SAHIB SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 95 · Decided: 28-07-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SAHIB SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
JULY 28, 1997 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987-Penal Code 
1860; 
A 
B 
Criminal Trial-S.302/34 1PC read with S.3(2) of the Act-Interested C 
Witness-Prosecution relying on evidence of f amity members of the 
deceased-No independent witnesses examined-Enmity between accused 
and f amity members of the deceased-Such witnesses testifying the presence 
of a dead person along with the accused at the place of incident-Conviction 
on the testimony of such witnesses whether sustainable-Held, witnesses who D 
are related to the deceased are as competent to depose the facts as any other 
witness----Mere relationship does not disqualify a person-The Court should 
scrutinise their evidence with care and caution-Under facts and circumstan-
ces, the witnesses, on account of the ~nmity, lied before the Court. 
FIR-Lodging of Delay in-Held, under facts and circumstances, the E 
delay was deliberate and meaningful S.15-Confession-Made to Police Of-
ficer-Admissibility of-Held, S.15 of the Act makes a special provision as to 
the admissibility of confession and signals a departure from the nonnal rule 
contained in Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act-Confession made to 
Police Officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police would be 
admissible in evidence subject to the fulfilment of requirements indicated F 
therein. 
S.15-Confession to Superintendent of Polic&-Admissibility of-Con-
fession repeating story of dead person-Basic facts of prosecution story not 
admitted in confession-Held, under facts and circumstances, Confession is G 
not truthful and it is discarded and cannot be acted upon. 
Words & Phrases-'Confession'-Meaning of in the context of the 
Evidence Act & TADA Act. 
'Hallucination'-Meaning of 
95 
H 
A 
B 
96 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
Appellant is the accused in an incident which took place at the shop 
of the deceased located in the centre of the village in a busy locality. The 
shop of the deceased was targetted by terrorists and the prosecution 
alleged that appellant and K, who were both armed, were present at the 
spot with other Sikh youths who were also armed and indiscriminate firing 
by them resulted in the death of the deceased and injury to one of his sons. 
After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted only against the appel-
lant. The appellant contended before the trial court that he had been 
falsely implicated on account of enmity as civil and criminal cases were 
pending between him and members of the family of the deceased. The 
appellant was convicted by the trial court for offence under Section 302/34 
C IPC read with Section 3(2) of the Terrorists & Disruptive Activities 
(Prevention) Act, 1987 besides some other offences. The basis of conviction 
of the appellant was the statement of three eye witnesses, all real brothers 
and sons of the deceased, one of whom was injured in the incident and the 
Confessional Statement of the appellant recorded by the police under 
D Section 15 of the TADA Act. Against the order of conviction by the trial 
court, the appellant has appealed to this Court. 
The appellant contended that the prosecution did not produce any 
independent eye witness and attempted to prove its case only through 
interested eye witnesses who were the sons of the deceased, though the 
E incident had taken place at 6.30 p.m. in the market area and independent 
witnesses were available; and that the conviction cannot be sustained on 
the testimony of highly interested eye Witnesses who were on inimical terms 
with the appellant and had earlier tried to implicate him and his father in 
a false criminal case involving the same person, K. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the court 
HELD : 1. The contention that the prosecution had relied only upon 
witnesses who are family members of the deceased and are thus highly 
interested cannot, by itself, be a ground to reject their statements. Wit-
G nesses who are related to the deceased are as competent to depose the facts 
. as any other witness. Mere relationship does not disqualify a witness. If 
the incident had taken place at a time or under such circumstances that 
there was no possibility of any other person being present at the spot, 
except those who were related to the deceased, those persons, namely, 
H persons related to the deceased, will be competent to depose the facts seen 
SAHIB SINGH v. STATE 
97 
by them

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