GARIB SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 978 · Decided: 22-03-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. GROVER · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

9711 
GARIB SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
March 22, 1972 
[A. N. GROVER A:ND M. H. BEG, JJ.] 
A.vrJreciation 
of Evidence-Prin-:iples-Reversal of judgment 
~f 
acquittal by High Court when just(lied-Indian Penal Code. s. 34, appl1• 
caoiuty of. 
· 
A 
B 
Five persons including the three apj>ellants were jointly charged .and 
tried for rioting and offences comrn.tted m the coutse of it. The Sess16ns 
C 
Juuge acqu.lted. au tne accused oe..;au:ie he found th~ .prosecu ion st~ry 
to be art ficial. 
He also took into account the de.ay in lodg.ng the first 
information report and the fact tha there were no blood mar ks foo.ld 
where the injured peiSons were alleged to have fallen down. 
The· H gh 
Court in appeal filed by the State re-assessed the evidence and reversed 
the judgment of acquittal in respect of the th ·ee appellants. The appel-
lants had been charged in respect of v:carious offences uniter .s. 149 of 
I> 
the Indian Penal Code, but the High Court, in v:ew di the acquittal of 
two of the five accused, convicted he. appella'lts in respect of those 
offences under s. 34 of the Code. 
In appeal by special leave this Court 
had to consider (i) whether the reversal of the judgment of the trial 
d>urt by the High Court was justified with .reference to pr.nciplcs 'di 
appreciation of evidence and the decisions of the Court; (ii) whether the 
conviction of the ~ppellants by recourse to ~. 34 was justified on the 
facts of the case. 
E 
HELD: (i) Perhaps there is no uniform method of arriving at 
correct or at least satislfactory conclusio11s upon veracity of versions placed· 
before the Court wh ch cart be applied to all cases. 
It may be possible 
to decide ffiany cases by detenni!ling the main or c·rucial poin~ on which 
the dec:sion of the case Me way or the other may tur1. In other cases, 
wh~re mariy disputable points are i.,vo!ved, none of which is conclusive, 
a more elaborate and cotnprchensive treatment of the 
var:ous 
points 
F 
involved in the whole case may be necessar)'. Courts have, hov.'ever, to 
attem"Jt to separate the "chaff from the grain" in every case. 
TI1ey ca'l· 
not abandon this attemp·· on the ground that the case is baffling unless 
the evidence is really so confus:ng or conflicting that the process cannot 
be reasonably carried nut. r983 H~984 Bl 
Chet Ram v. State, [1971] 1 S.L.J. 153, referred to. 
(ii) In judging the credibility of a version the Court must apply the 
standards of a reasonable and prudent man. r983 F] 
(i'i) In the present case the High Court had u"doubtedly corrected 
the erroneous approach of the learned Sessions Judge by poi'lting out 
obviou<i answers to the poi.,ts which. the Ses-.ions Ju'.dge seemed to regard 
a~ riddles iiic~pable of solution. 
For example, the delay in lodging the 
First Informatton Reoo"rt. although susoicious, could certai11ly be safsfac-
torily exo1aiT"ted by the fact that the stab wound in the stomach of O""'e 
of the victims was so ser'ou! th':!t his statement could not be taken for 
several days afterwards. The absence of blood at the place of occurrence 
GARIB SINGH v. PUNJAB (Beg, J.) 
979 
A 
was given undue importance by the trial court inasmuch ;is the ~<><!d 
might have got soaked in the clothes of the victims. Secondly, after tlic 
occu.rence, a num·oer ot persons must have passed to and tro over the 
path, where the occu.rei.1ce 
took 
place, 
be1ore 
the arrival 
of the 
police next day. The principles Ja:d down by this Court were applied 
by the High Court in dealing with the case and interference by this Court 
in respect of the appraisal of evidence by the H.gh Court would not be 
B 
just.fied. i,984 F-G; 986 A-BJ 
Khed11 Mohton & Ors. v. State of Biliar, [19711 1 S.C.R. 839 and 
Laxman Kalu Nikalie v. The State of Maharashtra, [19681 3 S.C.R. 685, 
referred to. 
(iv) The High Court bowewr erred in applying s. 34 I.P.C. to the 
facts of the present case. 
Taking the total.ty of circumstances, parti-
C 
cul.arly the nature of ~ injilries, the 
Oiwa;i night, and the place . of 
occur.eilce on a public thorouJhfare iJto account, the pattern of the case 
was not that of a pre-planned attack. 
MC,.e carrying of spears which 
was not unusual for Sikhs would not establish pre-planning. 
The con-
vict' on of the appellants with reference to. s. 34 must therefore be set 
aside. j,987 D-G; 989 G-Hl 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Cr:imilial Appeal No. 
165 of 1969. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and or

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