SANTOKH SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 886 · Decided: 01-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. SUDERSHAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 886 
SANTOKH SINGH & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2079 of 2008) 
SEPTEMBER 01, 2010 
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH 
NIJJAR, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860 -
s. 302134 -
Murder - Rivalry 
C between parties resulting in death of victim - Conviction and 
sentence of accused uls. 302134 on basis of circumstantial 
evidence by trial court - High Court upholding the order of 
conviction and sentence of two of the accused and acquitting 
others - On appeal, held: All the circumstances taken together 
D form a continuous and unbroken chain that deceased was 
shot dead by two of the accused - Clear evidence that 
accused went to the house of deceased t0 bring him out of 
the house for the purpose of committing his murder - Serious 
rivalry between the two Unions - Cleaning of pistol by 
E accused to remove finger-prints strongly pointing towards the 
guilt of accused - There was no blackening or tattooing of the 
skin surrounding the wound - Therefore, trial court rightly held 
that possiblility of suicide was roled out~ Thus, orders of trial 
court as a/so High Court do not call for any interference -
F 
Evidence - Circumstantial evidence . 
According to the prosecution case, there was a 
Union rivalry between the parties. On the fateful day, 
accused persons went to the house of the deceased and 
took him to the hotel in presence of the complainant. He 
G was forced to drink liquor and while he was under the 
influence of liquor, he was murdered. The trial court 
convicted the accused for offences punishable under 
Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and imposed 
sentence of imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1,000/ 
H 
886 
SANTOKH SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
887 
-. The High Court upheld the order of conviction and 
A 
sentence of appellant no. 1 and appellant no. 2. However, 
the other two co-accused were acquitted. Therefore, the 
appellants filed the instant appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The conclusions of the trial court and the 
High Court that the circumstantial evidence adduced by 
B 
the prosecution formed a complete chain which led to the 
conclusion, consistent only with the guilt of the accused 
and inconsistent with their innocence, are not manifestly C 
erroneous. There is clear evidence that the appellants had 
gone to the house of the deceased to bring him out of 
the house for the purpose of committing his murder. The 
reason given, of an effort to sort out the Union disputes, 
was merely a ruse to bring the deceased out of his house. 
D 
There was serious rivalry between the two Unions. Only 
two days prior to the shooting, the deceased left the 
Union of the appe.llants and became the President of. 
INTUC Union. The deceased would not have taken the 
pistol with him had he not apprehended any danger from 
E 
the accused persons. PW 5-wife of deceased clearly 
stated that he had specifically asked to take the pistol 
with him. [Para 14] [901-G-H; 902-A-C] 
' 
1.2 The trial court noticed the absence of fingerprints 
on the pistol and concluded that the fatal shot had not 
been fired by the deceased. His fingerprints were bound 
to be present on the pistol in case the shot had been fired 
F 
by him. The fingerprint expert in his report clearly stated 
that the pistol had been wiped/clean. The trial court rightly 
concluded that the fingerprints were in all probability G 
wiped away by the assailant to remove the evidence of 
his fingerprints. There is no reason for any other person 
to remove the finger prints. The far fetched suggestion 
that the fingerprints were removed to rule out the 
H 
888 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
possibility of the deceased having shot himself cannot 
be accepted. There is no evidence on the record to show 
that any other person had handled the pistol, in the 
interval between the shooting and the arrival of the police. 
There is no reason as to why the police would wipe away 
B the incriminating finger prints. [Para 11] [899-B-E] 
1.3 The trial court noticed that the post mortem report 
nowhere mentioned that there was any blackening or 
tattooing of any area surrounding the fatal wound. The 
C trial court, therefore, concluded that the possibility of 
suicide stands completely ruled out. The only inference 
is that it was a case of homicide. The shot was fired by 
someone, from amongst the accused appellants. It also 
came in evidence that in fact two shots were fired. The 
empty shel

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