STATE OF PUNJAB versus WASSON SINGH AND FIVE OTHERS

Citation: [1981] 2 S.C.R. 615 · Decided: 15-01-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
6 1 &  
STATE OF PUNJAB 
v . 
WASSON SINGH AND FIVE OTHERS 
January 1 5, 1981 
[R. S. SARKARIA AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.J 
' . 
Ctinti11al Procedure Code 1973. S. 154 & Indian 
Penal 
Code, 
S. 
302-
Trial fot n1urdrr-Ar.:cused convic:ted by Sessions Court-Acquitted by 
High 
l'ourt-lnterfercnce by Supreme Court. 
F.I.R.-Pro111ptness i11 lodging-Evidentiary value of, 
Eye-wit11eJ.H'.\-Uelated to d:eceascd-Antecedents of 
questionable nature­
ʤʥi·u1i11y of: ӣ·vi;hnc"e by Court-A1ethodology to be adopted. 
lnvestjgatio11 O.fljcer--Faflure to join respectable persons of 
locality 
to 
witr;:c.\'S recovery of i"W.0.-Value of such ·evidence. 
The prosecution case 'against the six Uccused (Respondents) was that prior 
to the incident in question, there was Ml altercation· between the tWo deceased 
on one side and the six accused on the other ovei tTespasS of 
cattle 
of the 
accused persons- om the land of the deceased, whith dairuiged his cotton crop. 
On the day of the incident when P.¥.'. 2, P.W. 3 and· the two deceased were 
going by a foot path, the six accused suddenly emerged out of a field and 
fired. 
The two deceased fell dead, while P.W. 2 and 3 ran and escaped unhurt. 
P.W. 2 reached the bus stand, picked up his motor cycle parked at a shop and 
drove to the ne<irest police station to lodge the F.I.R. 
The Additional Sessidns Judge found that one of the accused. had a· strong 
motiye to inutdcr on
.
e oi _the deceased because of. an. oki_ fued a_nd 
that 
on 
;Ӣccount of this ill v.ri1J, Some of the accused had ' a strong motive in 
joining 
h<'lnds with thi.:: .others to, murder .the deceased, but that ..no motive could 
be 
established. for murdering the second deceased. 
He also found that the fact 
that the F.I.R. was lodged by P.W. 2 with the utmost promptitude furnished 
valuable con·oboration of his evidence and also disbelieved the evideace of the 
police Sub-Inspector (P.VV. 13); 
fn the 
result 
he 
convicted 
all 
the 
six 
accused under section 302 read with section 149 I.P.C. for murder of one of 
the deceased „…nd sentenced them to in1prisonment. 
Jn the case of first accused 
however. he. was pentenced to· death' for the murder of one of the deceased. 
All the necu.;;cd appealed against their conviction alld sentence to the High 
Court \(·hich aliowea· ihe appeal and rejected the· relference. 
It rejected 
the 
evidence of the eye-witnesses, P.\V. 2 and P.\V. 3 on the ground that these 
\Vitnesses were closely related to the. first deceased who was the principal target 
of the accuc;ed and that it had not been satisfactorily established by the prose¿ 
cution that the other five accused had any motive to commit the 111urders in 
question . 
It found that the prosecution story was highly unnatural and that 
\he presence of \he two eye witnesses alongwith the deceased persong was un-
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
616 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1981] 2 S.C.R. 
likely. 
It further held there was material inconsistency in their testimony, as 
to when the first deceased and P.\V. 2 had left the hamlet, and that the inves· 
tig.ition of the Ca«e conducted by the Sub-Inspector (P.W. 13) did not inspire 
confidence. 
In the appeal by the State to this Court it was contended on behalf of the 
State that the reasoning of the High Court was manifestly unsound, if not 
wholly perverse. The fact that the F.I.R, was lodged by P.W. 2 with utmost 
promptitude and aJI the material facts including the. na·mes of the accused and 
of the witnesses having been mentioned therein, indicated that there was no 
time to concoct a false story. 
On behalf of the respondents it was submitted that the acquittal could not 
be disturbed, as the reasons given by the High Court could not be called 
perverse. 
HELD : l(i) The acquittal of respondent Nos. I and 2 are set aside and 
they are convicted under section 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code 
for the murder of the first deceased and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 
The bcnelit of doubt to the rest of the 
accused 
(responctents) 
and 
their 
acquittal on all the counts maintained. [636 C-D] 
D 
(iiJ Sufficient assurance of the testimony of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 was avail-
ahie from the circumstantial evidence regarding the participation of respon-
dents Wasson Singh and Mukhtar Singh in the murder of deceased 
Hazara 
Singh. 
The evidence of the eye witnesses therefore, could safely be acted 
upon for convicting these respondents for the said murder. [635 C-D] 

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