GURMEJ SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1991] 2 S.C.R. 966 · Decided: 16-07-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GURMEJ SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
JULY 16, 1991 
B 
[A.M. AHMADI, V. RAMASWAMI AND M. FATHIMA 
c 
BEEVI, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code-Section 302 read with Section 34--Con-
viction based on the evidence of close relatives being interested testi-
mony-Whether valid. 
Non-examination of one of the eye-witnesses-Effect of. 
The appellants and the deceased Harnam Singh, were neighbours 
and had strained relations on account of passage of sullage water and 
elections. According to the prosecution, they had quarrelled over the 
D passage of sullage water a few months before the incident; the appel-
lants had diverted their sullage water towards the house of the deceased 
and the latter had protested and frustrated their effort, with the result 
the water collected in a pool near the house of the appellants which 
infuriated them. The appellants attacked and murdered Harnam Singh 
on the night between 6th and 7th June, 1976, while he was sleeping at 
E his tubewell alongwith P. Ws 2 and 3 and one Narain Singh (not 
examined); P. Ws 2 and 3 were sleeping at a distance of about 15 karams 
while Narain Singh was sleeping near the deceased. The prosecution 
alleged that Gurmej Singh fired a shot from close range at the deceased 
while he was asleep; Gian Singh struck a Gandasi blow on the chest and 
Bur Singh gave a Dang blow on the arm. After making sure that the 
F 
victim had died, the appellants fled away. P. Ws 2 and 3 did not raise 
any alarm as they were threatened by the appellants that they would be 
killed in case they made any hue and cry. P. w. 2 lodged the F.I.R. and 
disclosed therein the names of the appellants only as assailants. Two 
other persons Socha Singh and Santokh Singh were also shown as 
arrested for the commission of this crime though their names did not 
G figure in the F.I.R. According to the prosecution witnesses, these 
persons were falsely implicated by P. W. 8 Sub-Inspector. The appel-
lants alongwitb these two persons were put up for trial. The trial Judge 
acquitted these persons as having been falsely involved and no appeal 
against their acquittal was preferred. However the Trial Court relying 
on the evidence of P. Ws, convicted Gurmej Singh under Secti .. n 302, 
H I.P.C. and the other two under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced all 
966 
.. 
·' 
GURMEJ SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
967 
the three to imprisonment for life and also imposed token fines. The 
appellants appealed against their conviction before the High Court but 
the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed their appeal. They have 
now filed this appeal against their conviction and sentence, after obtain-
ing special leave. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: . It is true that Narain Singh was sleeping near the deceased 
when the latter was shot at Narain Singh was indeed a witness to the 
occurrence and ordinarily we would have expected the prosecution to 
examine him. Dropping a witness on the specious plea that he was won 
over without laying the foundation therefor is generally to be frowned 
upon. [973E] 
A 
B 
c 
The defence at no point of time questioned the prosecution state-
ment that Narain Singh was won over. The courts below accepted the 
prosecution statement in this behalf. The judgment of both the courts 
reveal that no submission was made before them regarding the non-
D 
examination of this witness. If an objection was raised at the earliest 
point of time, the prosecution may have called him to the witness stand. 
His presence was not required to unfold the prosecution story. That had 
been done by P. Ws. 2 and 3. Therefore, the non-examination of Narain 
Singh cannot reflect on the credibility of P. Ws. 2 and 3. [973G-974A] 
Both the courts were right in coming to the conclusion that the 
contradictions brought on record from the statements of PW s 2 and 3 
can have no evidentiary value. [977B] 
E 
There is no substance in the criticism levelled by the learned 
Counsel for the appellants that the prosecution had shifted its case at 
F 
the trial from the one narrated to the police in the course of investiga-
tion. The prosecution version is that immediately after the incident 
PW2 went to the residence of his father P. W. 4 and informed him about 
the incident. This conduct of P.W. 2 is quite natural. The evidence of 
>. 
P.W. 2 stands corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 4. P.W. 2 thereafter 
hired a tempo and left for the police station and promptly lodged the 
G 
first information report. I

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