STATE OF PUNJAB versus MOHINDER SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 411 · Decided: 28-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF PUNJAB 
A 
v. 
MOHINDER SINGH AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 28, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.K. JAIN,JJ.) 
)-
Criminal Trial: 
~ 
Delay in lodging FIR-Effect on prosecution case-Complainant- c 
wife of deceased explained that the delay occurred because nobody 
came forward to accompany her to police station in the dark night 
and therefore for lodging the FIR she had to wait till the next morning-
Held: Delay not fatal to the prosecution case-Penal Code, 1860-S 
302 r/w s. 34. 
D 
Non-explanation of injuries sustained by accused-Effect on 
prosecution case-Held: Not fatal as it was not the case of accused 
that they were assaulted by deceased-They rather claimed that those 
injuries were sustained by them at the hand of unidentified assailants 
when they tried to intervene. 
E 
According to the prosecution, Respondent assaulted the husband 
of PW 4 (the complainant) with various sharp-edged weapons thereby 
"' 
causing his death. The parties were allegedly involved in a land dispute. 
Before the Trial Court, Respondents pleaded innocence contending (a) F 
that the injuries on them were not explained: (b) that there was delay in 
lodging the FIR; ( c) that the evidence of PW 4 was at variance with the 
medical evidence and ( d) that no trail of blood was seen by the 
Investigating Officer, though PW 4 stated about the presence of a trail 
of blood when the accused-Respondents had allegedely dragged the G 
~ 
deceased. Trial Court negatived all the contentions and placing reliance 
on the evidence of PW 4, convicted one Respondent under Section 302, 
IPC and the other Respondents under Section 302 read with Section 
34 IPC. High Court set aside the conviction. Hence the present appeals. 
411 
H 
412 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
~· 
HELD: 1. The High Court has wrongly recorded that there was 
no explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR In the FIR it has been 
categorically stated that nobody came fmward to accompany the 
B complainant to the police station in the dark night Therefore, she had 
to wait till the morning to come to the police station. In the cross-
examination of this witness, no question regarding the reason for the 
alleged delay in lodging the FIR was asked, though, the witness was 
cross-examined at length. There was not even a suggestion that she 
C had wrongly stated about the reason as to why she was lodging the FIR 
on the next morning. [Para 8] (417-D-E] 
2. It was not the case of the accused, nor even in their cross-
examination under Section 313 of the Cr PC, that they were assaulted 
by the deceased and that the accused persons had suffered injuries at 
D the hands of the deceased. Their clear case was that they have been 
falsely implicatd and the killing was done by unidentified assailants 
because of the bad reputation of the deceased. They claimed to have 
sustained injuries at the hands of the unidentified assailants when they 
tried to intervene. As rightly observetl by the trial Court, if they had 
E 
really sustained injuries in that manner, the least that could have done 
was to report the matter to the police. AdmittedJ~·, that was not done. 
Since the accused did not claim to have suffered injuries at the hands 
of the deceased, the question of explaining the injuries on the accused 
in that sense did not arise. (Para 9] [417-G-H; 418-A-B] 
F 
3. The Trial Court on analysing the evidence noticed that since the 
accused persons were dragging the dead body of the deceased to the 
house of the accused Ajit Singh alias Jeet Singh, there was possibility 
of their clothes being stained with blood rather than leaving trail of blood. 
G The Investigating Officer has categorically stated that he had collected 
blood stained earth from several places. Therefore, it is not a case where 
there is absence of blood atthe spot of occurrence or nearby. This aspect 
has been completely lost sight by the High Court It is not even discussed 
as to why it did not concur with the view of the trial court in this regard. 
H 
[Para 10] [418-B-D] 
STATE OF PUNJAB v. MOHINDER SINGH 
413 
[PASAYAT, J.] 
--'-
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. A 
330 of2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.8.1995 of the High Court 
of Punjab and Hruyana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 298-DB/ 
1994. 
WITH 
Criminal Appeal No. 331 of 2000. 
Ajay Pal for the Appellant. 
Seema Gulati, Sadhana Sandhu and Hemantika Wahi for the 
Respondents. 
The 

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