BACHHITAR SINGH & ANR versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 621 · Decided: 26-09-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL, H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

BACHHITAR SINGH & ANR. 
\'. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
SEPTEMBER 26, 2002 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, I 860; Section 302: Murder of 8 persons including children--
Conviction on the basis of testimony of prosecution witness-Corroboration 
A 
B 
by circumstantial evidence-Correctness of-Held, one wtry of testing the 
veracity of the witness is simplicity of state1nent and consistency in the 
statement-It must be carejit!ly scrutinized and tested--On facts, Held, evidence C 
rightly relied upon by the Courts-Evidence Act, 1872: 
Trustworthiness of the prosecution witness-Prosecution witness present 
on the spot for the purpose of negotiation to resolve the dispute between his 
relation and accused-He rushed back to his native village tiJ save his life 
fi"om accused armed with weapons-Held, under the circumstances, nothing D 
is unnatural in the behaviour of the prosecution witness-Hence his testimony 
is natural, trustworthy and wholly reliable. 
Sentencing: 
Murder-Capital punishment-Justification-Held, admittedly crime E 
committed in a hejnous and brwal manner, but in the absence of evidence to 
the contrary that accused are menace to society, case does not fall within the 
category of rarest of rare case-Under the circumstances, sentencing of accused 
to rigorous imprisonment for life would meet the ends of justice. 
Accused-appellant lodged a report ill the Police Station about the 
murder of his two elder brothers and other family members including 
children by two unknown persons. During Police investigation, statement 
of PW3 (Brother-in-law of one of the deceased) was recorded under 
Section 161 Cr.P.C. It revealed that one of the deceased (Brother-in-law 
F 
of PW3) had given his land on contract to his younger brother, accused- G 
appellant who was not paying reasonable consideration amount. Thus his 
brother-in-law decided to give contract of the said land to some other 
person to get reasonable consideration amount. When accused-appellant 
came to know this fact, he threatened to eliminate him (the deceased). 
Further PW 3, and family members tried to persuade the accused- H 
621 
622 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A appellant but he and another accused (Sarpanch) opposed it. In the 
meanwhile, PW3 went to the house of his sister for further negotiations 
and for convening a meeting of Panchayat on the next day to resolve the 
matter and stayed at her house, and slept on the roof. At midnight, he 
saw the appellant-accused accompanied by two other accused persons 
B entering into the room of the deceased and then he heard firing sound. 
He rushed towards his native village and disclosed about the incident to 
his family members. When they came on the spot, Police was already 
present there and investigating into the matter. 
The three accused were arrested, guns and other articles were 
C recovered at the instance of the accused persons. Charges were framed 
against them under Section 460/302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 
30 of the Arms Act. 
Trial Court found them guilty of the offences charged and awarded 
capital punishment. The conviction and sentence was confirmed by the 
D High Court. Hence these appeals. 
It was contended for the appellants that the presence of PW3 at the 
place of incident was not established, his behaviour was unnatural as after 
seeing the incident instead of informing the matter to police he preferred 
to rush back to his native village; that he slept on the roof on the fateful 
E day, was also unnatural. All these circumstances rendered the testimony 
of PW3 unreliable; that the bullet injuries on the deceased appeared in 
quick succession could possibly be caused by terrorist by using AK-47 rine; 
and that empty cartridges were planted by the prosecution after seizure 
of the guns by the police. 
F 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The conviction and sentence of the appellants was based 
on the testimony of PW3 corroborated by other lending and clinching 
circumstances pointing the accusing finger to the appellants. In fact, the 
G testimony of PW3 has been carefully scrutinized, tested and accepted by 
the Courts below. 1629-A, BJ 
1.2. The testimony of PW3 is quite natural, trustworthy and wholly 
reliable. He was the relation of one of the deceased, there is no reason why 
he would falsely depose against the appellants and allow the real assailants 
H escape unpunished. The presence of PW3 in the village on the fateful day 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.