SURJIT SINGH ALIAS GURMIT SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 786 · Decided: 28-04-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SURJIT SINGH ALIAS GURMIT SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
~ .. 
APRIL 28, 1992 
B 
[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: 
~ 
Sections 34, 302, 326, 449-Accused setting up plea of alibi-Burden of 
c p.·oof-Misdescriptions/omissions in FIR-Effect of-Eye-witnesses ac-
count--Taking of-High Court setting aside acquittal and recording convic-
...... 
tion-Validl!y of. 
~ 
The appellant, who was in military service, his two brothers and two ~ 
others were charged with the offences of criminal trespass, murdering the 
D Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat and causing grevious hurts to PW2. 
Two more accused were charged for having burnt the wheat bundles 
belonging to the deceased. The Trial Court acquitted the appellant and two 
others extending to them the benefit of doubt. Appellant's two brothers 
were convicted for offences under Sections 149, 302/34 IPC and 326/34 IPC. 
E The remaining two accused were convicted for an offence under section 435 
IPC. 
On appeal, the High Court acquitted the two accused convicted 
~~ 
under Section 435 IPC and convicted the appellant and his two brothers 
for offences under sections 449, 302/34 IPC and 326/34 IPC. The appellant 
F 
has preferred the present appeal, against his conviction and sentence of -
life imprisonment as also the fine imposed on him. 
The appellant contended that he was falsely implicated in the case; 
that there was confusion about the names of the accused; that he left the 
.1""" -1" 
(j village in the evening at 4.00 p.m. prior to the alleged commission of 
offence which took place at about 10.30 p.m. in the night. Thus the 
appellant set up a plea of alibi, stating that he left the village much prior 
to the alleged offence in order to join his unit in the Military where he was 
serving. 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
786 
..... 
~·· 
SURJIT SINGH v. STATE 
787 
HELD : 1. The evidence of the defence witnesses did not even A 
remotely touch the alibi of the appellant. With regard to the confusion 
about the name, the High Court observed that it would be uncommon and 
unreasonable for two brothers to be having the same name. PW2 had 
deposed that the appellant had read only up to 4th or Sth class whereas 
his brother was a Matriculate and that when the appellant sought recruit· 
ment in the Anny he gave his brother's name and utilised the matricula· 
tion certificate of his brother. He also deposed that later when papers for 
verification had come to the village the appellant had approached the 
deceased that he should help him by telling the Enquiry Officer that he 
was a Matriculate. This evidence was totally overlooked by the Trial Judge. 
The High Court used this evidence against the appellant. The appellant 
went with the assumed name of his brother for the reasons explained by 
the prosecution in the statement of PW 2. It is noticeable that in the appeal 
against his acquittal, service of the appellant was effected in the name of 
S alias G through the Military authorities. The High Court observed that 
B 
c 
this was suggestive that in the force he was known as S. The appellant D 
having taken up a positive plea of alibi, he could prove it from his travel 
papers which must hav~ been checked and suitably endorsed upon by the 
railway authorities and/or the Army authorities on his joining his unit. The 
Appellant miserably failed to discharge that burden. [792 A·F] 
2. The mis descriptions/omissions in .the .. FlR about the number of E 
shots fired and the absence of injuries on PW 2 or the appellant being not 
described as a military man is of lesser importance. First Information 
Report ~s not an encyclopaedia of the entire case and is even not a 
substantive piece of evidence. It has value, no doubt, but only for the 
purpose of corroborating or contradicting the maker. Here the maker was 
F 
a young woman who bad lost her husband before her very eyes. The 
omission or misdescription of these details in the FIR which was recorded 
most promptly, within three hours of the occurrence, would not tell on the 
prosecution case or the statements of the eye· witnesses with regard to the 
participation of the appellant in the crime. He had taken a leading and 
prominent part in spearheading and committing it. The High Court was G 
right in convicting the appellant on giving cogent reasons to demolish the 
reasoning of the Trial Judge and adding thereto reasons of its own. 
[792 F; 793 A, BJ 
3. Had the presence of the 

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