BAKHSHISH SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

Citation: [2013] 16 S.C.R. 589 · Decided: 06-08-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

---
[2013] 16 S.C.R. 589 
BAKHSHISH SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal NC?. ) 110 of 2009) 
AUGUST 06, 2013 . · 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. B9BDE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 -
s. 302 and s, 02 rlw. 120-§lc-
Murderous assault leading to death of a person when h~ Vl.(8$ 
taking a walk_ in the park adjoining his house - three accused · c 
- 'B', his nephew ''S' and nephew's friend 'R' - Conviction of 
pl/ the three accused, by-the Courts below - Justification -
.! Held: On facts, justified - 'S' and 'R' had assaulted deceased 
with a knife which caused his death - However, 'S' and 'R' had 
nothing to gain by eliminqting 'G' - They had-no conflict with o 
., him - . Evidence not demonstrating instances of any personal · 
·motive borne by 'S' and 'R' against the deceased and the only 
reason why they killed the victim is that 'B' master minded the 
murder -
'B' was opposed to 'G' 9nd wanted to get the 
Chairman ship of the Educational trust of which the deceased 
E 
was the Chairman - Relationship between deceased and his 
wife (PW1) on the one hand and 'B' and 'his wife on the other 
hand was completely hostile ..., 'B' and his wife had given 
murder threats to deceased and also threats to rape his 
daughter - To get the Chairmanship of the Trust or in any 
F 
case to remove the deceased was a sufficiently stmng motive 
to have the opponent eliminated particularly when seen in the 
surrounding circumstances - Motive of 'B' along with other 
circumstantial evidence sufficient to convict the three accused 
~ Evidence of PW1 and other prosecution witnesses was 
convincing, reliable and trustworthy. 
G 
Evidence - Identification of accused - Murder case -
Death caused due to assault with knife - PW1, wife of the 
589 
H 
590 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 16 S.C.R. 
A deceased, was an i:iye witness - Her description of the 
assdflant. was that he had ·a trimmed beard but in the court 
when·he waStjdentified by PW1, he did not have a trimmed 
beard but had a full grown beard - Defence plea that PW1 
was confused as r.egards identification of the assailant - Held: 
B Not t(fH1able - It is quite natural for a person when he is about 
to commit a crime to. change his appearance by shaving his 
be_ard - Also, nothing improbable for a wife whose husband 
is attacked to have carefully noticed the face of the assailant 
and thereafter to identify the same person even if his beard 
c has grown back and also to identify that person from 
photograph - Moreover, the accused-assailant was employed 
by the Institute run by the Educational Trust, whose founder 
Chairman was the deceased and PW1 used to see him on 
seve;a1 occasions. 
D 
Evidef'Jce - Willless - Appreciation of - Murder case -
PW had informed the police, after reading the public appeal 
for clues - No suspicion on the identity of this witness and 
his presence at the spot - Held: Merely because the PW did 
not approach the police immediately on the date of the 
E incident but approached the police after he had read the 
public notice; his testimony is not liable to be thrown out. 
Evidence - Appreciation of - Murder case - Husband 
of PW1 stabbed to death - Defence plea that prosecution 
F story was false since PW2 purportedly heard the alarm "Mar 
Ditta Mar Ditta" whereas PW1, who witnessed the incident, 
stated she had raised the alarm of "Bachao- Bachao" -
Whether this discrepancy significant enough to discard the 
veracity of the statements of either PW1 or PW2 - Held: No 
G since in an emergency of this nature witnesses are not 
expected to remember the precise words spoken by them -
Often what comes out from witnesses who have witnessed a 
brutal murder is gibberish - The testimony is not liable to be 
rejected on that ground alone. 
H 
BAKHSHISH SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 
591 
Evidence - Motive - Proof - Held: When a high degree 
h. · 
of animosity is established, existence of motive. may be taken 
to be established. · 
1 
Evidence .- Discrepancies in - Appreci;Jtion - Held: 
Minor inconsistent versions/discrepancies do not necessarily 
demolish the entire ·prosecution story, "if it is otherwise found 
8 
to be creditworthy. 
The prosecution case w.as that '8' conspired with 
his nephew 'S' and nephew's friend 'R' to murder 'G'- the 
husband of PW1, when he went to the park adjoining his 
C 
house for a morning walk. It was a.lleged that wh.en the 
. deceased reached near the main gate of the park, 'S' and 
'R' stabbed him barbarically with a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.