shingara Singh to kill Surinder
Singh, who was taking away his cycle which rested against the common wall. He
stated that it was Surinder Singh (deceased) who had climbed the wall and was
resorting to brick batting.
folded hands he requested him not to do so. At that time his son Shingara
Singh, A-2 was not present. Despite his pleadings, Surinder Singh (deceased)
removed the bricks from the wall and threw them at him which hit him. Gian Kaur,
PW-7 was supplying brick bats to Surinder Singh from the wall. Surinder Singh
(deceased) shouted that he had got the amount reduced by Rs.7,000/-. When this
was happening he went inside his house, brought his gun and fired shots in his
self defence which might have hit him. He stated that he had himself produced
the gun before the Investigating Officer as also the two empties on the very
first day i.e. July 1,
1991. A false case has
been made out against him and his son. In fact, his son was in the fields at
the time of occurrence but he had been falsely implicated on account of his
being his only son. Witness PW-6, Rur Singh had old enmity with him and he had
also appeared as a witness against him in a civil case prior to the occurrence.
is the defence of Shingara Singh, A-2.
trial, the prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of three alleged eye
witnesses viz. Balbir Singh PW-5, Rur Singh PW-6 and Gian Kaur, PW-7. It also
appears from the record that though some other witnesses were cited by the
prosecution they were given up as being unnecessary which included Gurdeep
Singh, Raghbir Singh, Jagbir Singh and some others.
Trial Court on consideration of the evidence on record came to the conclusion
that the prosecution case as alleged was not true and that the occurrence took
place in all probability in the manner alleged by the defence. It noticed that
all the three aforesaid eye witnesses had stated earlier that both the
appellants had climbed the common wall and from there the firing took place
resulting in injuries to Surinder Singh (deceased) and Gian Kaur, PW-7. This
version was given by PW-5 in his FIR and the same version was repeated by PWs 6
and 7 in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C.. However, at the
trial all the three witnesses consistently gave a different version so as to
bring the prosecution case in accord with the findings of the Medical Officer
who had opined, having regard to the nature of injuries, that the injured must
have been at a higher level than the person using the fire arm. If really, the
appellants had climbed the wall and A-2 fired at Surinder Singh, trajectory of
the pellets would have shown a downward movement and not an upward movement as
found by the Medical Officer. At the Trial all the three witnesses changed
their version by stating that only A-1, Suba Singh climbed on the wall with the
help of a ladder, while his son Shingara Singh, A-2 was still on the ladder and
had not climbed the wall. He was standing on the ladder in a manner that only
his face was visible from the courtyard of Gurdeep Singh. He placed the barrel
of the gun on the wall and without resting the butt of the gun against his
shoulder, fired at Surinder Singh. In this manner, it was sought to be
projected that Surinder Singh was at a higher level than the level of the
weapon of Shingara Singh, A-2 when he fired the gun. The Trial Court concluded
that the tailored version given by the witnesses for the first time in the
witness box was only with a view to bring the prosecution case in accord with
the medical evidence on record and to negative the case of the defence that it
was Surinder Singh, who was standing on the wall while the firing took place
from the ground level.
Trial Court also found that Suba Singh, A-1 had six injuries on his person. On
being arrested he was sent for medical examination by the Investigating Officer
and was examined by Dr. Chaudhary, DW-1 who found the following injuries on his
A bruise 4 x 2 cm on dorso lateral aspect of metacarpal of index finger, with
abrasion 1 cm x linear in the space between right index finger and thumb on
dorsal aspect. Soft scalp of light brown colour was present and colour of
bruise was brownish.
was present and x-ray was advised.
lacerated wound 2 cm x 2 cm x skin and tissue deep on the back of the left leg,
on lateral side, 7 cm above the sole of the left foot. Serious fluid exuded
from the wound. The granolation tissue was visible at places and edges of the
wound were irregular and inflamed, with swelling of adjacent parts.
Swelling 2 x 1 cm on the top of scalp, left to the midline and 12 cm from the
base of nose.
Bruise 4 x 2 cm on left scapular region above its upper border, placed horizently
of brownish colour.
Complaint of pain on the right side of chest and infera axillary region, with
Abrasion = cm x linear on the back of the right elbow."
will be noticed from the above injuries that one of the injuries was on the
scalp and caused by a blunt substance. The possibility of these injuries being
caused by brick-bats could not be ruled out. In cross- examination Dr.Chaudhary
admitted that the possibility of all the injuries except No.3 having been
caused by friendly hands could not be ruled out. The Trial Court, therefore,
concluded that the presence of injuries on Suba Singh, A-1 which had not been
explained by the prosecution supported the defence version and rendered it
probable. Though the injuries were found to be simple in nature and could have
been self inflicted as well, it was difficult to believe that so many injuries
could be self suffered by the accused.
Trial Court found that the other evidence on record also supported the defence
version and rendered it probable. The Investigating Officer, PW-10 admitted in
his cross-examination that when he visited the place of occurrence he had found
that some of the bricks had been removed from the common wall. It was the case
of the defence that Surinder Singh (deceased) had thrown bricks at Suba Singh,
A-1 from top of the wall. Though it was the case of the prosecution that A-1
climbed the wall and A-2 stood on the ladder and fired at the deceased, in the
site plan Exh. P-R which was prepared by the Investigating Officer on July 2, 1991, the ladder has not been shown at
all. A second site plan was drawn to scale on July 4, 1991 by PW- 4 which is Exh. P-E. In that plan the point where
the cycle of the deceased had been kept has not been shown. PW-10 explained by
saying that in the site plan drawn by him Exh. P-R the cycle was shown at 'J'.
He, however, admitted that the cycle was not taken into possession. The Trial
Court found that point J the last point shown in the marginal notes, seems to
have been interpolated later. These facts, therefore do not support the case of
the prosecution that Surinder Singh had gone to take his bicycle when he was
fired upon by A-2 who had climbed on top of the wall with the help of a ladder.
The medical evidence was only consistent with the hypothesis, that having
regard to the direction of the injury on the head of Surinder Singh, he must have
been at a higher level when fired upon by someone who was at a lower level.
This was consistent with the case of the defence that firing was resorted to
from the ground level when Surinder Singh (deceased) was throwing brick bats
after climbing the common wall. The Trial Court also found that Rur Singh did
not appear to be a reliable witness because he denied the fact that A-1 had
deposed against him in a Civil Suit. This statement was proved to be false and
the deposition of A-1 was produced before the Court which proved the fact that
A-1 had deposed against him in a Civil suit and this also established that Rur
Singh was not on good terms with A-1.
regard all aspects of the matter the Trial Court concluded that the defence
version appeared to be more probable. It was also consistent with the medical
evidence on record. The prosecution witnesses had made vital improvements in
their deposition with a view to make their evidence consistent with the medical
evidence on record.
prosecution failed to explain the injuries suffered by A- 1. The fact that some
bricks had been removed from top of the common wall supported the defence case
that Surinder Singh (deceased) had thrown bricks at A-1. The existence of
ladder and cycle was rendered doubtful because they were not even shown in the
site plans prepared by the prosecution. Moreover, the appellants not only
produced the gun but also the empties which were found to have been fired from
the same gun. The Trial Court also considered the question as to whether there
was any motive on the part of the appellants to commit the offence. It found
that the appellants could have no motive to commit the offence because the
dispute if any was amicably settled by the Panchayat and respecting the
decision of the Panchayat A-1 had promptly paid Rs.45,000/- to Gurdeep Singh.
Having done so, there was no reason for them to commit the offence. On the
other hand, so far as Gurdeep Singh and his family members are concerned, they
may have reconciled to the fact that they had to receive Rs.7,000/- less than
the amount agreed to be paid, but Surinder Singh being a young person was angry
and aggrieved on account of the fact that the Panchayat had reduced the price
of the house to be sold by his father-in-law. The motive if any could be
entertained only by Surinder Singh and not by the appellants. However, as
observed by the Trial Court motive was not of much significance in a case where
the prosecution sought to prove its case by direct evidence of eye witnesses.
The Trial Court, therefore, concluded that the occurrence took place in the
manner stated by the defence. In all probability Shingara Singh, A-2 was not
present when the occurrence took place.
it held that though A-1, Suba Singh had a right of private defence, he
certainly exceeded that right in as much as the facts and circumstances did not
justify his using the weapon in such a manner as to cause the death of Surinder
Singh (deceased). He, therefore, found him guilty of the offence punishable
under Section 304 Part I of IPC.
appeals the High Court has reversed the findings recorded by the Trial Court.
The High Court held that the Trial Court was not justified in holding that the defence
version was more probable since all the three witnesses had improved upon their
statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and made significant changes while
deposing before the Trial Court. The High Court considered the deposition of
these three witnesses namely PWs 5, 6 and 7 and came to the conclusion that
they had not stated that the firing was resorted to from the ground level.
Their deposition in Court proved that Shingara Singh, A-2 while on the ladder
fired at Surinder Singh.
view, the High Court has completely missed the significance of the finding
recorded by the Trial Court.
Trial Court found that in the FIR as also statements recorded under Section 161
Cr. P.C. the witnesses had clearly mentioned that both the appellants had
climbed on top of the wall and from there Shingara Singh, A-2 fired at Surinder
Singh. If this version were to be accepted, the injury caused would not have
been of the nature found by the Medical Officer who was clearly of the opinion,
having regard to the trajectory of injuries, that the person firing the fire
arm was at a lower level than the victim. Therefore, with a view to bring their
case in consonance with the medical evidence on record, all the three witnesses
made significant changes while deposing in Court and all of them thereafter
consistently stated that while A-1 had climbed on top of the wall A-2 stood on
the ladder in such a manner that only his face was visible from across the wall
and while standing in that position, keeping the barrel of the gun on the wall
and without resting the butt of the gun against his shoulder, he fired at the
deceased. There was no dispute that their deposition in Court was consistent,
but what was observed by the trial court was that their version as to the
manner of occurrence as deposed to by them was at variance with what was stated
in the first information report by PW 5, and in the statements of PWs 6 and 7
recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. When confronted with their earlier
statements, they could not give a satisfactory explanation, with the result
that their credibility was sufficiently impeached. The change of version by
each one of them, and to the same effect, was deliberate and not merely
accidental or an account of lapse of memory. It cannot be disputed that this
was a very significant change. It cannot also be disputed that the change was
deliberately made by all the witnesses, so that the prosecution case became
consistent with the medical evidence on record. We, therefore, do not find any
error committed by the Trial Court in coming to this conclusion.
High Court then held that the upward direction of the wound could be on account
of deflection of the metallic pieces of the bullet after striking the occipital
first instance there is no basis for this speculation. No such question was put
to the doctor PW-1, Beena Garg, nor is there any other evidence to support this
this was not a case of bullet being fired at the deceased. The doctor found
pellet injuries caused to the deceased. The pellets having penetrated the skull
bone, there was no possibility of its deflection because the brain matter is
soft and cannot cause deflection of pellets or bullet.
that as it may, it cannot be readily inferred, having regard to the evidence of
the prosecution itself, that the direction of the injury was otherwise and not
as found by PW-1. The finding that the pellet must have got deflected is at
High Court then found that the failure of the prosecution to explain the
injuries on Suba Singh, A-1 did not affect the case of the prosecution. The reason
assigned by the High Court is that he was not medically examined on the same
day but was got examined by the police two days later, on July 3, 1991. This
reason does not impress us because the medical evidence on record is consistent
with the injuries having been caused at about the time of occurrence. The High
Court then observed that according to the doctor the injuries except one could
be self suffered. It therefore jumped to the conclusion that all the injuries
may have been self suffered. It is possible for one to conjecture that the
injuries may have been self suffered, but that does not provide a good reason
for setting aside a finding of fact recorded by the Trial Court which came to
the conclusion that A-1, Suba Singh resorted to firing when Surinder Singh
(deceased) threw brick bats at him. The evidence of the Investigating Officer,
PW-10 also disclosed that some bricks had been removed form top of the wall
where the firing took place. Unfortunately, the Investigating Officer does not
appear to have bothered to inspect the courtyard of the accused and therefore
it is not possible to conjecture as to whether some brick bats were lying in
the court yard of the accused, which may have further supported the defence
case. The High court has observed that no such brick bats were found on the
spot, but in doing so the High Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence
of the Investigating Officer who does not appear to have at all inspected the
courtyard of the accused. The High Court, further, observed that removal of the
bricks from the wall would have been shown by the Investigating Officer in the
site plan and also by the drafts-man who prepared another site plan, but these
two witnesses have not shown the removal of the bricks from the wall in the
site plans prepared by them. No doubt it is so, but what the High Court has
failed to notice is the factual statement made by PW-10, the Investigating
Officer who after consulting the case diary stated before the Court that he had
noted the fact that some of the bricks had been removed from the common wall.
such be the factual position, the failure to show that in the site plans cannot
prejudice the case of the defence.
High Court then found that the appellants had a motive to commit the offence and
it held so for the reason that A-1, Suba Singh had to make payment and part
with money to buy the house after he had backed out of the agreement. In our
view, having regard to the fact that the price of the house had been reduced by
the Panchayat, Suba Singh, A-1 could hardly entertain a grudge on this account.
Moreover, he readily paid Rs.45,000/- to Gurdeep Singh immediately after the
settlement, before the occurrence took place on that day, which only shows that
he was more than happy to buy the house at a reduced price. Therefore, in our
view, he had no motive to commit the offence and we entirely agree with the
finding of the trial court in this regard.
impugned judgment the High court reversed the order of acquittal in so far as Shingara
Singh, A-2 is concerned and convicted him of the offence under section 302 IPC.
It further convicted accused No.1 Suba Singh of the offence under section 302
read with section 34 IPC instead of section 304, Part I for which he was
convicted by the trial court. We are of the view that the High Court was not
justified in setting aside the order of acquittal of A-2 under section 302 IPC
having regard to the facts of the case.
well settled that in an appeal against acquittal the High Court is entitled to
re-appreciate the entire evidence on record but having done so if it finds that
the view taken by the trial court is a possible reasonable view of the evidence
on record, it will not substitute its opinion for that of the trial court. Only
in cases where the High Court finds that the findings recorded by the trial
court are unreasonable or perverse or that the court has committed a serious
error of law, or where the trial court had recorded its findings in ignorance
of relevant material on record or by taking into consideration evidence which
is not admissible, the High Court may be justified in reversing the order of
not find this case to be one where the High Court was justified in reversing
the findings recorded by the trial court.
best, it may be contended that the view taken by the High Court is also a
reasonable view of the evidence on record.
we cannot say that the view taken by the trial court was not another reasonable
view of the evidence on record. It is well settled that where two views are
reasonably possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the one that favours
the accused must be accepted. In any event in a case of acquittal if the view
of the trial court is a possible reasonable view of the evidence on record, interference
by the High Court may not be justified.
from the reasons given by the trial court we find that there are many other
features which create a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution
case. The case of the prosecution was that the prosecution witnesses and others
were having their meals at about 6.30 p.m. sitting on cots in the court-yard of
Gurdeep Singh. PW-5, Balbir Singh has stated that there were three such cots
lying in the courtyard of Gurdeep Singh when PW-10 the Investigating Officer
came there. But he further admits that the existence of these cots is not sown
in the site plan prepared by him nor was it shown in the site plan prepared by
second aspect of the prosecution case is that the cycle of Surinder Singh was
resting against the common wall and when he went to bring the cycle he was shot
at by Shingara Singh A-2. However, PW-10, the Investigating Officer has
admitted in his deposition that the cycle was not shown in the site plan
prepared by him. He then stated that it was shown in the site plan Ex. PR at J
shown in the note.
trial court looked at the site plan and came to the conclusion that the note in
the site plan showing the presence of the bi-cycle was an interpolation. We
also had a look at the site plan Ex. PR and we are not in a position to say
that the trial court was not justified in making that observation.
as the ladder is concerned, PW-5, Balbir Singh stated that the ladder was in
the same position when the Investigating Officer came to the place of
occurrence but he could not explain why it was not shown in the site plan
prepared by the police. Even PW-10 the Investigating officer had to admit that
in the site plan the position of the ladder was not shown. These features of
the prosecution case also support the conclusion reached by the trial court
that the occurrence must have taken place in a manner different than the one
deposed to by the alleged eye witnesses. The evidence on record with regard to
the existence of cots in the court-yard of Gurdeep Singh, the existence of a
bicycle, as also about the existence of a ladder is rather unsatisfactory and
creates a serious doubt as to whether the prosecution witnesses are telling the
truth. The omission to show them in both the site plans cannot be attributed to
a mere lapse on the part of the investigating agency. In fact so far as the
site plans are concerned, the case of the prosecution is that they were
prepared in the presence of PW 5 and another witness and on their pointing.
PW 5 denied that the plans were prepared in his presence. The other witness was
are, therefore, of the considered view that the High Court was not justified in
setting aside the order of acquittal passed in favour Shingara Singh, A-2. On
appreciation of the evidence on record it appears to us that the occurrence in
all probability may have taken place in the manner alleged by the defence, and
not in the manner alleged by the prosecution. If that be so we must hold that Shingara
Singh, A-2 was not even present when the occurrence took place. He, therefore,
is entitled to acquittal.
so far as the case of Suba Singh, A-1 is concerned, we agree with the findings
of the trial court that he had exceeded the right of private defence. In the
facts and circumstances of the case there was no justification for using his
gun in such a manner as to cause the death of the deceased. We, therefore, find
him guilty of the offence under section 304 Part I IPC but in the facts and
circumstances of the case sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for five years
and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine he shall
undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.
the appeals preferred by Shingara Singh, A-2 are allowed. The appeals preferred
by Suba Singh, A-1, are partly allowed and he is found guilty of the offence
punishable under section 304 Part I IPC instead of section 302 IPC and
sentenced as indicated above.
(civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited#Collector of
Central Excise, Chandigarh#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI### Appeal
(crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey and Ors.#State of
Bihar#2003-11-25#25623#104-106#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)
10906 of 1996#1996#Shanti Kumar Panda#Shakutala
Devi#2003-11-03#25624#10906#R.C. LAHOTI### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 11483
of 1996#1996#Amrendra Pratap Singh#Tej Bahadur Prajapati &
Ors.#2003-11-21#25625#11483#R.C. LAHOTI### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 9130
of 2003#2003#Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd.#Shapoorji Data Processing
Ltd.#2003-11-18#25626#9130#CJI### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 14178-14184 of
1996#1996#Brij Behari Sahai (Dead) through L.Rs., etc. etc.#State of Uttar
Pradesh#2003-11-28#25627#14178-14184#Doraiswamy Raju### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.)
1968 of 1996#1996#Goa Plast (P) Ltd.#Chico Ursula
D'Souza#2003-11-20#25628#1968#B.P. Singh### Writ Petition (crl.)#Writ Petition
(crl.) 199 of 2003#2003#Ashok Kumar Pandey#The State of West
Bengal#2003-11-18#25629#199#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 20
of 2003#2003#Surendra Paswan#State of Jharkhand#2003-11-28#25630#20#DORAISWAMY
RAJU### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 278 of 1997#1997#Vidyadharan#State of
Kerala#2003-11-14#25631#278#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 292
of 1997#1997#State of Madhya Pradesh.#Awadh Kishore Gupta and
Ors.#2003-11-18#25632#292#DORAISWAMY RAJU### ###State of Punjab & Anr.#M/s Devans
Modern Brewaries Ltd. & Anr.#2003-11-20#25633##CJI.### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal
(crl.) 331 of 1997#1997#Shriram#State of Madhya
Pradesh#2003-11-24#25634#331#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil)
3630-3631 of 2003#2003#The Prohibition & Excise Supdt., A.P. & Ors.#Toddy
Tappers Coop. Society, Marredpally &
Ors.#2003-11-17#25635#3630-3631#CJI.### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 371-372 of
2003#2003#Ram Dular Rai & Ors.#State of Bihar#2003-11-27#25636#371-372#S.B.
Sinha.### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4075-4081 of 1998#1998#Nair Service Society#Dist.
Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission &
(civil)#Appeal (civil) 4698-4700 of 1994#1994#State of U.P. & Ors.#Lalji Tandon
(Dead)#2003-11-03#25638#4698-4700#R.C. LAHOTI### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.)
506 of 1997#1997#State of Karnataka#Puttaraja#2003-11-27#25639#506#DORAISWAMY
(crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 530-531 of 2003#2003#Bhargavan & Ors. #State of Kerala
(civil)#Appeal (civil) 7371 of 2002#2002#N.D. Thandani (Dead) By Lrs. #Arnavaz Rustom
Printer & Anr. #2003-11-24#25642#7371#R.C. LAHOTI###
(civil)#Appeal (civil) 9205-07 of 2003#2003#The Land Acquisition Officer, Nizamabad,
District, Andhra Pradesh #Nookala Rajamallu and Ors. #2003-11-21#25643#9205-07#DORAISWAMY
RAJU### Transfer Petition (crl.)#Transfer Petition (crl.) 77-78 of 2003#2003#K.
Anbazhagan #The Superintendent of Police & ors.#2003-11-18#25644#77-78#S.N.
(civil)#Appeal (civil) 7868 of 1995#1995#ITW Signode India Ltd. #Collector of
Central Excise #2003-11-19#25645#7868#CJI###
(civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of
Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR.
Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited
#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr.
(crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal
(civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of
Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR.