SUCHA SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 871 · Decided: 13-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 8 S.C.R. 871 
.( 
SUCHA SINGH 
A 
V. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 753 of 2008) 
MAY 13, 2009 
B 
-t 
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 - Prosecution under ss. 302 
and 307 - Of two. accused - Charge of co-accused altered to 
one ulss. 302134 and 307134 in view of supplementary c 
statement of first informant- Acquittal of both the accused by 
trial court - High Court convicting the accused u/s. 302 while 
upholding acquittal of co-accused -
On appeal, held: 
Evidence of eye-witness (first informant) is not reliable - There 
are vital contradictions in the FIR and the supplementary D 
statement of the first informant - The contradictions regarding 
number of injuries, time of occurrence, place of occurrence, 
sequence of events and the manner of identification of the 
accused significant - There was lack of motive - Accused is 
thus liable to be acquitted. 
E 
>; 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
~f; 
No. 753 of 2008. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 24.05.2007 of the High 
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal 
F 
No. 809 of 1997. 
Vikas Mahajan, Vishal mahajan (for Bhaskar Y. Kulkarni 
for the Appellant. 
-,j. 
Kuldip Singh for the Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a 
871 
H 
872 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 
~ 
A judgment and order dated 24.5.2007 passed by a Division 
·{ 
Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh 
in Criminal No.809 OBA of 1997 allowing an appeal preferred 
by the respondent herein from a judgment of acquittal passed 
by the learned Sessions Judge. 
B 
2. The prosecution's case is as under: 
" 
At about 8.00 pm on 16.2.1991, one Gurdev Chand 
I 
(PW4), his brother Sheru (PW5), aged 11 years and another 
brother Sakander (the deceased) aged about 13 years had 
c gone outside the village to answer the call of nature. Appellant 
who is said to have been armed with 'datar' along with one 
Manga came on their way. Whereas Manga is said to have 
raised a 'lalkara' that the complainant be taught a lesson for 
selling adulterated liquor with water, Sucha Singh gave a 'datar' 
,, 
D blow on the deceased. Allegedly, Manga gave a 'datar' blow 
on Sheru (PW5). On their raising cries, Bhindi, younger brother 
of the first claimant, came on the spot, whereafter the accused 
ran away with their weapons. The deceased was removed to 
civil hospital, Pathankot where he died. 
E 
3. A first information report was lodged at about 12.05 
noon on 17.2.1991. 
1 
4. Before the learned Trial Judge, inter alia, Gurdev Chand 
I' 
(PW4) and Sheru (PW5) were examined to prove the 
F prosecution's case. The learned Trial Judge noticed that 
although a charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code 
(IPC) had been framed against Manga, but the first informant, 
in his supplementary statement had accepted that Manga was 
empty handed. It was on the aforementioned premise that the 
G appellant by reason of amendment of the charge had been 
charged under Section 302 and 307 of the IPC whereas Manga 
was charged under Section 302/34 and 307/34 of the IPC. 
The learned Trial Judge recorded a judgment of acquittal, 
H inter alia, on the following findings: 
$UCHA SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
873 
[S.B. SINHA, J.] 
-? 
(1) 
The difference between the statement in the first 
A 
information report and the supplementary statement 
was very vital. The allegations against Manga had 
been withdrawn only upon noticing that his right hand 
pejrg arnputat~d, he was not in a position to inflict 
~ny Injury. 
· 
B 
i 
(2) 
Statement of Gurdev Chand was held not to be 
trlJl?tv-!9rthy keeping in view the change in his stand 
also in regard to the sequence of events. Whereas 
in his first statement, he stated that Sakandar had c 
first been attacked by Sucha Singh, in his 
supplementary statement, he alleged that Sheru had 
t)een the first victim whereafter Sakandar ran away. 
He was chased for a sufficient distance and an 
l 
injury was inflicted on his body with a 'datar'. 
D 
(3) 
The omission in the first information report that 
Sheru was taken to a civil hospital before the first 
information was lodged was only to explain the 
delay in lodging the first information report although 
such an allegation had not been made in the first 
E 
infprrnation report. 
"' 
(4) 
Whereas in his first statement, Gurdev Chand 
.. 
alleged that Sheru had been infli

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