STATE OF PUNJAB versus RAJINDER SINGH & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 05-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 16 S.C.R. 1 
-+ 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
A 
II. 
RAJINDER SINGH & ORS. ETC. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos.11512-1154 of 2003) 
NOVEMBER 5, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 and s.302 r.w. s.149-Acquittal 
by High Court discarding evidence of solitary witness - c 
Interference with - Meld: Not called for - Witness coming to 
police 10 days after the incident- Explanation offered by him 
/ 
that suddenly he became conscious of his constitutional duties 
to see that guilty persons get punishment, was not believable 
'I 
- His evidence about the manner of assault attributed to the 
various accused persons was also not believable. 
D 
The trial Court held three of the accused persons 
guilty under s.302 IPC, two accused 'GS' and 'MS' under 
s.302 rlw s.149 IPC and seven accused persons under E 
s.364 rlw s:149 IPC and ss.148 and 323 IPC . 
.. 
On appeal, High Court noted that PW10, the solitary 
witness did not disclose about the incident for about 10 
~ 
days and suddenly came forward to speak about the 
incident to the police. The High Court upheld the F 
• conviction of seven accused persons, so far as 
conviction under s.364 r/w s.149 IPC was concerned, and 
• 
directed acquittal of the accused persons 'MS', 'RS', 'KS' 
and 'GS' of charges relatable to ss.302 IPC r/w s.149 IPC. 
'MS' died during pendency of appeal. 
G 
f-
In appeal to this Court, appellant-State contended 
-4 
that the evidence of PW-10, who was the solitary eye-
~ 
witness to the occurrence, relating to murder was cogent 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 
·J--
A and credible and the High Court should not have 
discarded his evidence. 'GS' and 'RS' also filed appeals. 
•
Dismissing the appeal of State and of the accused 
persons, the Court 
B 
HELD: The High Court rightly held that the conduct 
of PW10 was most unusual. The witness admitted that he 
was closely related to the deceased. The High Court, in 
this background analysed his evidence with care and 
caution. The explanation offered by PW10 that suddenly 
c he became conscious of his constitutional duties to see 
i''
that guilty persons get punishment, was not believable. 
His evidence about the manner of assault attributed to 
the various accused persons was too hollow to have any 
credence. It was quite unnatural that the manner in which 
D the assaults were given could be given with such 
,.. 
precision when accused persons were many as was the 
number of injuries. That being the position, there is no 
' 
j 
scope for interference in these appeals with the order of 
, 
acquittal so far as the offence relatable to s.302 or ss.302/ 
E 149 IPC are concerned. The appeal survives only in 
.. 
respect of respondents 'RS', 'KS' and 'GS'. Since 'RS' and 
GS' already served sentence, appeal filed by them has 
become infructuous. [Paras 8 and 9) (5-E-H; 6-A] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
·-f 
F 
Nos. 1152-1154 of 2003. 
, 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 19.9.2001 of the 
•
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal 
r •
Appeal Nos. 67-DB, 85-DB and 86-DB of 1999. 
G 
WITH 
-j 
Crl. Appeal Nos. 9-1 O of 2004. 
'· 
Sarup Singh Sr. Adv., H.M. Singh, Kaushal Yadav, Manav 
Bajaj, Durgesh Yadav, Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, Satyapal 
H 
STATE OF PUNJAB v. RAJINDER SINGH & ORS. ETC. 
3 
Khushal Chand Pasi, Raja! Sharma, Dinesh Verma and A.P. 
A 
Mohanty, for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered .by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in these appeals 
is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and 
B 
Haryana High Court. It has upheld the conviction of the seven 
accused persons convicted by the Trial Court for offences 
punishable under Sections 364 and 323 read with Section 149 
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC'), while 
acquitting accused Mohan Singh, Rajinder Singh, Kulvinder c 
Singh and Gurcharan Singh of charges relatable to Sections 
302, 201 read with Section 149 IPC. Originally, there were nine 
accused persons out of whom two were acquitted by the Trial 
Court. -2-
2. Criminal Appeal Nos.1152 to 1154 of 2003 have been D 
filed by the State questioning the acquittal while other appeals 
have been filed by the convicted accused persons. 
3. Background facts, as projectE!ld by the prosecution are 
as follows: 
At about 4.00 P.M. on 23.09.1996 Surjit Kaur, (PW-3) the 
wife of Darshan Singh and the resident of village Dhadrian 
along with her .s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.