Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL No. 519   OF 2010   

GURJIT SINGH alias GORA AND ANR.                      …. APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA                              …. RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

S. A. BOBDE, J.

1. This appeal  has been preferred by the accused Gurjit  Singh  

alias Gora and Surjit Singh alias Sukha, from the Judgment of the  

High Court of  Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, convicting the  

appellants – accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the  

Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as “IPC”] for the murder  

of Jagsir Singh on 17.10.1998 at about 2.15 pm at village Ganga  

(Dabwali), District Sirsa, Haryana.  

1

Page 2

The relationship between the parties is as follows:  

2. According  to  the  prosecution,  on  17.10.1998 at  about  2.15  

p.m.,  Jagsir  Singh left  his  home to go to a shop for  purchasing  

Zarda (chewing tobacco).  His house was adjacent to the house of  

the accused.  Soon thereafter, his brother Mander Singh (PW13),  

his  wife  Sukhwinder  Kaur  (PW14)  and  Paramjit  Kaur  heard  hot  

words being exchanged between Jagsir Singh (deceased) and the  

accused.   Mander Singh along with Sukhwinder Kaur went out of  

their house to see as to what had happened.  They saw that the  

2

Page 3

accused had surrounded Jagsir  Singh.  Accused  Gurjit  and Surjit  

were armed with ‘kassis’ (spades) whereas Gurdial Singh, the father  

of  the  accused  and  Surjit  Kaur,  their  mother,  were  unarmed.  

Gurdial Singh and Surjit Kaur exhorted Gurjit and Surjit that Jagsir  

Singh  be  taught  a  lesson  for  bringing  the  ‘Kanungo’  (revenue  

inspector) to the village for demarcation of their property.  Gurjit  

then struck Jagsir  Singh on the back of  his  head with a ‘kassi’,   

causing him to fall.  Thereafter, Surjit also struck Jagsir Singh on  

his face with a ‘kassi.’   Accused Surjit  Kaur then dragged Jagsir  

Singh towards the village lane.  

3. As per the prosecution, Mander Singh (PW13), the brother of  

the deceased and Sukhwinder Kaur (PW14) had been restrained by  

the accused Gurdial Singh and his wife Surjit Kaur from approaching  

the  site  where  Jagsir  Singh  had  been  cornered  by  the  accused  

brothers. Mander Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur made frantic calls for  

help, thereby attracting many people from the locality to the scene  

of  the  incident.  The  accused  escaped  from the  scene  with  their  

weapons.

3

Page 4

4. Jagsir  Singh  was  immediately  removed  to  the  Community  

Health Centre,  Dabwali.   The doctor there provided first  aid and  

referred him to the General Hospital at Sirsa, which is at a distance  

of about 60 Kms, where he was declared as brought dead.

5. After completion of investigation, a report under Section 173 of  

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the  

‘Cr.P.C.’) was presented in court.   The accused were charged under  

Sections 302 and 341 read with Section 34 of the IPC.  An autopsy  

was  conducted  by  Dr.  Jagdish  Choudhary  (PW4)  along  with  Dr.  

Yogesh  Sangwan.   At  the  trial,  the  prosecution  examined  15  

witnesses including Mander Singh (PW13), brother of Jagsir Singh  

(deceased) and Sukhwinder Kaur (PW14), widow of the deceased.  

After  the closure of  the prosecution  evidence,  statements  of  the  

accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,  in which they  

denied the allegations and pleaded false implication.  The accused  

examined Kuldeep  Kaur  (DW1) and Dr.  Bhushan Garg (DW2) in  

their defence.  

4

Page 5

6. The  two  parties  are  related  by  blood.   Gurdial  Singh  and  

Mukhtiar Singh, are sons of one Miyan Singh.  Mukhtiar Singh is  

father of deceased Jagsir Singh.  The two brothers were owners in  

possession of 2/3 share of total land measuring 157 Kanals  and 19  

Marlas  situated  in  the  revenue  estate  of  village  Ganga,  Tehsil  

Dabwali,  District  Sirsa.   The  sons  of  Mukhtiar  Singh  i.e.  the  

complainant party, believed that their uncle Gurdial Singh and his  

sons i.e. the accused party, had encroached upon their land.  They  

had therefore moved an application for demarcation of the property.  

The accused were not in agreement with the course adopted by the  

complainants.   Therefore, they cornered the deceased Jagsir Singh  

in  front  of  their  house  when  he  was  on  his  way  to  the  village  

market.  The acquitted accused, Gurdial Singh and his wife Surjit  

Kaur had exhorted their sons i.e. Surjit and Gurjit, to commit the  

crime.  

7. It  is  significant  that  in  defence,  the  accused  admitted  the  

occurrence.  Their version, however, has differed from that of the  

5

Page 6

prosecution. According to them, Gurdial Singh was digging in the  

street  and  was  dumping  mud  along  the  wall  of  his  house.  

Thereafter,  Jagsir  Singh  (deceased)  came  there  armed  with  a  

‘gandasi’  (sharp-edged  weapon)  and  raised  a  ‘Khangura’ (a  

provocative  sound  made  to  incite  another  person).  In  response,  

Gurdial asked Jagsir Singh why he had made that sound since he  

had  brought  him  up  as  a  child.  Jagsir  Singh  responded  by  

demanding a certain piece of land from Gurdial Singh.  Thereafter,  

Jagsir Singh struck Gurdial Singh with the ‘gandasi’ on his head. It  

is further stated, that Gurdial Singh then rushed into his house with  

Jagsir Singh in pursuit. Thereafter, Jagsir Singh struck him again  

with the reverse side of the weapon.  Meanwhile, Gurjit, Gurdial’s  

son, picked up a ‘kassi’ and tried to save his father from the hands  

of Jagsir Singh. In the process, Gurjit struck Jagsir Singh on the  

back of his head, causing him to fall on the sharp side of the ‘kassi’  

which had fallen from the hands of Gurdial Singh. Learned counsel  

for the appellants thus pleaded self-defence and sudden provocation  

before us.   

6

Page 7

8.   The Doctor (PW4), who conducted the autopsy on the dead  

body of Jagsir Singh, observed two incised wounds i.e. one over the  

scalp extending 4 cms behind the left ear and the other extending  

from the nasal septum to 2 cms below the right external ear.  In the  

opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage  

as a result of injuries to vital organs, which were ante-mortem in  

nature.

9. At this stage, it is apposite to notice that the injury is said to  

have been caused to Gurdial Singh by Jagsir Singh with a ‘gandasi’   

(sharp-edged weapon).  As per the First Information Report,  the  

incident took place at about 2.15 pm.  At around 6.55 pm, in the  

evening, Gurdial Singh went to the Primary Health Center at Odhan  

and got  himself  examined by  the  medical  officer  on  duty  there,  

namely, Dr. Bhushan Garg (DW2).  The Doctor found:

1. An incised wound 4 cms x 1 cm on the right parietal  

area of head and it was 6 cms above the right ear.  Fresh  

bleeding  was  present  and  margins  were  sharp.   The  

doctor advised an x-ray for this injury.

7

Page 8

2. A contusion 3 cms x 1 cm on the left hand on the  

dorsal  aspect  at  the  base  of  left  thumb  and  it  was  

transversely placed.  Severe tenderness was present.    

This doctor prepared a skiagram (an x-ray image) of the injuries  

and sent a ruqa to the Police Station, Odhan.  Further, although this  

witness ruled out the injury by a friendly hand or by self, he did not  

reject  the  possibility  of  the  injuries  being  self-inflicted.  

Significantly, this witness admitted in his cross-examination that the  

injured  i.e.  Gurdial  Singh,  did  not  offer  himself  for  radiological  

examination  and  further,  he  did  not  disclose  the  history  of  the  

injuries to him.  

10. It is equally significant that the weapon, which is said to have  

been used to cause this injury to Gurdial Singh i.e. the ‘gandasi,’  

was never recovered.   

11. The Trial Court accepted the defence version in its entirety.  It  

came to the conclusion that Gurjit caused an injury on the head of  

8

Page 9

Jagsir Singh (deceased) in self-defence i.e. after Jagsir had attacked  

his  uncle  Gurdial  Singh  on  the  head  with  a  ‘gandasi.’   That  

thereupon,  Jagsir  Singh  fell  face  down on  the  ‘kassi’ which  had  

allegedly  fallen  from  the  hands  of  Gurdial.   The  Trial  Court  

completely  acquitted the other  accused Sukha alias  Surjit  Singh.  

The Trial Court concluded that Surjit had no role to play because  

Sukhwinder  Kaur,  Jagsir  Singh’s  widow,  stated  in  her  deposition  

that Gurjit had struck Jagsir Singh on the head with the ‘kassi.’  The  

second ‘kassi’ blow, however, was given on the right side of the  

face of Jagsir Singh.  Because she had not mentioned the name of  

the  person  who  had  given  the  second  blow  on  the  face  of  the  

deceased, the Trial Court concluded, that the witness attributed the  

second blow also to Gurjit.  

12. The Trial Court seems to have attached no importance to the  

fact that the recovery of the weapon (the ‘kassi’) was made at the  

instance of the accused Surjit Singh. This was simply dismissed as  

highly improbable.   

9

Page 10

13. The learned counsel for the appellants, Dr. J.P. Dhanda, placed  

reliance on Chandrappa & Ors v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4  

SCC 415,  State  of  M.P.  v.  Ramesh & Anr (2011)  4  SCC 786  

and Ranjitham v. Basavaraj & Ors (2012) 1 SCC 414 to submit  

that in an appeal  against acquittal,  interference by the Appellate  

Court is not warranted in the absence of perversity in the judgment  

of the Trial Court. These judgments do not help the cause of the  

appellants  because  the  High  Court  has  given  clear  and  cogent  

reasons to show that the judgment of the Trial Court was perverse  

and not based on the evidence on record.     

Further, Dr. Dhanda relied on Arun Raj v. Union of India JT 2010  

(5) SC 1; and Kapildeo v. State of U.P. 1983 SCC (Crl) 311 to  

show that the offence committed by the appellants fell within the  

scope of Section 304 Part II of IPC and not under Section 302 of  

IPC. It is pertinent to note that in Arun Raj (supra) this Court had  

rejected the defence of grave and sudden provocation and convicted  

the appellant under Section 302 of IPC. Whereas in Kapildeo (supra)  

this Court altered the conviction from Section 304 Part I to Section  

10

Page 11

304 Part II  of  IPC.  The circumstances in the above cases were  

entirely different from the present case.

14. We might state at this stage itself  that upon reading of the  

evidence  of  Mander  Singh  (PW14),  it  cannot  be  said  that  

Sukhwinder Kaur (PW13) stated that the second ‘kassi’ blow was  

given on the right side of the face of Jagsir Singh to mean that the  

second blow was also caused by Gurjit Singh alias Gora.  The Trial  

Court also seems to have missed the defence version, according to  

which  Jagsir  Singh  received  the  second  injury  from  the  ‘kassi’  

because he fell on the ground where the ‘kassi’ was lying, and not  

because Gurjit Singh caused it, vide the deposition of Kuldeep Kaur  

(DW1), wife of Surjit Singh.

15. As  stated  above,  the  Trial  Court  acquitted  Surjit  Singh  

completely and also Gurjit Singh of the charge under Section 302  

IPC, accepting the defence version that  Gurjit  attacked deceased  

Jagsir Singh only to save the life of his father – Gurdial Singh, who  

11

Page 12

had  allegedly  been  injured  by  Jagsir  Singh.   The  Trial  Court  

convicted Gurjit Singh under Part II of Section 304 IPC.

16. In appeal, the High Court reassessed the entire evidence and  

came to the conclusion that it cannot be said to be the duty of the  

prosecution in the circumstances to explain injuries on the person of  

the  accused,  Gurdial  Singh,  particularly,  since  Gurdial  neither  

offered himself for radiological examination nor had he disclosed the  

history of his injuries to the doctor. The High Court opined that the  

non-explanation of injuries is insufficient to discard the case of the  

prosecution,  if  it  otherwise  inspires  confidence  and  is  worthy  of  

credence.   The High Court disagreed with the Trial Court and held  

that there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Mander Singh,  

the brother of the deceased and Sukhwinder Kaur, the widow, only  

because they were near relations of the deceased. It is settled law,  

that the statement of a relative of the deceased cannot be discarded  

merely  on  the  ground that  he or  she  is  an  interested  party.  In  

Anwar Ali v. State of U.P., (2011) 15 SCC 360, this Court rightly  

observed that once the prosecution has been able to prove its case  

12

Page 13

by  leading  admissible  and  cogent  evidence  with  reference  to  

statements  of  the witnesses,  the same cannot  be brushed aside  

merely on  the  ground  that  the  witnesses  are  relatives  of  the  

deceased. In Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 614,  

this Court held that even a close relative who is a natural witness  

cannot be regarded as an interested witness. The term “interested”  

postulates  that  the  witness  must  have  some  direct  interest  in  

having  the  accused  somehow  or  the  other  convicted  for  some  

animus or for some other reason. More recently, this principle was  

upheld in Ashok Rai v. State of U.P., (2014) 5 SCC 713, whereby  

this Court clearly stated that the evidence of interested witnesses is  

not infirm. The High Court has also disagreed with the Trial Court  

that the fight took place at the spur of the moment and the accused  

had not conspired with each other to commit the crime, since there  

was no evidence to that effect.

17. Having considered the entire matter, we are of the view that  

the circumstances of the case point out to the commission of the  

crime under Section 302 IPC, as observed earlier.    

13

Page 14

18. There is no doubt about the occurrence having taken place, in  

which Jagsir Singh was killed by the accused and that his injuries  

were caused by ‘kassis.’  There is clear evidence that the accused  

party comprised of Gurdial Singh, his wife Surjit Kaur along with  

their  sons Gurjit  Singh and Surjit  Singh.  Gurjit  and Surjit  were  

armed with ‘kassis.’  There are two injuries made by the ‘kassis’; on  

the back of the head and the other on the face of the deceased,  

Jagsir Singh.  The eye-witnesses accounts of Mander Singh (PW13)  

and Sukhwinder Kaur (PW14), who were undoubtedly present, in no  

uncertain  terms  reveals  that  Jagsir  Singh  was  attacked  by  the  

accused party i.e. Gurjit Singh and Surjit Singh.  Sukhwinder Kaur  

has stated that the accused Gurjit gave a ‘kassi’ blow on the back of  

the head of Jagsir Singh, as a result of which he fell.  Further, that  

the second ‘kassi’ blow was given on the right side of the face of  

Jagsir  Singh.   The  inference  drawn  by  the  Trial  Court  that  

Sukhwinder Kaur intended to name Gurjit Singh, as the person who  

also caused the second blow is unwarranted.  The acquittal of Surjit  

Singh on that ground is  also not sustainable.   Some element  of  

14

Page 15

confusion  was  sought  to  be  created  in  the  defence  version  by  

alleging,  vide Kuldeep Kaur’s  (DW1) deposition that  Jagsir  Singh  

received the second blow because he fell  after receiving the first  

blow on a ‘kassi’ lying beside Gurdial Singh, which cut his face on  

the right side.   

19. The  Trial  Court  has  come  up  with  an  inference,  which  is  

different even from the defence version.  We consider it appropriate  

to accept the Judgment of the High Court, which, after reading the  

entire evidence on this point, came to the correct conclusion that  

the two blows were caused by Gurjit Singh and Surjit Singh, who  

were both armed with ‘kassis’ and who had been exhorted to kill  

Jagsir Singh by their parents, Gurdial Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur.

20. We also agree with the Judgment of the High Court that the  

injury on Gurdial  Singh is  self-inflicted,  in all  likelihood.   Gurdial  

Singh was said to have gone to the Primary Health Centre, Odhan  

at around 6.55 pm, even though the incident had taken place at  

around 2.15 pm. The inordinate delay in seeking medical attention  

15

Page 16

raises  many  questions.  In  addition,  he  also  refused  to  undergo  

radiological examination of the injuries and did not tell the doctor as  

to  how  and  why  he  got  the  injuries.   Gurdial  Singh’s  conduct  

appears to be wholly unnatural and it is not possible to accept the  

defence version that Gurjit Singh attacked Jagsir Singh (deceased)  

because Jagsir  attacked his  father  with a  ‘gandasi.’ As observed  

earlier, the failure to corroborate the existence of the ‘gandasi,’ has  

not been explained.   

21. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed. The order  

of conviction and sentence as recorded by the High Court is upheld  

and the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is set aside.  

…………………………….…..........…..J.                                                     [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR]

…...................................………J.                                                                           [S.A. BOBDE]

NEW DELHI,    MARCH 10, 2015

16

Page 17

ITEM NO.1A               COURT NO.4               SECTION IIB                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Appeal  No(s).  519/2010 GURJIT SINGH @ GORA & ANR.                         Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA                                   Respondent(s) [HEARD BY HON'BLE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND HON'BLE S.A. BOBDE,  JJ.] Date : 10/03/2015 This appeal was called on for judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Dr. J. P. Dhanda,Adv.                  For Respondent(s) Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,AOR(Not present)                       

Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde pronounced the judgment  of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar  and His Lordship.

For the reasons recorded in the Reportable judgment,  which is placed on the file, the appeal is dismissed.  The order  of  conviction  and  sentence  as  recorded  by  the  High  Court  is  upheld and the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is  set aside.

(Parveen Kr. Chawla) (Renu Diwan)     Court Master Court Master

17