JASWINDER SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2009] 10 S.C.R. 311 · Decided: 07-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 10 S.C.R. 311 
.• .,.. 
JASWINDER SINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 900 of 2006) 
JULY 7, 2009 
B 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND 
_. 
DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
c 
ss.302134 and 307 - Accused-appellant caught hold of 
the victim saying that he should not be spared, while his co-
accused fired at the victim resulting in his death - Accused 
J 
also firing at the witness who grappled with the co-accused -
Held: Accused was rightly convicted and sentenced by courts 
D 
below 
EVIDENCE: 
Identification of accused in court - Accused refusing to 
participate in test identification parade on the ground that he 
E 
had already been shown to witness - TIP not held - Plea of 
A 
accused that in the circumstances his identity in trial court 
,> 
should have been held not established - Held: Witness had 
seen the accused at the time of occurrence at close quarters 
and also for a reasonable time - He also identified the 
F 
accused in court - His evidence· corroborated by medical 
evidence - There could be no dispute with regard to identity 
of the accused - Test identification parade. 
The appellant alongwith three others faced trial for G 
committing offences, inter alia, punishable ulss.120-B, 302 
and 307 IPC. The prosecution case was that one 'BS' 
hired contract killers to eliminate 'JS' the son of 
complainant's landlord, who was stated to have arranged 
311 
H 
312 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 
A the marriage of the daughter of 'BS' against his wishes. 
On the date of occurrence, the appellant and other co-
accused 'CS' entered the house of complainant's 
landlord, the appellant caught hold of 'JS' and 'CS' shot 
at him. 'JS' succumbed to his injuries. The trial court 
B convicted and sentenced co-accused 'BS' u/ss.120-B and 
s.302 IPC; 'CS' was convicted and sentenced, inter alia, 
u/ss.302 and 307/34 IPC; and the appellant was convicted 
and sentenced, inter alia, u/ss. 302/34 and 307 IPC. The 
fourth accused 'AS' was given benefit of doubt and was 
c acquitted. On appeal, the High Court found participation 
of co-accused 'BS' doubtful and acquitted him, but 
upheld the judgment of the trial c;ourt as regards the 
conviction and sentences of the appellant and co-
accused 'CS'. 
D 
In the appeal filed by the appellant, it was contended 
that he was neither named in· the FIR nor was any specific 
role attributed to him therein, and he was arrested only 
on suspicion after about 25 days of occurrence. It was 
also submitted that no test identification parade was held 
E as he had already been shown to prosecution witnesses, 
and in the circumstances, his identity in the trial was to 
be held as not established. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The solitary eye-witness, namely, the 
complainant (PW1) was present in the room where the 
incident took place. All along he was sitting with the 
deceased and watching television. PW1 categorically 
stated in his statement that he had seen accused 'CS' 
G firing with his pistol on the head of the deceased while 
the appellant caught hold of the deceased saying that he 
(the deceased) should not be spared. [Para 18] [320-E-H] 
1.2. The records reveal that the accused-appellant 
H 
JASWINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
313 
-r-
has refused to take part in the TIP taking up the plea that 
A 
he was already shown to PW-1 by the police. The said 
plea cannot be accepted for the simple reason that at the 
time of occurrence PW-1 had occasion to see the 
' appellant not only when he opened the door but also 
when he took both of them to the room where the 
deceased was watching the television. Moreover, he 
B 
grappled with both of them. He himself received gun shot 
injuries in his hand as also on leg as a result of the shot 
fired by the appellant. He had seen the appellant at close 
quarters and also for a reasonable time. He also identified c 
the accused-appellant in the court as the person who had 
fired at him. His evidence is corroborated by the medical 
evidence of the doctor who examined him. Therefore, 
there could be no dispute with regard to the identity of 
the accused-appellant. [Para 19] [321 -B-E] 
D 
1.3. The evidence of the eye-witness PW-1 is found 
to be convincing, reliable and trustworthy. There is no 
reason to disbelieve his statement. Consequently, there 
is no merit in the appeal. [Para 20] [321 -G-H] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
E 
No. 900 of 2006 . 
. / 
From the Judgment & O

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