SATBIR SINGH & ANR. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1977] 3 S.C.R. 195 · Decided: 14-03-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

r 
• 
• 
• • 
SATBIR SINGH & ANR. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
March 14, 1977 
tY. V. CHANDAACHUD, P. K.· GoSWAMI AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (Act !I of 1974), S. 
378 
(Code of 
1898, s. 417)-dpJ'eal against acquittal-Sal:itc.ry principles in dealirie lrith 
.an appeal. 
EJJidence Act (Act 1 of 1872), 1872-S. 24--i,'onf~:,·sion obtained by the 
.superior ofiicer by questioning separately the llCCuscd after several abortive 
at/empts to secure confessioni S. 24 is auructed. -
. All the accused were tiied for offences u/s. 302/120B and 364 J.P.C., but 
acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. On State's 
ap~al 
against acquittal, the High :Court convicted five of the appellants 
(Satbir 
Singh, Paramjit Singh, Harbhajan Singh, Shiv Narain· and ~I. P. Singh) under 
'S. 302/120B I.P.C. and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. Satbir Singh 
was also convicted on the sole testimony of Puran Singh (PW3) u/s. 
364 
I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine. The 
High Court held the extra judicial confessL:>ns made by Shiv Narain and 
Jlarbhajan Singh before R. K. Kapur (PW 41) the commander Border Secu-
rity Fore~ as admissible in evidence before con\'icting them and rejected the 
plea of c:ncounter on the Indo--Pakistan border. The High Court convicted 
the_ remaining eight appellants 
(Ajit, Singh, Darshan Singh, Arjan Singh, 
Baghal Singh, Tara Singh, Dial Singh, Bachan Singh and l\talook Singh) u/s. 
364 l.P.C. and sentenced them also to rigorous imprisonn1ent for seven years 
with fine. 
Allowing the appeals under_ the Supreme· Court (Enlargement of Crimin:l.J 
Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1971, the Court, 
HELD: (1) This was not a fit case wh~re the lligh Court should 
have 
-interfered with the acquittal of any of the appellants. The High 
Court ha~ 
not at all considered the reasons given by the Sessk1ns Judge for acquitting 
the accused. It has given its own reasons for convicting the appe11ants but 
that is not enough in an appeal against acquital. [205 B-C] 
_ 
(2) As a Practical proposition, in an appe:tl against acquittal, it is al-
v.;ays necessary that the reasons given by the trial court for recording 
an 
acquittal should be examined by the High Court. If the conclusions of the 
trial court are not based upon any. evidence or they arl! such as no reasonable 
body of men, properly instructed in law can reach, on the evidence, or they 
are so palpably wrong as to shock the sense of justice, the High Court \\-'ill 
be justified in taking a contrary view by giving its own reasons. It is 
not 
enough that it is just possible for the High Court to take a 
contrary view. 
While interfering with acquittal the judgment of the High Court should de-
monstrate clearly the unworthiness of the conclusions of the trial court having 
regard to all the relevant evidence in record. The lligh Court has fol1o\ved 
·these salctary principles in dealing \Vith an appeal against 3cquittal. [204 G-H, 
205 A) 
. 
· 
(3) In deciding whether a particular confe3sion attracts the frown of sec-
-tion 24 of the Evidence Act, the question has to be considered from the point 
·of view of the confessing accused as to how the inducement, threat or pro-
·mise proceeding from a person in authority would operate in his mind. 
In the instant case, the extra iudicial confessions~ by the i"-'O accused Shiv 
"Narain and Harbhajan Singh, have to be completely excludeU from consider-
-ation being hit by s. 24 of the Evidence Act When the two accused were 
-questioned separately after several abortive attempts to secure confessions it 
·cannot be said that there was no inducement, threat or promise of some kind. 
:[203 H-204 A, E] 
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
196 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977] 3 s.c.R. 
A 
Obser~'ation : 
. 
T_he ~itness cal?-not be relied up5ln by ~es?rt to a kind of fpecial pleading. 
in _his aid. 
Tht? I.1ne of approach 1_n a cnm1nal c_ase in order to find justifi-
cation for conv1ctton on shaky testimony by making a virtue of the inalert-
ness of the police administration is not to be commended. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 178-
B 
179 and 228 of 1975 . 
c 
. · (From the Judgment aµd Order dated 10-4-1975 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 40 or 1972). 
· .. 
Frank Anthony, Herjinder Singh and S. N. Singh, for appellant No. 
1 in Cr!. A.178/75 and appellants in Crl. 179/75 and Appellants Nos. 
1-2 in C

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