BALAKA SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1975] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 129 · Decided: 16-04-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.L. UNTWALIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-. 
12~ 
BALAKA SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
April 16, 1975 
[N. L. UNTWALIA ANDS. M. FAZAL ALI, JJ.J 
Evidence-Appreciation of-Addition 'of nanies in 
inquest 
rrport-Delay 
in submission ?I first infonnation report-E'ffect of 
A cousin of the deceased, \\'ho acted as his 
body guard and the :fir5t 
appellant and his party were on inimical terms. Some years before the occur-
A 
B 
rence the first appellant was charged with an offence of murder, in which 
C 
1he cousin was the chief prosecution witness. The appellant was acquitted by 
the High Court in that case. Shortly before the 
occurrence the appellant 
filed an application under s. 107, Cr.P.C. against the cousin of the deceased 
and his party which gave rise to a fresh grouse between the party of the 
prosecution and 
the party 
of the 
appellants. 
On 
the day of the occur~ 
rence, it was alleged, that the cousin of the deceased saw the appellant and 
his paiiy consisting of nine members going towards the house of the deceased, 
D 
armed with deadly weapons. AU the nine persons elltered the house of the 
deceased and attacked him. The d~ceased was a1leged to have fallen dead 
with the spear blow of the first appellant. The accused caused injuries to the 
wife when she came to protect the deceased. The Sessions Judge convicted the 
appeJlant under s. 302 and the other, accused under s. 302 read \Vith s. 149. 
On appeal the High -Court affirmed the conviction and sentences against 
the five appellants. and acquitted the remaining four accused ·on the ground 
that in the body of the inquest report the names of the four acquitted accu~ed 
did not find place and that the names of the nine accused including those of 
the four accused mentioned on the top of the inquest report was an addition 
made by the Police Sub~Jnspector to help the prosecutior1. 
E 
AJlo\ving the apveal of the five convicted accused to this Court, 
, 
HELD : l(a) The prosecution case against the five appeJiants has not been 
1 
F 
proved beyond reasonable donbt. The High Court had given cogent and ::;ub-
stantial reasons for acquitting the four accused but in that proc~s it had 
given a finding which is completely destructive Of the entire prosecution 
case itself. Although the names of all the nine accuse.d were mentioned at 
the top of the inquest report the High Court found that this was an addi-
tion made by the Assistant Sub-Inspector to help the 
-prosecution and to 
bring the inquest report in conformity with the F.I.R. The prosecution has 
not been able to give any reasonable explanation for the omission of the 
names of the four acquitted accused in the inquest report. Even the Assistant 
Sub-!nspector, who was exa:nilied as a witness had not chosen to give nny 
explanation for this deliberate omission. This omission throws serious doubt 
not only on the complicity of the four accused but also on the veracity and 
authenticity of the F.l.R. itself. When once it is established that the names 
of the four accused \Vere deliberately added in the inquest report at the 
instance of the prosecution, there 'is no guarantee regarding 'the truth· about 
the participation of the other five accused in assault of the deceased. If the 
prosecution could go to the extent of implicating four innocent persons by 
inserting their names in the inquest report and in the FJ.R., they could very 
well have put in the names of the other five appellants also because they 
were inimical to the prosecution party. [133C-G-H, 134B-C, 135C-DJ 
(b) A perusal of the evidence of the prosecution wit!'lesses shO\\'ed that 
the ·prosecuticin case against the nppellants and the four accuseci \vas so in~ 
cxtricably mixed up that it is not possible to sever one from the other. In 
the instant case, having regard to the partisan and interested evidence of the 
prosecution witnesses who could implicate the appellants and the four acct1sec1 
equally with regard to the assault on the deceased it -is not nossible to 
reiect the prosecution case with respect to the fourth accurd and accept it 
with reopect to the other five appellants. [l35F-G, HJ 
G 
H 
' 
t 
I 30 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1975) SUPP. S.C.R. 
Zwinglce Ariel v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 15. referred 
to. 
(2) Under the High Court cirt:ulars and police rules it was incumbent 
upon the police to send a r;opy of t4e F.l.R. to the Ilaqa Magistrale imme-
diately. In the instant case the F.I.R. which was recorded at 10 P.!vf. o

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