JARNAIL SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2009] 13 S.C.R. 774 · Decided: 26-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 774 
A 
JARNAIL SINGH & ORS. 
-*-
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1288 of 2007) 
B 
AUGUST 26, 2009 
")-. 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 148, 149, 307, 364, 342, 
-+ 
506, 201 and 120-B/Arms Act, 1959 - s.30 - Prosecution 
c under - Dispute over a land - Two of the accused sold the 
land to other accused - Attempt to take forcible possession 
of the land by alleged incident - In the incident, witnesses 
injured and depth .caused of one labourer - Assailants 
throwing the body of the deceased in a canal - Recovery of 
...,..-
D dead body after 14 days - Identified by the Co-labourers 
'?'> 
witnesses - One accused absconding - Conviction of all the 
accused by trial court - High Court acquitting the vendor-
accused persons - Conviction of the rest - On appeal, held: 
,...__
Vendor accused were rightly acquitted as case against them 
E not proved - Other accused rightly convicted - Prosecution 
case corroborated by injured witness and independent 
witnesses, medical evidence and recoveries - Motive also 
proved. 
~ 
F 
Witness - Chance witness - Evidentiary value. 
FIR - Reliability on - When. 
Identification - Tl Parade - Holding of - Requirement -
When. 
...
G 
Prosecution case was that accused 'B' and 'R' were 
,._ 
having land dispute with the sister of PW4. In connection 
with that, his nephew (sister's son) w~s also murdered 
three years prior to the incident, by accused 'B' and 'R', 
H 
774 
JARNAIL SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
775 
,;!(. 
wherefore criminal case was pending. Accused '8' and 
'R' sold off the land to accused 'I'. Accused 'I' in order to 
A 
take forcible possession of the land, approached the land 
and assaulted PW-4 and the migrant labourers present 
at the field. One of the labourers received gun injury. 
Assailants took the injured labour and the deceased in 8 
their vehicle on the pretext of giving them proper 
treatment. They threw the dead body of the deceased in 
a canal. The police recovered the dead body after 14 days 
of the incident from a canal. One of the accused had 
absconded. Prosecution was initiated against rest of the c 
accused. 
Trial Court convicted all the accused u/ss.302, 148, 
149, 307, 364, 342, 506,201 and 120-8 IPC and u/s.30 of 
""' 
Arms Act, 1958. On appeal, High Court acquitted the 
accused '8' and 'R' against whom, charge of conspiracy D 
, "«:' 
had been framed. In respect of the other accused, 
conviction was maintained. 
SLP filed by accused 'I' was dismissed by this Court. 
One of the convicted accused did not file any appeal. This 
E 
appeal was by the rest of the convicted accused. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
.J-
HELD: 1.1. Prosecution case had been that it was 
accused '8', who hatched the conspiracy to take forcible 
F 
possession of the land. The accused '8' 'R' and 'RK' after 
receiving the consideration money for the land and 
executing the agreement might not be very much 
interested in the land or to recover the possession 
G 
thereof. After considering the oral as well as documentary 
--4 
evidence on record, the High Court came to the 
conclusion that the statement of PVV-18 in respect of the 
fact of hatching a conspiracy by accused 'B' and 'G' at 
H. 
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A the bus stand was not worthy of cred~nce. PW-18 a 
-~-
chance witness could not explain under what 
circumstances he was present at the bus stand at the 
said time. [Paras 11 and 12] [785-A-E] 
B 
Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P. (2004) 11· SCC 410, 
relied on. 
1.2. The evide.nce of a chance witness requires a very 
-~ 
cautious and close scrutiny and a chance witness must 
ade·quately explain his presence at the place of 
C occurrence. Conduct of the chance witness, subsequent 
to the Incident may also be taken Into consideration 
particularly as to whether he has Informed anyone else 
in the village about the Incident. [Para 15] [786-A-D] 
D 
Satbir v. Surat Singh (1997) 4 SCC 192; Harjinder Singh 
v. State of Gujarat (2004) 11 SCC 253; Acharaparambath 
Pradeepan and Anr. v. State of Kera/a (2006) 13 SCC 643; 
Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh and Ors. (2007) 13 
SCC 360; Shankarlal v. State of Rajasthan (2004) 10 SCC 
E 632; Thangaiya v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005) 9 SCC 650), 
relied on. 
1.3. PW-18 met the informant. PW-4 before lodging 
the FIR and the fact of conspiracy was not disclosed by 
-\-
PW-18 and PW-4. The fact of conspiracy has not

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