STATE OF HARYANA versus SHER SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 24-02-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

'i 
·. 
l 
STATE OF HARYANA 
v. 
SHER SINGH & ORS. 
February 24, 1981 
(0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.] 
Code af Criminal Procedure 1973, S. 154, Indian Penal Code 1860, S. 302 
and Indian Evidence Act 1872, S. 103-Trial for murder-Accused convicted for 
murder by Sessions Court-Acquittal by High Court-Interference by Supreme 
Court-Whether F.I.R. to contain details of the occurrence-Prosecution whether 
bound to prove motive-Burden of proof of alibi whether on the accused. 
The two deceased were the two younger half brothers of the first respondent. 
A day before the day of the murder of the two deceased, the brothers had divided 
the family properties and started living separately. P. W. 3, the wife of one of the 
deceased, in the F.I.R. given to the police, stated that on the day of the occur· 
rence when the two deceased and she went to the bagichi for milking the cattle, 
the first respondent and his sons surrounded the two deceased in the court-yard, 
the first respondent dealt a blow on the head of her husband with a gandasi while 
the others gave lathi blow on the second deceased. Both of them succumbed to the 
injuries. It was also. stated in the F.I.R. that P.W. 4, the sister of the deceased, 
was with her at the time of the occurrence and that when they screamed, the 
assailants asked them to keep quiet on pain of death to them. The assailants, it 
was alleged, thereafter dragged the two dead bodies and burnt them in the nearby 
heap of cow·dung cakes after pouring kerosene on the heap. The defence of the 
two accused was alibi. 
All the accused, who were charged of offences under section 302 read with 
section 34 of the Penal Code were sentenced ; the first respondent to death and 
the others to imprisonment for life. 
On appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentences and 
acquitted all of them. 
Allowing the State's appeal, 
HELD : 1. When an accused pleads alibi, the burden of proof under 
section 103 of the Evidence Act is on the accused. The plea of all the accused 
that they were elsewhere at the time of the offence is not true. [ 4-G, 5·C] 
2. The guilt of the two respondents had been established beyond all 
reasonable doubt. The High Court rejected the evidence of P.W. 10 on the 
ground that he had not stated in the statement before the police that in the 
partition of the family properties among the brothers, there was a hitch. The 
prosecution is not bound to prove motive of any offence in a criminal case, for 
motive is known only to the perpetrators of the crime and may not be known to 
others. If the motive is proved by the prosecution, the Court has to consider it 
and see whether it is adequate. [1 JE, 6 B-C] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1981] 3 s.c.R. 
A 
In the instant case the motive proved is apparently inadequate, although it 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
might be possible. [6 C] 
3. The High Court had taken a wrong view in rejecting the evidence of 
P.Ws. 3 and 4 on the gro1md that they' were close relations of the deceased ; that 
it was highly improbable that P.W. 3 who was in advance stage of pregnancy 
would go to the place of occurrence. [SF; 9F-G] 
4. Although both the witnesses P.Ws. 3 and 4 were close relations of the 
deceased, their evidence could not be rejected solely on that ground. They 
were also related to the m;pondents and there is nothing on record to show that 
they were inimically disposed towards the respondents to falsely implicate them 
in the murder. Secondly, it was a pure conjecture of the High Court when it 
said that panchas and sarpanchas and other respectables of the village took an 
opportunity to implicate the respondents. It was also a conjecture on the part 
of the High Court to say that the deceased were murdered by unknown culprits 
and that the respondents were falsely implicated by the village respectables. The 
High Court found as a fact that the respondents and the deceased slept in the 
bagichi during nights to keep watch over the cattle. Had the murder been 
perpetrated by unknown persons, the respondents would have intervened and 
informed the neighbours. [8F-9B] 
5. The fact that P.W. 3 did not mention in the F.I.R. that she had informed 
some persons of the village before the lodging of the F.I.R. and that for this 
reason her statement could not be relied on is not correct. The F.I.R. need not 
contain aJI details of the' occurrence nor does the omission to mention the name 
of pe1sons whom she info
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.