SUKHCHAIN SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 408 · Decided: 24-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.P. SETHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SUKHCHAIN SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
APRIL 24, 2002 
B 
[R.P. SETHI AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 302 read with Section 34-Murder-
Conviction-Appreciation of evidence-On facts accused persons allegedly 
C surrounding deceased and inflicting lathi blows-Occurrence witnessed by 
deceased brother and his cousin-Eye witnesses and another brother of 
deceased removed deceased in injured condition to hospital but he succumbed 
to his injuries at hospital-Post mortem report stating death due to injury to 
brain-FIR-Investigation-Trial Court relying on testimony of eye witnesses 
convicting accused persons-However, High Court on various presumptions 
D holding that witnesses were not eye witnesses to occurrence, discarded their 
evidence and acquitted the accused-On appeal held, on facts and 
circumstances, order of High Court is perverse, based upon assumption which 
is not referable to any legal or factual presumption, hence liable to be set 
aside. 
E 
F 
Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 136-Special leave jurisdiction-
Finding of fact by courts below on proper appreciation of evidence-
Interference with-Held, is permissible when finding is perverse and based 
upon illegal assumption and conjectures. 
On the fateful day one 'R' reached near his house with trolly loaded 
with chaff to be sacked in adjoining rooms. When 'R' was waiting for his 
brother and cousin to reach near his house, accused persons armed with lathis 
inflicted blows on his head. The commotion and noise attracted attention of 
complainant-brother of deceased (PW-1), his cousin (PW-2) who saw the 
occurrence. After the occurrence both the eye witnesses and another brother 
G of the deceased removed 'R' in an injured condition to the hospital who 
succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. Doctor sent a note to the Police 
Station, on the receipt of which Assistant Sub-Inspector reached hospital and 
recorded the statement of complainant-PWl which was later treated as FIR. 
Investigation was completed and accused were tried under Section 302 read 
with Section 34 IPC. Trial Court relying upon the testimony of eye witnesses 
H 
~8 
~ 
... 
,. 
.... 
.... 
.... 
SUKHCHAIN SINGH v. STATE OF HARY ANA 
409 
held the accused guilty. However, High Court not relying upon the testimony A 
of PW-I and PW-2 acquitted the accused persons. Hence the present appeals. 
In appeal before this Court accused persons submitted that no 
interference under Article 136 of the Constitution was called for and the view 
taken by the High Court, on appreciation of evidence, was a probable view 
B 
which did not require to be substituted by another view. 
State submitted that the finding of the High Court being perverse and 
based upon assumptions and presumptions required to be rectified, and in 
view of the elaborate judgment of the trial court, there was no ground for 
the High Court to have passed the impugned judgment 
c 
.Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. It is true that generally this Court does not interfere with 
the finding of fact arrived at after proper appreciation of evidence by the 
courts below. But if such a finding is perverse, based upon no evidence or D 
based upon such evidence which is inadmissible or is the result of imaginative 
hypothesis, conjectures, illegal assumptions and presumptions, the Court is 
entitled to re-appreciate the evidence to ascertain the validity of its judgment 
(416-H] 
Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR (1950) SC 169; Sadu Singh Harnam Singh 
v. The State of Pepsu, AIR (1954) SC 271; Duli Chandv. Delhi Administration, E 
(1975) 4 SCC 649; Ramniklal Goku/das and Ors. v. State of Gujarat, (1976) I 
SCC 6; Mst. Dalbir Kaur and Ors. v. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 158; State 
of Jammu and Kashmir v, Hazara Singh and Anr., AIR (1981) SC 451 
Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel and Ors. v. State of Gujarat, (2000] l SCC 358 and 
State of Punjab v. Jugraj Singh and Ors., JT (2002) 2 SC 147, referred to • 
F 
2.1. In the instant case High Court presumed that Complainant-PW-I 
had not accompanied the injured, since the name of complainant-PW-I was 
not mentioned in the medico-legal report Such an assumption is not referable 
to any legal or factual presumption. It is in evidence that PW-1 accompanied 
by his cousin and other relatives had taken the injured to the hospital In the G 
report, name of one 'S' is mentioned by the Doctor. Omission to mention the 
names of other relatives in the certificate cannot be 

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