SARWAN SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 128 · Decided: 07-10-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SARWAN SINGH 
V. 
ST A TE OF PUNJAB 
OCTOBER 7, 2002 
B 
[UMESH C. BANERJEE AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] 
Penal Cade, 18601 Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 
1985-Sectfons 302 and 307 rlw Section 34/Section 3-Prosecution under-
C Incident witnessed by injured eye witness-Accused known to the victim party--
Conviction by Designated Court-On appeal-Conviction upheld as evidence 
is credit-worthy and acceptable. 
Criminal Trial 
D 
Failure to examine independent witnesses-Effect of-Held, if evidence 
of interested witnesses is acceptable and creditworthy, prosecution can prove 
its case with its assistance. 
Test Identification Parade-Requirement of-Failure to hold-Effect of-
Held, factum of recognition and placement of names in FIR do away with its 
E requirement-Conviction cannot be challenged on failure to hold test 
Identification Parade if the evidence of witness identifying the accused is 
acceptahle and creditworthy. 
Appellant-accused was prosecuted for offences under Sections 302, 
F 307 r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 3 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities 
(Prevention) Act, 1985. Prosecution case was that the accused on 
12.10.1990 at3 a.m. alongwith another person called the deceased and his 
brother (injured eye-witness) and the informant out of their house and 
took the deceased and the injured eye-witness towards a field and sent 
back the informant. After sometime injured eye-witness returned and told 
G the informant that the appellants had killed the deceased. The assailants 
were known to the victim party. Designated Court convicted the appellants 
for the offences charged under. 
In appeal to this court appellant contended that they were falsely 
implicated in the case due to previous enmity; that their involvement in 
H the case did not arise as they were already in police custody on 13.10.1990 
128 
SAR WAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
129 
on the basis of FIR dated 13.10.1999; that prosecution case was not A 
creditworthy as it failed to examine independent witnesses; that in absence 
of Test Identification Parade, statement of interested witnesses have no 
evidentiary value; that the weapons were not sent to the ballistic expert 
and no expert opinion was available connecting the gun with the empty 
cartridge. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The preponderance of evidence available on record 
justifies the view taken by the Designated Court and the same cannot be 
interfered with. (140-A, Bl 
1.2. The evidence available on record negates the plea of false 
implication. Human behaviour also runs counter to such a plea since it is 
absurd to suggest that an injured person would take recourse to implicate 
someone against whom there was enmity leaving aside the real assassin. 
B 
c 
In any event on the state of evidence the factum of appellant together with 
another person calling out the deceased and the injured eye-witness and D 
compelling them to accompany them to the fields does not seem to stand 
contradicted at any point of time. The evidence to that effect stands out 
to be credit-worthy and thus acceptable. (135-G, H; 136-AI 
1.3. Incidentally, in early nineties, terrorist activities were on peak 
in the border districts of Punjab and it has practically been an axiomatic E 
truth in the area in question that no-one would in fact come out of the 
residential houses after dusk unless perforced at 3 O'clock in the morning. 
There exists no other evidence nor even there being any suggestion of 
existence of any other factor for such perforced outing at 3 a.m. It is a 
rule of essential justice that whenever the opponent has declined to avail F 
himself of the opportunity to put his case in cross-examination it must 
follow that the evidence tendered on that issue ought to be accepted.· 
1135-G, H; 136-AI 
AEG Carapiet v. AY Derderian, AIR (1961) Calcutta 359, referred to. 
1.4. In the instant case, the occurrence took place at 3.00 a.m. on G 
12.10.1990 and the prosecutor stated that after committing the crime, 
accused fled away from the spot. On 13.10.1990 there was possibility of 
firing upon police officials. Thus acquittal of accused in FIR dated 
13.10.1990 is not sufficient to ignore the prosecution story because evidence 
is to be read independently in both the FIRs. (136-E, Fl 
H 
130 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
l.S. In the instant case no weapon was recovered, as such question 
of having any ballistic expert opinion as regards the gu

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