SATBIR versus SURAT SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 12-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
-
SATBIR 
A 
v. 
SURAT SINGH AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 12, 1997 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.) 
B 
Criminal Law : 
Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149. 
Rioting and Murder-Accused-Convicted by Trial Court-Acquitted by c 
High Court-Validity of 
Evidence Act, 1872: Section 9. 
· . Identification of accused-Failure to identify one of the accused-Held: D 
Benefit could go only to the person not identified and not to others. 
Criminal Trial : 
Witnesses-Chance witness-Held : His ev(dence was not necessarily 
incredible or unbelievable but only required cautioUs and close scrutiny. 
E 
' , , 
Witnesses-Relation of deceased-Held : In a small village such 
relationship could not be made a ground to brand the witness as an interested 
witnes.s--That apart mere relationship did not make the evidence of a witness 
suspect and unworthy of credit. 
Appreciation of evidence-Three persons assaulted by accused at one 
and the same time with different weapons-Contradictions as to who as-
saulted whom and with what weapon-Held : Such minor colltradictions 
could not be made a ground to reject the evidence of the eyewitnesses, if it 
was otherwise reliable. 
Motive-Rioting and Murder-Proved by evidence of eyewitnesses along 
with FIR and medical evidence-Held : Question of motive paled into 
insignificance. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 136. 
1 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997] 2 S.C.R. 
Special Leave Jurisdiction-Appeal against acquittal-lnteiference by 
Supreme Court-Held : If High Court overlooked important facts. and relied 
upon few circumstances which did 1101 in any way impair the probative value 
of evidence, Supreme Court would interfere with order of acquittal in order 
to do complete justice. 
The appellants-accused were convicted for the offences under Sec-
tions 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
However, the High Court acquitted the appellants. Hence this appeal. 
According to the prosecution, the land belonging to the son of the 
C deceased was sold to the appellants. The possession, however, remained 
with the deceased who used to cultivate it. On the fateful day while the 
deceased, along with two persons, was cultivating the aforesaid land, the 
_appellants, armed with different weapons, came to the field and started 
beating the three deceased with their respective weapons as a result of 
which theyfell down dead. PWs 7 and 9, who came to the field in search 
D of their missing buffalo, witnessed the incident. PW-7 was a relative of the 
deceased. The incident was also witnessed by PW- 10. 
The High Court set aside the conviction on the grounds that PW-10 
failed to identify one of the appellants in the test identification parade; 
E that PWs· 7 and 9 were chance witnesses and hence they were interested 
witnesses; that PW-7 was related to the deceased; that there were con-
tradictions as to the type of weapons with which the appellants assaulted 
the three deceased; and that the appellants had no motive for committing 
the offences of rioting and murder. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Ordinarily this Court does not interfere with an order of 
acquittal recorded by the Higo Court; but if the High Court arrives at its 
findings overlooking important facts and relying upon few circumstances 
G which do not in any way impair the probative value of evidence adduced 
during the trial, this Court would be failing in its duty to do complete 
justice if it does not interfere with such order of acquittal. [ 6-F] 
2. When the witness failed to identify one of the accused the benefit• 
can go only to the person not identified and not to others. The evidence of 
H a chance witness is not necessarily incredible or unbelievable but it only 
' r 
_../' 
SATBIR v. SURAT SINGH [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.] 
3 
. requires cautious and close scrutiny. (7-G] 
· 3. The High Court was wrong in discarding the testimony of PW-7, 
as he was a relation of the deceased. In a small village such relationship 
ought not to have been made a ground to brand him as an interested 
witness. This apart, mere relationship does not make the evidence of a 
A 
witness suspect and unworthy of credit. (8-F] 
B 
4. In an incident where a number of persons assaulted three persons 
at one and the same time with different weapons, some contradictions as 
to who assaulted whom and with what weapons, were not unlikely and such 
contradictions could not be made a ground to

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