SUKHWANT SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1190 · Decided: 28-03-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SUKHWANT SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
MARCH 28, 1995 
B 
(DR. A.S. ANAND AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.) 
I 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: 
S.302--Murder Trial-Brother of deceased present to iffentify the dead 
\ 
C body at the time of post mortem-Not present when the body was brought to 
hospital--Effect of-Recovery of pistol and cartridges including an 
empty-Failure to get opinion of ballistic expert-Tendering witnesses for· 
cross-examination only-Affect not only the credibility of the Prosecution case 
bµt also detract materially from reliability. 
D 
Evidence Act, 1872 : 
S. 138 ·Examination or witnesses-Tendering witnesses for cross-ex· 
amination only-Amounts to failure of Prosecution to examine them at the 
trial-Affects credibility of Prosecution case-Also detracts materially from its 
1 
E reliability. 
The appellant was tried for an offence under S.302 IPC for the 
murder of A. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. The 
motive for the murder was alleged to be suspicion entertained by the 
appellant that the deceased and his brother were responsibl~ for the 
F snapping of an engagement brought through the instrumentality of the 
appellant. 
• - --r--· 
In this appeal, the conviction and sentence had been challenged, on 
the ground that the solitary eyewitness examined at the trial viz. P .W. 3 -
could not be relied upon not only because he was an interested witness, 
G being the brother of the deceased, but also because his evidence stood 
belied by the medical evidence, which showed that the injuries had been 
,received after the deceased had answered by the call of nature and not 
before as suggested by PW 3; that the dead body was brought to the 
hospital by PWs 4 and S who were not examined and PW3 did not 
H ~ccompany th~ deceased to the hospital, and that these infirmities 
1190 
r--
,/ 
) 
" 
-
~· 
SUKHWANTSINGH1•. STATE 
1191 
rendered it unsafe to uphold the conviction of the appellant on the basis 
~ 
of the uncorroborated testimony of PW3. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. PW3 is the elder brother of the deceased. He is the solitary 
eye witness examined by the prosecution. The absence of his name from B 
Ex.P-5, sent by the doctor to the police station immediately after the arrival 
of the dead body in the hospital created some doubt about the presence of 
PW 3 at the place of occurrence at the time when the deceased was shot 
at. In the normal course of human conduct the real brother of the deceased 
would have accompanied the injured to the hospital. The identification or C 
the deceased at the time or post-mortem examination of the deceased, can 
not cure the defect of the absence of the name of PW3 from Ex.P-5 because 
the post-mortem examination was conducted the next day at 11.00 a.m. 
Tlu~re is no explanation available on the record, nor has any been offered 
before this Court to explain the absence of the name of PW3 from Ex.P-5 
in which it was recorded that PWs 4 and 5 had brought the deceased to D ' 
the hospital. [1196-B·D] 
2.1. The possibility that PW3 might have arrived at the hospital later 
on after learning about the removal of his deceased brother to the hospital 
by PWs 4 and 5 .cannot be ruled out. Moreover, it Is round that the special E 
report reached the Ilaqa magistrate on the next day at 6.30 a.m. There ls 
no explanation available on the record about the delay in the receipt of the 
Special report by the Ilaqa Magistrate, especially when the Court of Ilaqa 
magistrate an,d the police stati~m are quite close to each other. The fact 
that at the time or post-mortem examination the stomach and the bladder 
were found empty though suggestive of the position contrary to what PW3 F 
. ....,...- deposed, that the deceased had answered the call of nature before he was 
, shot at, but cannot be conclusive of it, as the possibility that the deceased 
might have defecated and urinated after the receipt of injuries and before 
his death, cannot be ruled out. [1196·F·H] 
2.2. From a critical analysis of the materials on the record, it is found G 
that it would not be safe to rely upon the sole testimony of PW3, the brother 
of the deceased, without seeking independent corroboration of his evidence 
on account of the infirmities which render his testimony as not wholly 
reliable and since in the present case, no such independent corroboration 
is available on the record, it would be unsafe to rely upon the testimony of H 
1192 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995) 2 S.C.R. 
A PW

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