JARNAIL SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 584 · Decided: 23-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
JARNAIL SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
NOVEMBER 23, 1995 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code-Sections 302, 307 and 34--Evidence found unac-
ceptable against two accused-Whether could be relied on to convict other 
co-accused--Evidence Act-Generally. 
Indian Penal Code-Sections 302, 307 and 34-Deceased sustained 
three injuries-One injury caused by X fatal, the others caused by Y not 
fatal-X acquitted but Y convicted under S.302-Held, cannot be sustained. 
Evidence Act-Generally-Evidence of defence witness examined on 
D behalf of one accused-If can be relied on against the another. 
E 
F 
The appellant along with four others was tried for commission of 
offence unde_r sections 302, 307 and 147 I.P.C. The case of the prosecution 
was that there was an altercation between few of the accused and the two 
deceased as well as PW4 and PW6 over dismantling of water course of the 
deceased. It was alleged that while the deceased and their two brothers 
(PW4 and PW6) were returning back to their village, the accused _con-
fronted them armed with rifles. On being instigated by his father, the 
appellant fired from his rifle hitting one of the deceased on his back. His 
brother fired at the same deceased and hit him on his left shoulder. The 
other deceased was hit by another co-accused. 
The post-mortem report of the deceased, who was shot at by the 
appellant, showed three injuries on the deceased, injury No. 1 was a 
lacerated wound on top and back of left shoulder which, in the opinion of 
G the doctor, had caused the death. Injuries Nos. 2 and 3 were ·on the upper 
half of the chest, injury No. 2 being the wound of entry and injury No. 3 
being the wound of exit. 
During the trial, PW4 and PW6 deposed as eye-witnesses for the 
prosecution. The defence too examined DW5 who claimed to be an eye-wit-
H ness to the occurrence. In this cross exam~nation, DW5 admitted that the 
584 
I 
JARNAILSINGHv. STATE 
585 
appellant has fired at the deceased. 
The Trial Court acquitted two of the accused on the ground that they 
were not residents of the village to which the deceased or the accused 
belonged and were unlikely to be present at the place of occurrence with 
rifles and participate in the murder which arose out of a dispute between 
two families. The Trial Court also acquitted the father of the appellant on 
the ground that he had only raised a lalkara (exhortation) and therefore, 
it was not safe to convict him on the basis of that accusation alone. 
However, the case against the appellant and his brother was held to be 
proved and they were convicted under section 302 read with section 34 IPC 
and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000. 
The High Court, on appeal, gave the brother of the appellant the 
benefit of doubt as DWS did not mention him as one of the persons firing 
at the deceased and acquitted him but affirmed the conviction of the 
appellant. 
Before this Court, the appellant contended that both Trial Court and 
the High Court found the evidence of PW4 and PW6 unacceptable as 
against the other accused persons and therefore, they should not have 
relied upon their evidence for convicting the appellant. 
This Court, converting the offence under section 302 IPC into one of 
section 307 IPC. 
HELD : 1.1. The Trial Court recorded the order of acquittal in 
respect of three of the accused persons by giving them the benefit of doubt 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
and not on a finding that the evidence of the two eye witness examined by F 
the prosecution was totally false and absolutely unreliable. Therefore, the 
Trial Court could have relied upon the evidence of PW4 and PW6 to 
convict the co-accused. [588-G-H; EJ 
1.2. The contention of the appellant that the Courts below could not 
have relied only upon the evidence of DWS to convict the appellant could G 
have been accepted if the learned Courts below had, after discarding the 
evidence of P.W. 4 and P.W. 6 altogether, based their findings against the 
appellant solely relying upon the ocular version of the incident given out 
by D.W.S for in criminal cases the burden of proving the guilt of the 
accused beyond all reasonable doubts always rests on the prosecution. In H 
586 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
the instant case, however, the learned Courts below made use of the 
evidence of D.W.5 only for lending assurance to the conclusions already 
drawn by the learned Courts on the basis of the evidence

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