NIRMAL SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 18-03-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
NIRMAL SINGH AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF HARY ANA 
MARCH 18, 1999 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 : 
Sections 302134-Murder-Punishment-Death Sentence-Rarest of 
rare cases-Individual role played by the accused persons-Considerations C 
of-Murder of 5 members of a family of a witness whose evidence was 
responsible for the conviction of accused D in a prior rape case-Accused 
D had threatened during the trial of rape case that witness deposing 
against him would have to face dire consequences-Accused D killing all 
the five persons of the family by means of a kulhari-Nature of injuries D 
indicated that the act of accused D was an act of depraved mind and was 
most brutal and heinous in nature-Held, the act of accused D fell within 
the ambit of rarest of rare cases and hence deserved extreme penalty of 
death-However the act of accused N, brother of accused D, was limited 
to only 3 blows by means of a burchi on one of the victims only after fJ 
had given 3 or 4 blows, could not fall within the ambit of rarest of rare E 
cases attracting death penalty-Hence his sentence commuted to life 
imprisonment. 
Criminal Trial : 
Appreciation of evidence-Trial for murder of 5 members of a family of F 
a witness, PW 8, whose evidence was responsible for the conviction of one 
of the accused in a rape case-Evidence given by PW 8 in the rape case was 
the motive for the crime-Subsequently, PW 8 got married and on the fateful 
night she was staying at the rooftop with her husband PW 9-PWs 8 and 9 
gave a vivid account of the entire incident which they had seen from the G 
rooftop-Evidence of the photographer that the police was at the spot at 
8.00 a.m. while FIR recorded at 10.00 a.m.-lnsertion of name of PW 9 in 
inquest report in a different ink-Evidence of witnesses cannot be discarded 
on such account particularly when the IO was not cross examined on this 
score-Fact that PW 8 who was responsible for the conviction of one of the 
accused was by coincedence and not knowingly by the accused persons- H 
1 
• 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[I 999] 2 S.C.R. 
A Infirmity beiween medical evidence and oral evidence as to absence of 4 
injuries on the body of the deceased not fatal to prosecution case particularly. 
when witnesses had seen the incident from the rooftop-Held, presence of 
eyewitnesses, PWs 8 and 9 cannot be doubted nor their evidence has been 
impeached in any manner-Under such circumstances, conviction of the 
B appellants unassailable. 
Accused D and N had committed the murder of 5 members (parents 
and two brothers and a sister of PWS) of a family and were convicted on the 
evidence of two eye witnesses PWS and PW9 (husband of PWS). On an 
earlier occasion P_\:YS was raped.by accused D and he threatened that if any 
C body gives evidence during the trial of rape case, he would not be spared. But 
D was convicted on the .evidence of PWS, the rape victim. After the conviction 
-of Din the rape case, an appeal before the High Court was preferred and 
bail was granted. On release, the accused D along with his brother N 
murdered the five members of the family of PWS quite unaware that in the 
meantime PWS got married to PW9 and 9n the fateful night she was there 
D on the rooftop along with her husband and the murders took place in their 
presence. The trial c~urt on the evidence of PWS and PW9 convicted the 
appellants D and N under Sections 302/34 and awarded death penalty to both 
7 
E 
the accused and the same was confirmed by the High Court on appeal. Hence 
· this appeal. 
It was contended by the appellants that the evidence of PWS and PW9 
could not be relied upon for the FIR alleged to have been given by PWs8 and 
9 had not been really given at 10.00 a.m and such timing was given by 
manipulation so as to secure the presence of these two eye witnesses for as 
\ 
per the evidence of the photographer, he reached the spot at 8.00 a.m. as per 
p his evidence. Therefore, it could not be said that no information had been 
given till 10.00 a.m. In view of the above lacuna, it was further submitted that 
the evidence of village Sarpunch who was examined as defence witness 1 and 
who had gone with PWS to lodge the FIR to the effect that neither PWS nor 
her husband PW9 has seen the occurrence assumed great significance and 
the same piece of evidence has not been given its due weight. 
G 
Partly allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Having scrutinised the evidence of PWS and PW9 there is 
n

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