REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 562 of 2007

Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh & Ors.                 …Appellants

Versus State of Haryana                                           …Respondent

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 982 of 2008

Joga Singh                                                                         …Appellant Versus

State of Haryana                                           …Respondent

AND

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 983 of 2008

Nishabar Singh & Anr.                                                  …Appellants

Versus State of Haryana                                           …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. All the aforesaid three appeals have been filed against the common  

judgment and order dated 15.12.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab &  

Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal Nos. 17-DB of 2005; and 360-

DBA of 2005.  The High Court partly affirmed the judgment  and order  

dated 25/26.11.2004 of the Sessions Court in Sessions Trial No. 97 of 2003  

convicting  three  appellants,  namely,  Joga  Singh,  Mukhtiar  Singh  and  

Nishabar Singh under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the  

Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereinafter called `IPC’), and sentenced them to  

undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-.  

Further,  the  High Court   convicted   accused/appellants,  namely,  Bhajan  

Singh, Puran Singh and Gurdeep Singh who had been acquitted of all the  

charges by the trial court and awarded the sentences similar to the other  

accused.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are as under:  

A. Prosecution version as mentioned in the complaint of Trilok Singh  

(PW.9)  is  that,  at  5.00  PM on  6.11.2002,  he  was  present  in  his  house  

alongwith  his  sons,  namely,  Gian  Singh  (deceased),  Nishan  Singh  

(deceased),  his  wife  Swaran  Kaur,  daughter  Harbhajan  Kaur,  grandson  

Harbhajan Singh and maternal grandson Ajaib Singh  (injured) (PW.10).  

Bhajan Singh armed with Neja (Spear), Gurdeep Singh armed with Mogra  

(Pestle), Puran Singh armed with Gandasa, Joga Singh armed with sword,  

Nishabar  Singh  armed  with  Gandasa  and  Mukhtiar  Singh  armed  with  

sword,  accompanied  by  two  ladies,  namely,   Chinder  Kaur  and  Manjit

Kaur, entered his house and raised Lalkara that they would teach them a  

lesson for tethering their cattle in the street.  All the accused attacked Gian  

Singh (deceased) and Nishan Singh (deceased). Gurdeep Singh opened the  

attack  by  giving Mogra  blow on the  head of  Gian Singh and Mukhtiar  

Singh inflicted a sword blow on the waist  of Gian Singh, as a result  of  

which he fell down.  Joga Singh inflicted a sword blow on Nishan Singh’s  

chest, Bhajan Singh inflicted Neja blow on his waist, Puran Singh inflicted  

Gandasa blow on his right elbow, Nishabar Singh inflicted Gandasa blow  

on his waist and, as a result, Nishan Singh fell down on the ground. Joga  

Singh  inflicted  a  sword  blow on  the  stomach  of  Ajaib  Singh  (PW.10),  

Mukhtiar Singh inflicted sword blow on the neck of Ajaib Singh, and as a  

result, he fell down.  All the assailants then fled away from the spot with  

their respective weapons. Gian Singh and Nishan Singh died on the spot  

due to injuries.  Ajaib Singh (PW.10), injured, was taken to the hospital.  

B. On the  basis  of  the  complaint,  an FIR was lodged and registered  

(Ex.PB-1).  SI Prakash Chand (PW.18) accompanied by Surinder Kumar,  

Photographer and other police officials reached the place of occurrence at  

about 8.15 P.M.  Photographs of the dead  bodies etc., were taken, inquest  

reports were prepared on the dead bodies of Gian Singh and Nishan Singh  

and  blood stained earth was picked up from the place of occurrence.  It was  

sealed  in  separate  parcels.   Dead  bodies  were  sent  for  post-mortem

examination and site plan etc. were prepared.  Post-mortem was conducted  

on 7.11.2002 by Dr. Rajesh Gandhi (PW.11), who opined that the cause of  

death of both the persons was shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries.  

Ajaib  Singh  (PW.10),  injured,  was  also  examined  on  6.11.2002  with  

diagnosis of multiple stab injuries in chest and abdomen.  He was operated  

upon on 7.11.2002 and was discharged from the hospital on 20.11.2002.   

C. Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh was arrested on 10.11.2002, and  

on his disclosure statement, Neja (Spear) was recovered from his residential  

house.   On  the  disclosure  statement  of  Puran  Singh  -  appellant,    the  

Gandasa was recovered from underneath his box at his residential house,  

and on the same day, on the disclosure statement of Joga Singh – appellant,  

that  he  had  kept  concealed  sword  underneath  his  bed  in  his  residential  

house, the sword was recovered.  On 11.11.2002, Gurdeep Singh made a  

disclosure statement, on the basis of which, Mogra alleged  to have been  

used in the crime was recovered from his residential house.  On the same  

day, Mukhtiar Singh also got the concealed sword recovered from the house  

of Bhajan Singh.  On completion of the investigation, challan was put up in  

the  court.   Charges  were  framed  against  all  the  six  appellants  for  the  

offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 307 read with Section 149  

IPC.   The  two  ladies,  namely,  Chinder  Kaur  and  Manjit  Kaur  were

discharged.  As all of the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and  

claimed trial, they were put on trial.  

D. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 19  

witnesses including injured Ajaib Singh (PW.10), and Trilok Singh (PW.9),  

the complainant. All the appellants were examined under Section 313 of the  

Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  1973  (hereinafter  called  `Cr.P.C.’).   Joga  

Singh, appellant, pleaded that at the time of the incident, he was present in  

his house which was adjoining to the house of the complainant. Ajaib Singh  

(PW.10) came to his house and called him saying that he was being called  

by someone at the `Phirni’ of the village. When he came out, Gian Singh  

and Nishan Singh (both deceased) and Ajaib Singh (PW.10) pounced upon  

him and tried to drag him towards their house forcibly.  Apprehending and  

suspecting that  they would take him inside their  house and kill  him, he  

pushed Gian Singh, as a result of which, his head was struck against the  

wall.  The other persons, namely, Nishan Singh (deceased) and Ajaib Singh  

(PW.10) in order to save him and to wriggle out of this situation, took out  

kirpan and wielded the  same at  random in self  defence.   It  was  in  this  

background  that  Gian  Singh,  Nishan  Singh  and  Ajaib  Singh  suffered  

injuries.  The other accused simply denied the allegations and complained  

of their false implicity in the case.  However, none of the appellant/accused  

adduced any evidence in defence.  

E. On conclusion of the trial, the trial court held that appellants Bhajan  

Singh @ Harbhajan Singh, Puran Singh and Gurdeep Singh were entitled to  

benefit of doubt and acquitted them of all the charges.  However, the other  

remaining  three  appellants,  namely,  Joga  Singh,  Mukhtiar  Singh  and  

Nishabar Singh were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, and  

Section  307  read  with  Section  34  IPC,  and  were  sentenced  to  undergo  

imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/-, each under Section 302 read  

with Section 34 IPC, and seven years imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-  

under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC; in default of payment of fine,  

they  would  further  undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  for  six  months.  

However, they were acquitted of charges under Section 148 I.P.C.  

3. Being aggrieved, the three appellants convicted by the trial court filed  

Criminal Appeal No. 17-DB of 2005, while against the order of acquittal of  

the other three appellants, the State of Haryana filed Criminal Appeal No.  

360-DBA of 2005.  The High Court heard both the appeals together and  

disposed of the same by a common judgment and order dated  15.12.2006,  

maintaining the conviction of appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 17-DB of  

2005.  It  also  reversed   the  judgment  and order  of  the  trial  court  which  

acquitted  the  other  three  appellants,  and  convicted  them  for  the  same

offence.  The High Court awarded them same sentence as one awarded to  

the persons convicted by the trial court.  Hence, these appeals.  

4. Shri Amit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has  

submitted that no independent eye-witness has been examined.  The High  

Court has placed a very heavy reliance on the evidence of Trilok Singh,  

complainant (PW.9) and his grandson Ajaib Singh (PW.10).  In spite of the  

fact that a large number of persons had witnessed the incident, none of them  

has  been  examined.   It  is  evident  from the  depositions  of  Trilok  Singh  

(PW.9) and Ajaib Singh (PW.10) and judgments of the courts below that  

the place of occurrence has been tempered with by the prosecution and thus,  

the  prosecution  failed  in  its  duty  to  disclose  the  correct  facts.   Injuries  

attributed to the deceased persons as well as Ajaib Singh (PW.10) by the  

witnesses  do  not  tally  with  the  medical  evidence.   There  had  been  

inordinate delay of 3 hours in lodging the FIR, though the Police Station  

was in close vicinity of the place of occurrence. Information of offence was  

sent to the Illaqa Magistrate as required under Section 157 Cr.P.C. after  

inordinate delay of 3 hours. Weapons used in the commission of the crime  

had not been shown to the medical experts for their opinion to ascertain  

whether  the  injuries  on  the  persons  of  the  deceased  and  Ajaib  Singh  

(PW.10),  injured,  could  be  caused  by  those  weapons.   The  High Court

committed an error in interfering with the order of acquittal so far as the  

three appellants are concerned.  Thus, the appeals deserve to be allowed.

5. On  the  contrary,  Shri  Rajeev  Gaur  “Naseem”,  learned  counsel  

appearing for the State of Haryana has opposed the appeals with vehemence  

contending  that  it  was  pre-planned  attack  by  the  appellants  as  Gurdeep  

Singh and Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh had come to the house of the  

complainant on that day at 7.00 A.M. and told him not to tether the cattles  

in  the  street,  otherwise  the  complainant’s  family  would  face  the  dire  

consequences.  It was in pursuance of the common object of teaching the  

lesson to the family, the attack was made on the same day at 5.00 P.M.  The  

appellants committed gruesome murder of two innocent persons and caused  

grievous injuries to Ajaib Singh (PW.10).  The weapons had been recovered  

on the disclosure statements of the appellants,  and were sent to Forensic  

Science Laboratory for report and the report was positive.  Law does not  

prohibit  to  place  reliance  upon  the  evidence  of  closely  related  persons,  

rather the requirement is that evidence of such persons must be scrutinised  

with caution and care.  However, evidence of an injured witness has to be  

relied upon, unless the injuries are found to be superfluous or self-inflicted  

just  to  create  evidence  against  the  other  party.  There  is  no  material  

discrepancy in the medical and ocular evidence.  In case the common object

stands  proved,  such  trivial  discrepancies  become  immaterial  and  

insignificant.  The High Court was right in reversing the order of acquittal  

of  three  appellants  as  the  High  Court  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  

findings of fact  so recorded by the trial  court  were perverse.   Thus,  the  

appeals lack merit and are liable to be dismissed.

6. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel  

for the parties and perused the record.

7. Injuries:

I.    Dr. Rajesh Gandhi (PW.11) along with Dr. R.N. Boora conducted the  

post-mortem examination on the body of Gian Singh  and found following  

injuries:-

(1)        A stab wound was present  on the back at level of T5  vertebra, 2 cm. lateral to mid line on right side.  Horizontally  placed.  Wound was 3 x 2 cm.  On opening rupture of right lung  was present.  Fluid blood approximately 250 ml. was present in  cavity.  On further extending the dissection an incised wound  was present on the posterior surface of liver which was 2 x 1  cm.  Fluid blood approximate 700 ml. was present in abdominal  cavity.

(2)        On opening skull a haematoma of size 5 x 2 cm. was  present on right parietal side.

The witness further opined that the cause of death was due to shock  

and haemorrhage as a result of injuries described above which were ante-

mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in normal course of nature.

II. On the same day at about 10.30 AM, Dr. Rajesh Gandhi (PW.11)  

and other Doctors conducted autopsy on the dead-body of Nishan Singh  

and found following injuries on his person:-

(1)    Incised wound was present in front of neck 2 cm. lateral to mid  line on left side, obliquely placed and on opening there was hole  in  trachea  and oesophagus.  The  size  of  wound was  6  x  3  cm.  External carotid artery was also punctured.

(2)     Incised wound was present on anterior lateral aspect of right  elbow.  Size was 6 x 3 cm. x muscle deep.

(3)     Stab wound was present on the back on the right side 4 cm.  below scapula, 6 cm. medial to mid axillary line obliquely placed  and size was 3 x 2 cm. and deep upto lung.  On opening the lung  was sharply cut.

(4) Stab wound was present in the mid epigastric region 6 cm. inferior  to xiphisternum.  Spindle shaped obliquely placed size was 4 x 2  cm.  Omentum was lying outside.  On opening there was incised  wound on the interior surface of liver whose size 2 x 2 cm. There  was collection of 800 ml. of fluid blood in abdominal cavity.

III.      Ajaib Singh (PW.10) was examined and following injuries were  

found on his person:  

(1) Incised wound on left shoulder 6 x 3 cms x muscle deep.

(2) Sword injury in stomach.

(3) Injury on the neck.

         He  was  operated  upon  exploratory  laprotomy  with  restion  

ananstomosis  with  repair  of  liver  tear  with  bilateral  intercostals  tube  

drainage with peritoneal lavage.

      8. Shri Amit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has  

submitted that there has been delay in lodging the FIR and sending the copy  

of  the  FIR to  the  court.  Therefore,  the  prosecution  failed  to  give a  fair  

picture with regard to genesis of the crime.   

9.      Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the informant with all  

its vivid details gives an assurance regarding its true version.  In case, there  

is some delay in filing the FIR, the complainant must give explanation for  

the  same.   Undoubtedly,  delay  in  lodging  the  FIR  does  not  make  the  

complainant’s  case  improbable  when  such  delay  is  properly  explained.  

However, deliberate delay in lodging the complaint may prove to be fatal. In  

such case of delay, it also cannot be presumed that the allegations were an  

after thought or had given a coloured version of events.  The court has to  

carefully examine the facts before it, for the reason, that the complainant  

party may initiate criminal proceedings just  to harass the other side with  

mala fide intentions  or  with ulterior  motive of  wreaking vengeance.  The  

court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of  

harassment and persecution.  In such a case, where an FIR is lodged clearly  

with a view to spite the other party because of a private and personal grudge  

and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal proceedings, the  

court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

(Vide:  Sahib Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1997 SC 3247;  G. Sagar  

Suri & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 754; Gorige Pentaiah  

v. State of A.P. & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 531; and Kishan Singh (dead) thr.  

Lrs. v. Gurpal Singh & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3624)

10.      In the instant case, the occurrence took place at about 5 p.m. on  

6.11.2002.  Trilok Singh (PW.9) was going to Police Station, Safidon, when  

Prakash Chand (PW.18),  Sub Inspector met him along with other police  

officials in old bus stand, Safidon.  Statement of Trilok Singh (PW.9) was  

recorded there by Prakash Chand, Sub Inspector.  The evidence on the file  

proves that the special report was received by the Ilaqa Magistrate at 10.45  

p.m. on 6.11.2002.  The occurrence had taken place in village Chhapar,  

which is about 6 Kms. from Police Station Safidon.  Two sons of Trilok  

Singh  (PW.9),  namely,  Gian  Singh  and  Nishan  Singh  had  died  in  this  

occurrence.  Ajaib Singh (P.W.10) was seriously injured.  He was shifted to  

the hospital. So, after making all these arrangements, Trilok  Singh (PW.9)  

had made his way to the Police Station to lodge report with the police.  In  

view of the above, we reach an inescapable conclusion that there is no delay  

in lodging the FIR with the police in this case.  

DELAY IN SENDING THE COPY OF FIR TO COURT

11.   In  Shiv Ram & Anr. v. State of U.P.,  AIR 1998 SC 49, this Court  

considered the provisions of the Section 157, Cr.P.C., which require that the  

police  officials  would  send  a  copy  of  the  FIR  to  the  Illaqa  Magistrate  

forthwith. The court held that if there is a delay in forwarding  the copy of  

the FIR to the Illaqa Magistrate, that circumstance alone would not demolish  

the other credible evidence on record. It would only show how in such a  

serious crime, the Investigating Agency was not careful and prompt as it  

ought to be.

12.      In Munshi Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 3031,  

this Court considered this issue again and observed:   

“While  it  is  true  that  Section  157  of  the  Code  makes  it   obligatory on the officer in charge of the police station to   send a report of the information received to a Magistrate   forthwith, but that does not mean and imply to denounce  and discard an otherwise positive and trustworthy evidence   on record. Technicality ought not to outweigh the course of   justice — if the court is otherwise convinced and has come  to  a  conclusion  as  regards  the  truthfulness  of  the  prosecution  case,  mere  delay,  which  can  otherwise  be  ascribed to be reasonable, would not by itself demolish the   prosecution case.”  

            While deciding the said case, this Court placed relied upon its  

earlier judgments in Pala Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 SC  

2679; and State of Karnataka  v. Moin Patel & Ors, AIR, 1996 SC 3041.

13.      In  Rajeevan & Anr. v. State of Kerala, (2003) 3 SCC 355, this  

Court examined a case where there had been inordinate delay  in sending  

the  copy of  the  FIR to  the  Illaqa  Magistrate  and held  that  un-explained  

inordinate  delay may adversely affect  the prosecution case.   However,  it  

would depend upon the facts of each case.  

14.       A similar view was reiterated in  Ramesh Baburao Devaskar &  

Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 13 SCC 501, wherein there had been  

a delay of four days in sending the copy of the FIR to the Illaqa Magistrate  

and no satisfactory explanation could be furnished for such inordinate delay.  

While deciding the said case, reliance had been placed on earlier judgments  

in State  of  Rajasthan  v.  Teja  Singh  & Ors.,  AIR  2001  SC 990;  and  

Jagdish Murav v. State of U.P. & Ors.,  (2006) 12 SCC 626.

[See also  Sarwan Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab  AIR 1976 SC 2304:  State of U.P. v. Gokaran  & Ors. AIR 1985 SC 131;   Gurdev Singh &  Anr. v. State of Punjab (2003) 7 SCC 258;  State of Punjab v. Karnail  Singh (2003) 11 SCC 271; State of J & K v. Mohan Singh & Ors., AIR  2006 SC 1410;  N.H. Muhammed Afras v. State of Kerala,  (2008)  15  SCC 315;  Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh & Ors., AIR 2008 SC  320; and  Arun Kumar Sharma v. State of Bihar (2010) 1 SCC 108].

15.       Thus, from the above it  is evident that the Cr.P.C provides for  

internal and external checks: one of them being the receipt of a copy of the  

FIR by the Magistrate concerned. It serves the purpose that the FIR be not  

anti-timed or anti-dated.  The Magistrate must be immediately informed of

every serious offence so that he may be in a position to act under Section  

159 Cr.P.C., if so required. Section 159 Cr.P.C. empowers the Magistrate to  

hold the investigation or preliminary enquiry of the offence either himself or  

through the Magistrate subordinate to him.  This is designed to keep the  

Magistrate  informed of  the  investigation  so  as  to  enable  him to  control  

investigation and, if necessary, to give appropriate direction.  It is not that as  

if every delay in sending the report to the Magistrate would necessarily lead  

to the inference that the FIR has not been lodged at the time  stated or has  

been anti-timed or  anti-dated  or investigation is not fair  and forthright.  

Every such delay is not fatal unless prejudice to the accused is shown.  The  

expression ‘forthwith’ mentioned therein does not mean that the prosecution  

is  required  to  explain  delay  of  every  hour  in  sending  the  FIR  to  the  

Magistrate.  In a given case, if number of dead and injured persons is very  

high, delay in dispatching the report is natural. Of course, the same is  to be  

sent within reasonable time in the prevalent circumstances.  However, un-

explained inordinate delay in sending the copy of FIR to the Magistrate may  

affect the prosecution case adversely. An adverse inference may be drawn  

against  the  prosecution  when  there  are  circumstances  from  which  an  

inference can be drawn that there were chances of manipulation in the FIR  

by  falsely  roping  in  the  accused  persons  after  due  deliberations.  Delay  

provides legitimate basis for suspicion of the FIR, as it  affords sufficient

time  to  the  prosecution  to  introduce  improvements  and  embellishments.  

Thus, a delay in dispatch of the FIR by itself is not a circumstance which  

can throw out the prosecution’s case in its entirety, particularly when the  

prosecution furnishes a cogent explanation for the delay in dispatch of the  

report  or  prosecution  case  itself  is  proved  by  leading  unimpeachable  

evidence.  

16. In view of the above, we are in agreement with the High Court that  

there was no delay either in lodging the FIR or in sending the copy of the  

FIR to the Magistrate.  It may be pertinent to point out that defence did not  

put any question on these issues while cross-examining the Investigating  

Officer, providing him an opportunity to explain the delay, if any. Thus, we  

do not find any force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the  

appellants in this regard.  

17. It has further been submitted on behalf of the appellants that there is  

contradiction in medical evidence and ocular evidence. The trial Court has  

examined this issue and in para 22 of the impugned judgment, observed as  

under:  

 “…….that  accused  Joga  Singh  and  accused  Mukhtiar   Singh  had  attacked  their  victims   with  swords   whereas   accused Nishabar Singh had used ‘Gandasa’ for the purpose  resulting in the deaths of Gian Singh and  Nishan Singh and  brutal attempt on the life of P.W. Ajaib Singh. The trial court  

had  further  observed  that  the  skull  injury  attributed  to   accused Gurdeep Singh does not receive corroboration from  the medical evidence on record because such forceful blow   was bound to leave some external mark of injury at the site   of  the  impact   but  no  such  mark  was  seen  there  by  the   doctor.”

         The trial court reached the conclusion that it seems  that  accused  

Puran Singh was also implicated in this case along with his father Bhajan  

Singh alias Harbhajan Singh because he is a brother of prime accused Joga  

Singh. Thus, the involvement of accused Puran Singh in the incident is also  

doubtful.

18.      This has to be examined in the light of the evidence of two eye  

witnesses, namely, Trilok Singh (PW.9) and Ajaib Singh (PW.10).  There is  

no contradiction  between their  statements  which rather  corroborate  each  

other.  Ajaib  Singh  (PW.10)  corroborates  the  version  of  Trilok  Singh  

(PW.9).   He also deposed that Gurdeep Singh was armed with ‘Mogra’.  

Joga Singh and Mukhtiar Singh were armed with swords. Puran Singh and  

Nishabar Singh were armed with ‘Gandasas’. Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan  

Singh was armed with ‘Neja’.  Gurdeep Singh inflicted a ‘Mogra’ blow on  

the head of Gian Singh while Mukhtiar Singh inflicted a ‘sword’ blow on  

the waist of Gian Singh.  He  fell down on the ground.  Then Joga Singh  

inflicted  a  sword  blow  on  Nishan   Singh’s  chest  .   Bhajan  Singh  @  

Harbhajan Singh inflicted a ‘Neja’ blow on his waist.  Puran Singh inflicted

a ‘Gandasa’ blow on his right elbow.  Nishabar Singh inflicted a ‘Gandasa’  

blow on his waist and  as a result, Nishan Singh fell down on the ground.  

Ajaib Singh (PW.10)  further deposed that when he tried to rescue Gian  

Singh and Nishan Singh, Joga Singh inflicted a sword injury in his stomach.  

Mukhtiar Singh inflicted a sword injury on the back of his neck. Nishabar  

Singh inflicted a ‘Gandasa’ injury on his left shoulder.

19. Depositions of Trilok Singh (PW.9) and Ajaib Singh (PW.10)  fully  

corroborate the medical reports.  The High Court correctly appreciated this  

issue as under:

“So, according to their testimonies two injuries were caused  to  Gian  Singh  (deceased),  four  injuries  were  caused  to   Nishan Singh (deceased) and three injuries were caused  to  Ajaib Singh (PW.10). In medical evidence also, two  injuries   were found on the body of Gian Singh (deceased) and four   injuries were found on P.W.10 Ajaib Singh as per copy of   medico  legal  report  Exhibit  P.AA.  There  is  some conflict   about the seat of the injuries as stated by P.W.9 Trilok Singh   and P.W. 10 Ajaib Singh.”

        The testimonies of Trilok Singh (PW.9) and Ajaib Singh (PW.10) are  

fully  reliable.  Ajaib  Singh  (PW.10)  is  an  injured  witness  in  the  same  

occurrence and his testimony cannot be ignored.

20.   The High Court has dealt with the injuries found on the  person of  

Ajaib Singh (PW.10) and held as under:

“Regarding injuries to PW.10, Ajaib Singh, it can be  said that  these were dangerous to  life.   He was operated  upon  for   small  gut  perforation  and  liver  laceration.  He   remained admitted  in  PGI MS Rohtak,  from 6.11.2002 to   20.11.2002.  PW.17  Dr.  Paryesh  Gupta  and  PW.19  Dr.   Satish Bansal proved the nature of the injuries of PW. Ajaib  Singh.  The appellants and their acquitted co-accused had  the intention or knowledge to cause his death. Determinative   question is intention and knowledge, as the case may be, and   not nature of the injury. Bodily injury may not be sufficient   to cause death. An accused may be convicted under Section   307 of the Code if he had intention to cause death.

   After scrutinizing the testimonies of P.W.11 Dr. Rajesh  Gandhi,  PW.17 Dr.  Paryesh  Gupta  and PW.19 Dr.  Satish  Bansal, we are of the considered opinion that the trial court   over  depended  on  their  opinion  evidence.  The  trial  court   should not have rejected the direct evidence of P.Ws Trilok  Singh and Ajaib Singh on the strength of the uncanny opinion  expressed by the doctors.  This makes us to interfere in the   impugned  judgment for setting aside the acquittal of Bhajan  Singh @ Harbhajan Singh, Puran Singh and Gurdeep Singh.   They are vicariously liable with appellants Nishabar Singh,   Mukhtiar Singh and Joga Singh on the principle of vicarious   liability  enunciated   under  Section  149  of  the  Code.   Conviction of appellants Nishabar Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and  Joga  Singh  on  the  basis  of  direct  evidence  and  medical   evidence is well founded and we do not find any infirmity in   the impugned judgment in this regard.”

21.    The evidence of the stamped witness must be given due weightage as  

his presence on the place of occurrence cannot be doubted.  His statement is  

generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared  

the  actual  assailant  in  order  to  falsely  implicate  someone  else.   The  

testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has  

sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support

to his testimony that he was present at the time of occurrence.  Thus, the  

testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law.  Such a  

witness comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the  

crime and is  unlikely  to  spare  his  actual  assailant(s)  in  order  to  falsely  

implicate  someone.   “Convincing  evidence  is  required  to  discredit  an  

injured witness”.  Thus, the evidence of an injured witness should be relied  

upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis  

of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. (Vide: Abdul Sayeed v.  

State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259; Kailas & Ors. v. State of  

Maharashtra,  (2011) 1  SCC 793;   Durbal v.  State of  Uttar Pradesh,  

(2011) 2 SCC 676; and  State of U.P. v. Naresh & Ors., (2011) 4 SCC  

324).

22.    In State of U.P. v. Hari Chand, (2009) 13 SCC 542, this  Court re-

iterated the aforementioned position of law:

“In  any  event  unless  the  oral  evidence  is  totally   irreconcilable  with  the  medical  evidence,  it  has   primacy.”

23. Thus,  the position of  law in such a  case of contradiction between  

medical and ocular evidence can be crystallised to the effect that though the  

ocular  testimony  of  a  witness  has  greater  evidentiary  value  vis-à-vis  

medical  evidence,  when  medical  evidence  makes  the  ocular  testimony

improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation  

of  evidence.  However,  where  the  medical  evidence  goes  so  far  that  it  

completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the  

ocular evidence may be disbelieved. [Vide: Abdul Sayeed (Supra)].  

24. In a case like at hand, where two persons died on the spot and other  

received grievous injuries, the eye witnesses also make an attempt to save  

themselves and rescue the persons under attack.  In such a fact-situation, the  

witness is not supposed to be perfectionist to give the exact account of the  

incident.  Some sort of contradiction, improvement, embellishment is bound  

to occur in his statement.   

Thus, in view of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that  

submission  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  in  this  regard  is  

preposterous.  

25. It  has  further  been  submitted  that  a  large  number  of  persons  had  

gathered at the place of occurrence but no independent witness has been  

examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. In a case like  

this  where  without  having  any substantial  cause   two persons  had been  

killed and one had been seriously injured,  no neighbour,  even if  he had  

witnessed the incident, would like to come forward and depose against the  

assailants. More so, the defence did not ask SI Prakash Chand (PW.18), the

Investigating Officer as to why he could not have furnished the explanation  

for not examining the independent witness. In view thereof, we are of the  

considered opinion that the appellants are not entitled to take any benefit of  

doubt.  

26. Evidence of a related witness can be relied upon provided it is  

trustworthy.  Such evidence is carefully scrutinised and appreciated before  

reaching to a  conclusion on the conviction of the accused in a given case.  

(Vide:  M.C. Ali  & Anr. v.  State of  Kerala,  AIR 2010 SC 1639; and  

Himanshu @ Chintu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 2 SCC 36).

27. It has further been submitted that the High Court had no justification  

to  reverse  the  judgment  of  acquittal  so  far  as  the  three  appellants  are  

concerned.  

28.      This Court time and again has laid down the guidelines for the High  

Court to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the  

Trial Court.    The appellate court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment  

of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the  

Appellate Court may be more probable one.  While dealing with a judgment  

of  acquittal,  the  appellate  court  has  to  consider  the  entire  evidence  on  

record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial Court  

were perverse or otherwise unsustainable.  Interference with the order of

acquittal  is  permissible  only  in  “exceptional  circumstances”  for  

“compelling reasons”. The appellate court is entitled to consider  whether in  

arriving  at  a  finding  of  fact,  the  trial  Court  had  failed  to  take  into  

consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration the  

evidence brought on record contrary to law.  Similarly, wrong placing of  

burden of proof may also be a subject matter of scrutiny by the appellate  

court.

The  expressions  like  ‘substantial  and  compelling  reasons’,  

‘good  and  sufficient  grounds’,  ‘very  strong  circumstances’,  ‘distorted  

conclusions’,  ‘glaring  mistakes’,  etc.,  are  not  intended  to  curtail  the  

extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such  

phraseologies  are  more  in  the  nature  of  ‘flourishes  of  language’  to  

emphasise  the  reluctance  of  an  appellate  court  to  interfere  with  the  

acquittal.  Thus,  where  it  is  possible  to  take  only  one  view  i.e.  the  

prosecution evidence points to the guilt of the accused and the judgment is  

on the face of it perverse, the appellate Court may interfere with an order of  

acquittal.

   The  appellate  court  should  also  bear  in  mind  the  presumption  of  

innocence of the accused and further that the trial Court’s acquittal bolsters  

the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where

the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons  

for interference.   

(See:  Sanwat Singh & Ors.  v.  State of  Rajasthan AIR 1961 SC 715;  Suman Sood  alias Kamaljeet Kaur v. State of Rajasthan (2007) 5 SCC  634; Brahm Swaroop & Anr. v. State of  U.P., AIR 2011 SC 280; V.S.  Achuthanandan v. R. Balakrishna Pillai & Ors., (2011) 3 SCC 317; and  Rukia Begum & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 4 SCC 779).  

29. The High Court has reached the conclusion that the judgment of the  

trial Court was perverse as the trial Court held that it was a clear cut case of  

common object. The High Court has decided the issue as under:  

“There  was  common  object  which  appellants   Nishabar Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Joga Singh shared with   their  acquitted  co-accused  Bhajan  Singh  alias  Harbhajan  Singh, Puran Singh and Gurdeep Singh.  They entered the   courtyard  of  the  house  of  P.W.  Trilok  Singh  by  raising  ‘Lalkara’ that they would teach a lesson for tethering cattle   in the street.  By application of Section 149 of the Code, they   all the six were liable for inflicting injuries to Gian Singh   and Nishan Singh, which resulted in their deaths and brutal   injuries  to  P.W.  Ajaib  Singh.   The  trial  court  was  not   justified in acquitting Bhajan Singh alias Harbhajan Singh,   Puran  Singh and Gurdeep  Singh on hypothetical  medical   evidence, by ignoring the reliable direct evidence of P.Ws.   Trilok Singh and Ajaib Singh.”

In  view  of  the  above,  we  do  not  find  any  reason  to  accept  the  

submissions so made on behalf of the appellants.  

30.     It is a settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence of  

a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the

core  of  the  prosecution’s  case,  may  not  prompt  the  Court  to  reject  the  

evidence in its entirety. “Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode  

the  credibility  of  a  witness  cannot  be  labelled  as  omissions  or  

contradictions.”  Difference  in  some  minor  detail,  which  does  not  

otherwise affect the core of the prosecution case, even if present, would not  

itself  prompt  the  court  to  reject  the  evidence  on  minor  variations  and  

discrepancies. After  exercising  care  and  caution  and  sifting  through  the  

evidence to separate truth from untruth,  exaggeration and improvements,  

the court  comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is  

sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be  

attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to  

the  heart  of  the  matter  and  shake  the  basic  version  of  the  prosecution  

witness.  As the mental capabilities of a human being cannot be expected to  

be attuned to absorb all the details, minor discrepancies are bound to occur  

in the statements of witnesses.  [Vide:  Vijay  @ Chinee v. State of M.P.,  

(2010) 8 SCC 191; and Brahm Swaroop (Supra)].

31. In the instant case, we could not find any major contradiction either  

in  the  evidence  of  the  witnesses  or  any  conflict  in  medical  or  ocular  

evidence which may tilt the balance in favour of the appellants.  There had

been minor improvement,  embellishment etc., which remain insignificant  

and have to be ignored.  

32. The theory of self-defence put forward by Joga Singh, appellant, that  

he caused the injuries  to the complainant party  to save himself,  is  most  

improbable  and  not  worthy  of  acceptance.  The  High  Court  has  rightly  

rejected  the  same,  observing  that  Joga  Singh,  appellant,  could  not  even  

suspect that the complainant party was nurturing a sinister design against  

him when he was called from his house initially.

33. In view of above, we do not find any force in either of these appeals.  

The same are dismissed.  The judgment of the High Court dated 15.12.2006  

is affirmed in its totality.  The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 562 of  

2007, namely, Bhajan Singh, Puran Singh and Gurdeep Singh have been  

enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 2.8.2007 and 22.7.2009.  

Their  bail  bonds  are  cancelled,  they  are  directed  to  surrender  within  a  

period  of  two  weeks  from  today,  failing  which,  the  Chief  Judicial  

Magistrate, Jind, (Haryana) shall ensure to take them into custody and send  

them to jail to serve their remaining part of the sentence.  A copy of this  

judgment and order be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind,  

(Haryana) for information and compliance.    

                                                    …………….....................J.                                       (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

                                                               ………............................J.          (SWATANTER KUMAR)  New Delhi,               July 4, 2011