LAKHWINDER SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 136 · Decided: 17-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
LAKHWINDER SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
ST A TE OF PUN.iAB 
DECEMBER 17, 2002 
B 
(N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 148 and Sections 302, 325, 324, 323 and 
336 read with 149-Arms Act, 1959-Section 27-Aflegation that accused 
along with co-accused committing murder of a person and injuring others-
C Conviction and sentence-High Court convicting accused but acquitting co-
accused-Held, in view of the findings based on the evidence on record, 
prosecution case not credible due to several lacunae in it-Hence conviction 
and sentence of accused set aside. 
D 
It is alleged that the appellants and otllus variously armed 
committed the murder of one person and caused injuries to informant and 
other persons. Informant lodged an FIR and disclosed the motive as one 
party preventing other party from using the path near the village pond. 
Trial Court convicted them under Section 148 and Sections 302, 325, 324, 
323, 336 read with 149 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959. High Court 
E convicted the appellants but acquitted the co-accused. Hence the present 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
I. On the basis of evidence on record, the prosecution case is not 
F credible due to several lacunae in it. Therefore the conviction and sentence 
of the appellants is set aside. 1158-CI 
2.1. The two eyewitnesses are not wholly reliable and the third 
witness is wholly unreliable. 1158-BI 
G 
2.2. The FIR about the incident was lodged by informant with the 
police not at police station but at bus stand where police officer was found. 
1151-DI 
2.3. The last sentence of FIR to the effect that the members of the 
H prosecution party caused injuries to one of the appellant-gunman in the 
136 
LAKHW!NDER .S~1:JGH v. ST A TE OF PUNJAB 
137 
incident is interpolated with a view to explain the injuries on the aforesaid A 
appellant. Informant asserted that he never stated so since he did not know 
the names of the gunmen till 3-4 days after the occurrence. According to 
him, police must have interpolated this. On examination of the original 
report recorded by the police officer there is no manner of doubt that the 
last sentence of the information has been interpolated and it is quite clear B 
from a mere look at the document that the last sentence has been adjusted 
in the space available between the last sentence of the report and the 
signature appearing at the bottom. Further both the prosecution witnesses 
asserted that they had not caused injuries to anyone. The question of 
informant having stated that appellant was also assaulted and injured in 
the course of the incident did not arise since he did not know the name of C 
appellant. (151-E-H] 
2.4. Only one prosecution witness was examined to prove the seizures 
made from the place of occurrence by prosecution. From his evidence it 
does not appear that he was present at the place of occurrence when the 
alleged recoveries and seizures were made. Obviously he must have signed D 
the seizure memos later. Therefore, the recoveries alleged to have been 
made from the place of occurrence is suspect and it is not safe to attach 
any credence to the recoveries made and seizures effected by the 
investigation officer. (152-C-D; 153-B-C; 155-B; 158-B] 
2.5. The evidence on record is over-whelming that informant was not E 
present at the place of occurrence and did not meet any of the police 
officers at the time of investigation and, therefore, the assertion of 
investigating officer that with his assistance rough site plan with marginal 
notes was prepared does not appear to be true and also that the inquest 
report was witnessed by informant. It seems the inquest report was 
prepared elsewhere and later on signature of informant was obtained. 
Furthermore in the 4th marginal note, name of appellant had been 
mentioned. Since informant did not even know the name of any of the 
gunmen, it is obvious that the marginal notes were not prepared by 
investigating officer with his assistance, and in all probability, investigating 
G 
F 
officer has himself prepared the marginal notes without his assistance. 
Neither the further statement of informant nor the statement of other 
prosecution witnesses was recorded by the investigating officer. This does 
not appear to be the natural conduct of an investigating officer, because 
if they were really present at the place of occurrence, and he had gone to 
the place of occurrence as claimed by him, he would have certainly H

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