BALDEV SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 301 · Decided: 13-10-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, K.S. PARIPOORNAN · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

BALDEV SINGH AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF PUN.JAB 
OCTOBER 13, 1995 
[A.S. ANAND AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, J.J.j 
()inzinal Lalv : 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: 
Sections 302 r/w 341299, 304, Pait-I-Murder/culpable homicide-No 
illlention to cause death-No knowledge that injwies inflicted were likely to 
cause death-Held; offence falls under Section 299 read with Section 304, 
Pan-I and not under S.302 r/w S.34. 
Code of Ciiminal Procedure, 1973 : 
Section 357( 3 T--Con111ensation--Maintaining tile se11tence of ilnp1ison-
nient-No1 beneficial to victin1 or his lleirs-ACcused in a }Josition to pay-Fit 
case for substitution of sentence of bnp1iso1unent by award of con1pensation. 
Evidence Act, Ifi72 : 
First infonnatimi Repmt-Value and use of-Not a substantive piece of 
evidenw--Relevant on(v in judging the veracity of prosecution case--Only the 
essential or broad picture need be stated in it. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
The first appellant and his father were convicted under Section 302 
F 
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to 
undergo imprisonment for life. The first appellant was also convicted 
under Section 25 of the Arms Act. 
According to the prosecution, PW-S's husband took the land belong-
G 
ing to the second a11pellant for cultivation. The second appellant wanted 
the Government land being cultivated by PW-S's husband in lieu of the 
lands taken over by him, but he did not consent to this. On the evening of 
4th May, 1984 PW-5, her husband and son (PW-6) were working in the 
field. When they reached near the field of the second appellant, armed with 
kirpan, the first appellant armed \\-'ith Barchha and S with a pistol came H 
301 
302 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
there. S fired from the pistol aiming at PW-S's husband, but he was not 
hit. The first appellant gave Barcha blow on the thigh of PW-S's husband 
while the second appellant gave kirpan blow on his chest. Both the appel-
lants--accused gave further injuries to him. A, who was in the nearby field, 
having heard the alarm, reached the spot and tried to intervene. The first 
B 
c 
appellant .gave ba~cl1ha thrust in the thigh of A. Thereafter, the accused 
ran away with their respective weapons. PW-S's husband died at the spot. 
PW-5 lodged a First Information Report (Ex.P-7). The post mortem on the 
dead body of PW-S's husband was performed by PW-1. The statement of 
A was recorded by PW-10. A expired on 12.S.1984. 
On the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution 
including that of PW-1, PW-S, statement of A and F.I.R. (Ex.P-7) the 
Special Court came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the 
appellants-accused were proved. 
In the appeal before this Court, on behalf of the accused persons it 
D was contended that there was discrepancy between Ex. P-7, (F.l.R.) and the 
deposition of PW-S in Court and hence her evidence was not trustworthy; 
that PW-S's husband did not receive any injuries by pistol; that there was 
no evidence as to who cause the fatal injuries to him; that the accused 
persons did not have an intention to cause death or had knowledge that 
E 
death was likely to be caused by the injuries inflicted; that the accused 
persons could only be convicted under Section 299 read with Section 304, 
Part-I, IPC; and that this was a fit and proper case for award of compen-
sation under Section 3S7 Criminal procedure code to the heirs of the victim 
who were his near relations. 
F 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. There is nu discrepancy between Ex. P-7 (F.l.R.) and the 
deposition of PW-Sin Court. It should be remembered that Ex. P-7 was given 
within two hours of the incident and PW-S a lady would have been in an 
G agitated mind then. The proper value to be attached to the F.J.R., the cus-
tomary or essential details to be mentioned there-in and the use that can be 
made of it should not be lost sight of. Stated brieny, the F.J.R. is not a 
substantive piece of evidence, it is only relevant in judging the veracity of 
prosecutiorr' case and the value to be attached to it depends on the facts of 
each case. Only the essential or broad picture need be stated in the F.l.R. and 
H all minute details need not be mentioned therein. (311-C-H] 
13ALDEVSINGH v. STATE 
303 
Ram Kumar v. State of M.P., AIR (1975) SC 1026; Bishen Das v. State A 
of Punjab, AIR (1975) SC 573; Podda Narayana v. Stale ofA.P., AIR (1975) 
SC 1252; Gumam Kaur v. Bakshislz Singh, AIR (1981) SC 631; State
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.