SWARAN SINGH ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 572 · Decided: 26-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SWARAN SINGH ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
APRIL 26, 2000 
[D.P. WADHWAAND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Sectlon 302-Murder by gunshots-Appreciation of 
evidence-Testimony of eye witnesses regarding accused persons, involvement 
not only consistent but duly convborated by material evidence-Motive for 
C 
c1ime established-FIR p1vmptly lodged-Accused's presence at the scene of 
occurrence with double barrel gun admitted-Deceased persons in drunken 
state refuted by chemical examination report-Site plan, photographs showing 
position of dead bodies and other mate1ials collected from the spot supporting 
prosecution case-Conviction & sentence-Upheld. 
D 
Criminal Trial: 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Appreciation of evidence-Non-acceptance of eye-witness account re-
garding involvement of co-accused-Effect of-Held : merely because one 
portion of evidence of eye-witnesses is disbelieved does not mean that Court is 
bound to reject all of it. 
Frequent adjournment-Causing delay in trial and harassment to wit-
nesses-Remedies-Suggested. 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 304(3)-Amendmifnt to elimi-
nate evil of perjury-Suggested. 
Appellants were prosecuted for offences under Section 302/34 of 
Penal Code. The Prosecution case was that 'S', 'A', PW-3 and PW-4 were 
returning from a village in a car. On their way, a truck started continu-
ously blowing horn from behind. PW-3 stopped the car and 'S' got down to 
identify the driver of the truck. The driver of the truck brought the truck 
alongside the car. Accused 'SS' opened the left window of the truck and 
shot 'S' in the chest with his 12 bore double barrel gun. 'S' died on the 
spot. On hearing the shot 'A' got down from the car went to the back of the 
truck. Accused 'S' and 'M' fired at 'A' hitting him in his chest. 'A' also 
succumbed to his injuries on the spot PW-3 and PW-4 raised an alarm 
whereupon the assailants fled away from the spot. Subsequently, accused 
572 
S. SINGH ETC. ETC. v. STATE 
573 
~ 
~ 
'SS' surrendered before the Magistrate and handed over the double barrel 
A 
gun. Trial Court while acquitting accused 'A' and 'M', convicted and 
sentenced accused 'SS' and the driver of the truck for offences under 
Section 302/34 Penal Code. On appeal High Court affirmed the findings of 
the trial Court. Hence the present appeals. 
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that both the Courts 
B 
below had erred in relying on the eye-witnesses, namely, PW-3 and PW-4 
as their evidence regarding the incident in so far as it related to 'M' had 
been disbelieved by both the courts; that the evidence of the eye-witnesses 
that the deceased had not drunk alcohol was belied by the Report of the 
FSL; that the Investigating Officer's evidence was inconsistent with the c 
evidence on record; that there was· a delay of 5-1/2 hours in lodging of the 
complaint during which time the alleged eye-witnesses had concocted the 
). ... 
story of involvement of the accused • 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
D 
Held : Per Ruma Pal, J 
1.1. The eye-witnesses' accounts of the accused persons' involvement 
~ 
in the crime are not only consistent but were duly corroborated by mate-
E 
rial evidence. The enmity between the accused and deceased was estab-
lished. Thus, Courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing the 
accused-appellants. [581-G; 582-B] 
1.2. Accused 'SS' has admitted his presence at the scene of occur-
rence with loaded double barrel gun and a cartridge belt. His defence that 
F 
he had not fired by any shots and the deceased in a drunken State were the 
aggressors cannot be accepted in view of the medical evidence. According 
to the Chemical Examiner's report, the alcohol concentration found in the 
viscera of deceased neither showed that it had been consumed immediately 
prior to the occurrence nor was it sufficient to make the deceased inebri-
G 
ated. [ 582-C] 
---=-..t --
2. The site plan, photographs showing position of deceased persons 
and the blood stained earth collected from the spot supports the prosecu-
tion case that the deceased were killed at the spot next to the truck and not 
near accused SS's house as claimed by him. H indeed the deceased were 
H 
A 
B 
574 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 3 S.C.R. 
shooting indiscriminately as alleged by the accused there would have been 
some pellets on the walls ofSS's house. It was not even suggested to any of 
the -witnesses in the prosecution that there were pellets or pellet marks 
near SS's h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.