REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 916 of 2005

Kulvinder Singh & Anr.         …Appellants

Versus

State of Haryana                                 …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. This  appeal  has  been  preferred  against  the  judgment  and  order  

dated  31.8.2004 passed  by  the  High Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  at  

Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 167-DB of 1999, by which it  has  

affirmed the judgment and order of the Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 5  

of  1998  dated  22.2.1999  convicting  the  appellants  for  the  offence  

punishable  under Section 302 of Indian Penal  Code, 1860 (hereinafter  

referred to as `IPC’) and awarding the sentence of life imprisonment and  

imposing a fine of Rs.2,000/- each.  

2. FACTS:  

(A) That on 9.10.1997, some labourers were working in the fields  

of Ishwar Singh (PW.2) and his son Amardeep was also with them.  

On that date at about 7.00 PM, Ishwar Singh (PW.2) started from his  

house for his fields in order to keep watch on the crop, relieving  

Amardeep from the fields.  On his way, Ishwar Singh (PW.2) saw  

Kulvinder Singh and Jasvinder Singh/appellants at the tubewell of  

Singh  Ram.   Kulvinder  Singh  was  sitting  on  a  cot  outside  the  

tubewell while Jasvinder Singh was inside the tubewell.  On being  

asked by Ishwar Singh (PW.2),  Kulvinder Singh replied that they  

were there in a routine manner as it was the tubewell of Singh Ram,  

the  father  of  Jasvinder  Singh.  Kulvinder  Singh  is  the  son  of  the  

maternal uncle of Jasvinder Singh. After reaching his fields, Ishwar  

Singh (PW.2) relieved his son Amardeep of his duties.   The next  

morning  i.e.,  on  10.10.1997,  at  about  6.00  AM,  the  labourers  of  

Mange Ram, Sarpanch, (PW.11) of the same village came and told  

him that a dead body was lying near the paddy field in the water  

channel.  Mange Ram (PW.11) reached the spot with his labourers.  

By that time several other villagers had also collected there and they  

identified  the  dead  body  as  being  that  of  Amardeep.   They  also  

found a large number of wounds caused by a sharp-edged weapon on  

2

the body.  They immediately called Ishwar Singh (PW.2), father of  

the deceased to the spot.   

(B) Mange Ram (PW.11) then started for Police Station Radaur  to  

make  the  report,  however,  he  met  Roop  Chand  SI/SHO,  Police  

Station  Radaur  (PW.14)  on  the  way  and  informed  him  that  

Amardeep  had  been  murdered  by  some  unknown  person  by  

assaulting him with sharp edged weapons. Roop Chand, SI, (PW.14)  

asked Mange Ram (PW.11) to go to the Police Station to lodge the  

complaint  formally.  Thus,  the  FIR was  lodged.  Roop  Chand,  SI,  

(PW.14)  reached  the  place  of  occurrence  and examined  the  dead  

body  as  well  as  the  place  where  it  was  lying.   He  prepared  the  

inquest report and sent the dead body of Amardeep for postmortem  

examination.  Roop  Chand,  SI,  (PW.14)  also  got  the  spot  

photographed, prepared a rough site plan of the place of occurrence  

and recorded the statements of the witnesses in which Ishwar Singh  

(PW.2)  told  him  that  about  8  to  10  days  before  the  date  of  

occurrence, he saw Jasvinder Singh/appellant  grappling with his son  

Amardeep  while  they  were  playing  kabaddi.   He  intervened  and  

asked the reason for the same and Jasvinder Singh had disclosed that  

Amardeep  was  teasing  his  sister  and  wife.  Ishwar  Singh  (PW.2)  

reprimanded his son Amardeep for the alleged misconduct, however,  

3

Amardeep  protested  and  told  him  that  the  accusation  was  false.  

During the course of  the  investigation,  Roop Chand,  SI,  (PW.14)  

also came to know that on 9.10.1997 at about 7.30 PM, Ranbir Singh  

(PW.3) had started for his fields and when he was by the side of  

bund of the village, he heard shrieks from the place where the dead  

body of Amardeep was found lying the next morning. He also saw  

both the appellants running fast and they crossed him and on being  

asked as to why they were running, they did not give any reason but  

rather  told  him that  they  were  running  fast  without  any  purpose.  

However,  Ranbir Singh (PW.3) came to know only next morning  

that Amardeep had been murdered.   

(C) On 13.10.1997, Phool  Singh (PW.10) produced the accused  

before Roop Chand, SI (PW.14) and told him that they had made  

extra-judicial confession before him about the killing of Amardeep,  

because the latter was teasing the wife and sister of Jasvinder Singh.  

Both  the  appellants  were  arrested  and  interrogated.  On  their  

disclosure,  the clothes they had put on at  the time of occurrence,  

which had already been washed, were recovered. On disclosure of  

Jasvinder  Singh-appellant,  the  barchha  used  for  committing  the  

crime  was  recovered  on  14.10.1997.   After  conducting  the  

postmortem examination,  Dr.  Vijay  Mohan Atreja  (PW.9)  gave  a  

4

report stating that there were 22 injuries on the person of Amardeep  

and the same could have been caused by a barchha.  The barchha  

recovered  on  the  disclosure  of  the  appellant-Jasvinder  Singh  had  

blood stains on it at the time of recovery.  Roop Chand, SI, (PW.14)  

recovered  the  blood stained  chappals  and the  blood stained  earth  

from the spot and sent all those items alongwith barchha and clothes  

to  the  Forensic  Science  Laboratory.  After  completing  the  

investigation,  a  chargesheet  was  submitted  against  the  appellants.  

The court after completing the formalities committed the case to  the  

Sessions  Court  vide  order  dated  20.1.1998.   They  were  charged  

under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC vide order dated 20.2.1998 to  

which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.  

(D) The prosecution examined 14 witnesses at the trial including  

Ishwar Singh, (PW.2); Ranbir Singh (PW.3), who saw the accused  

running  fast  and  crossing  him  on  the  evening  of  9.10.1997  and  

heard the shrieks from the  place of occurrence; Dr. Vijay Mohan  

Atreja  (PW.9),  who  conducted  the  postmortem  examination  

alongwith Dr. Ashwani Bhatnagar on the dead body of Amardeep;  

Phool  Singh,  (PW.10)  before  whom the  extra-judicial  confession  

was  made  by  the  appellants;  Mange  Ram,  Sarpanch,  (PW.11)  

complainant/informant in the case; Mam Chand (PW.12), witness to  

5

the recovery of barchha on the disclosure statement of the appellant  

Jasvinder Singh; and Roop Chand (PW.14), the investigating officer.  

The reports of the Serologist were tendered in evidence.   On closure  

of  the  prosecution  case,  the  Trial  Court  examined  the  

appellants/accused  under  Section  313  of  Code  of  Criminal  

Procedure,  1973  (hereinafter  called  `Cr.P.C.’).   Both  the  accused  

denied  their  participation  and pleading that  they had been falsely  

implicated.   

(E) After  considering  the  entire  evidence  on  record,  the  Trial  

Court vide judgment and order dated 22.2.1999 convicted both the  

appellants  for  the  offence  punishable  under  Section  302 IPC and  

awarded the sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/-  

each.   

(F) Being  aggrieved,  the  appellants  preferred  Criminal  Appeal  

No. 167-DB of 1999 which has been dismissed by the High Court  

vide judgment and order dated 31.8.2004.  Hence, this appeal.  

3.    Shri S.P. Laler, learned counsel appearing for the appellants,  

submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence; that there was  

no motive for committing the murder of Amardeep; that there had  

been material  contradictions  in the evidence of  the witnesses;  the  

6

chain of circumstances could not be completed; in the facts of the  

case  the extra-judicial confession could not be relied upon by any  

means; the theory of the deceased being last seen with the appellants  

cannot  be  applied.  Involvement  of  both  the  appellants  in  the  

commission of the offence is doubtful as the injuries found on the  

person of the deceased had been caused only by one weapon.  The  

courts below have erred in convicting the appellants and, therefore,  

the judgments  and orders of the courts  below are liable to be set  

aside.  

4.       Shri Rajeev Gaur “Naseem”, learned counsel appearing for the  

respondent-State,  has opposed the appeal contending that both the  

courts  below  have  recorded  concurrent  findings  of  fact  after  

appreciating the entire evidence on record. Earlier there had been a  

fight between Jasvinder  Singh-appellant  and Amardeep- deceased.  

Jasvinder  Singh-appellant  had  a  grudge  against  Amardeep,  as  

Amardeep  had teased his wife and sister and this fact had come to  

the notice of Ishwar Singh (PW.2), father of the deceased.  Thus,  

motive stood fully established.  Evidence of Phool Singh (PW.10)  

regarding  the  extra-judicial  confession  is  to  be  believed  for  the  

reason  that  he  was  the  Ex-Sarpanch  of  the  village  and  the  

appellants/accused had gone to him, so that he could produce them  

before the police. In fact, the appellants/accused were produced by  

7

Phool Singh (PW.10) before the police and they had disclosed to him  

that they had murdered Amardeep.  Appellants were seen together  

with the deceased just before the commission of the crime.  Twenty  

two injuries were found on the person of Amardeep-deceased, and  

even if they had been caused by one weapon, it is not possible for a  

single person to cause so many injuries, as the deceased was a young  

man of 25 years and of 5 ft. 10 inch height, while the appellants were  

at that time 19 and 23 years of age respectively. Even if there is any  

contradiction in the statements of the witnesses, it is so trivial that it  

cannot be taken note of.  The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be  

dismissed.  

5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned  

counsel for the parties and perused the record.  

6. The courts below have examined the entire evidence on record  

and  reached  the  conclusion  that  chain  of  circumstances  stood  

completed and all the circumstances pointed towards the guilt of the  

accused. Such findings stand fully substantiated by the depositions  

of  the  witnesses  in  the  court.  The  offence  was committed  in  the  

evening of  9.10.1997 and in respect of the same, an FIR was lodged  

on 10.10.1997 and the extra-judicial confession has been made on  

13.10.1997. Thus, for three days, the appellants remained  wanted in  

8

the case.   Ishwar Singh (PW.2),  the father of Amardeep-deceased  

deposed  that  about  8/10  days  prior  to  the  incident  while  he  was  

returning  home  with  his  son  Kuldeep,  he  saw  Jasvinder  Singh,  

appellant/accused playing Kabaddi  with his son Amardeep-deceased  

and suddenly they started quarrelling with each other and on being  

asked  Jasvinder  Singh-accused  had  told  him  that  Amardeep-

deceased was teasing his sister and wife though Amardeep-deceased  

protested and told him that he was telling a lie. The statement of  

Ishwar Singh (PW.2) in respect of motive also gets corroborated by  

the statement of Saheb Singh (PW.13), an independent witness to the  

extent  that  a  month  prior  to  the  murder  of  Amardeep,  Jasvinder  

Singh-accused  made  a  complaint  to  two-three  persons  about  

Amardeep-deceased teasing his sister. The statement of Saheb Singh  

(PW.13) has been scrutinised by both the courts below and had been  

found trustworthy on the  ground that  he did  not  depose anything  

about the incident of quarrel between Jasvinder Singh-accused and  

Amardeep-deceased while playing Kabaddi.  Thus,  the Trial  Court  

had found that he was fair and did not depose falsely. Thus, it stood  

established that Jasvinder Singh-accused had been harbouring in his  

mind the suspicion that Amardeep-deceased was teasing his sister  

and wife.     

9

7. In  State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kishanpal & Ors., (2008) 16  

SCC  73,  this  Court  examined  the  issue  of  motive  in  a  case  of  

circumstantial evidence and observed that motive is a thing which is  

primarily known to the accused themselves and it is not possible for  

the prosecution to explain what actually prompted or excited them to  

commit the particular crime and thus, motive may be considered as a  

circumstance  which  is  relevant  for  assessing  the  evidence  and  

becomes an issue of importance in a case of circumstantial evidence.  

Thus,  absence  of  motive  in  a  case  depending  on  circumstantial  

evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. (See also:  

Pannayar v. State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police, (2009) 9  

SCC 152;  Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189; and Bipin  

Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2010 SC 3638).

8. If  the finding recorded by the courts  below on the issue of  

motive is examined in the light of  the law laid down by this Court in  

the above cases, no fault can be found with the same.   

9. On  the  issue  of  extra-judicial  confession,  Phool  Singh  

(PW.10)  has  deposed  that  he  was  the  Ex-Sarpanch  and  both  the  

appellants/accused approached him on 13.10.1997 and disclosed that  

they  had  committed  the  murder  of  Amardeep-deceased  and  he  

should take them to the police.  He deposed that both the accused  

10

came to him at about 1.00 p.m. and he produced them before the  

police  at  about  3.30/4.00  p.m.  Undoubtedly,  both  the  

appellants/accused  had  been  arrested  by  the  police  only  on  

13.10.1997,  as  it  is  not  the  defence  version  that  they  had  been  

arrested  earlier  to  13.10.1997,  neither  have  they  challenged  the  

deposition of  Phool  Singh (PW.10) that  he did  not  produce them  

before  the  police,  nor  it  had  been  their  case  that  they  had  been  

arrested  from  somewhere  else.  Phool  Singh  (PW.10)  faced  the  

gruelling cross-examination but defence could not elucidate anything  

to discredit him and the courts below have found that the deposition  

of Phool Singh (PW.10)  in respect of  the extra-judicial confession  

made  to  him  by  the  accused  remained  a  trustworthy  piece  of  

evidence as rightly been relied upon.  

            Phool Singh (PW.10) in his statement recorded under  

Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that the appellants had told him on  

13.10.1997 that due to the fear of police they were running from the  

pillar to post. He had a good understanding with the police  being the  

Ex-Sarpanch and thus, he should help and produce them before the  

police.   

11

10. In State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180, this  

Court held as under:

“An  extra-judicial  confession,  if  voluntary  and  true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied   upon by the court. The confession will have to be  proved  like  any  other  fact.  The  value  of  the  evidence as to confession, like any other evidence,   depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom  it has been made. The value of the evidence as to  the  confession  depends  on  the  reliability  of  the   witness who gives the evidence. It is not open to   any court to start with a presumption that extra- judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It   would depend on the nature of the circumstances,   the time when the confession was made and the   credibility  of  the witnesses who speak to such a   confession. Such a confession can be relied upon  and  conviction  can  be  founded  thereon  if  the   evidence  about  the  confession  comes  from  the  mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not   even  remotely  inimical  to  the  accused,  and  in   respect of whom nothing is brought out which may  tend  to  indicate  that  he  may  have  a  motive  of   attributing an untruthful statement to the accused,   the  words  spoken  to  by  the  witness  are  clear,   unambiguous  and  unmistakably  convey  that  the   accused  is  the  perpetrator  of  the  crime  and  nothing  is  omitted  by  the  witness  which  may  militate against it. After subjecting the evidence of   the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of   credibility,  the  extra-judicial  confession  can  be  accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it   passes the test of credibility.”

11. After going through the evidence of  Phool Singh (PW.10), we  

reach  the  inescapable  conclusion  that  Phool  Singh (PW.10)  is  an  

independent witness and by no means could be held to be biased or  

inimical to the accused. There is nothing on record to indicate that he  

had any motive to falsely implicate the accused or that there was any  

12

motive for attributing an untruthful statement to the accused. He had  

made  a  crystal  clear  statement  conveying  that  the  accused  had  

disclosed to him that they had committed the murder of Amardeep-

deceased.  Thus,  we  do  not  find  any  reason  not  to  accept  his  

deposition in respect  of the extra-judicial  confession made by the  

appellants as his deposition stands the test of credibility.

12. Not a single witness has deposed that the appellants/accused  

were last seen with the deceased.  However,  the courts below have  

found  that  the  prosecution  case  has  been  very  close  to  the  

circumstances  of  the  appellants  and  deceased  being  last  seen  

together.   Ishwar  Singh (PW.2)  has  deposed that  the  tubewell  of  

Singh Ram is on the passage connecting his fields with the abadi of  

the  village,  where  he  saw both the  appellants  at  about  7.00  p.m.  

Immediately thereafter,  his son, Amardeep  started for the village  

between 7.30 and 7.45 p.m.  Ranbir  Singh (PW.3)  who heard the  

cries from the place of occurrence and saw the appellants running  

towards the village and the deceased was found to have an empty  

stomach at the time of occurrence as per the post mortem report had  

indicated that Amardeep had been murdered before he could take his  

evening  meal.   The  Trial  Court  has  examined  the  statement  of  

Ranbir Singh (PW.3) minutely and rejected the defence version that  

13

in such a circumstance it was unnatural on the part  of this witness  

not  to  go  to  the  source  of  shrieks,  giving  explanation  that  after  

hearing  the  shrieks  he  stopped  on  his  way  to  the  village  and  

immediately  thereafter  he  saw both  the  accused  running  fast  and  

crossing him. On being stopped and asked by Ranbir Singh (PW.3),  

the appellants told him that they were running without any specific  

purpose.  Immediately  thereafter,  he  could  not  hear  any  cry.  

Therefore, he did not inspect the place from where the cries seem to  

be coming. Thus, the Trial Court reached the conclusion that though  

it was not a case where the accused had been last seen together with  

the  deceased,  however,  in  a  case  when  the  accused  had  the  

opportunity to commit the crime and they had the motive on their  

part to do so, such a circumstance can also be taken note of.    

13. In State of U.P. v. Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 114, this Court held  

that the last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between  

the point of time when the accused and deceased were last seen alive  

and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of  

any person  other  than  the  accused  being  the  author  of  the  crime  

becomes  impossible.   Similar  view has  been reiterated  in  Mohd.  

Azad alias Samin v. State of West Bengal, (2008) 15 SCC 449.

14

14. The Trial Court has given cogent reasons for believing Ranbir  

Singh  (PW.3)  observing   that  Ranbir  Singh  (PW.3)  was  an  

independent witness and only 1-1/2 killa away from the tubewell of  

Singh Ram wherefrom he heard the cries.   He did not go to the place  

wherefrom the shrieks had been coming assuming that the same had  

been made by the accused and such a course could not be unnatural.  

In spite of the fact that Shri Laler, learned counsel appearing for the  

appellants has taken us through the evidence on record, we do not  

find any cogent reason to interfere with such a finding of fact.  

15. The  barchha  used  as  a  weapon  in  the  crime  had  been  

recovered from the sugarcane field.  It had blood stains on it and had  

been thrown at a place where it was not visible to all.   In the instant  

case,  as  the  motive  stood  proved  distinctly,  recovery  of  a  blood  

stained  barchha  from  the  sugarcane  field  at  the  disclosure  of  

Jasvinder Singh-accused is a circumstance which can safely be relied  

upon  for  the  conviction  of  the  appellants-accused.  As  both  the  

appellants had been seen immediately before the occurrence at the  

place  of  occurrence  and  the  deceased  had  come  there  shortly  

thereafter,  they  had  an  opportunity  to  kill  Amardeep.  After  the  

occurrence,  they  were  seen   running  together  from  the  place  of  

occurrence by Ranbir Singh (PW.3). Such a conduct, if examined,  

15

with another circumstance i.e. the extra-judicial confession made by  

the appellants before Phool Singh (PW.10), completes the chain of  

circumstances pointing to the guilt of the appellants-accused.  

16. It is a settled legal proposition that conviction of a person in  

an offence is generally based solely on evidence that is either oral or  

documentary, but in exceptional circumstances conviction may also  

be based solely on circumstantial evidence.  The prosecution has to  

establish  its  case beyond reasonable  doubt and cannot  derive any  

strength from the weakness of the defence put up by the accused.  

However,  a  false  defence  may  be  called  into  aid  only  to  lend  

assurance  to  the  Court  where  various  links  in  the  chain  of  

circumstantial  evidence  are  in  themselves  complete.   The  

circumstances  from which the  conclusion  of  guilt  is  to  be  drawn  

should be fully  established.   The same should be of a conclusive  

nature  and  exclude  all  possible  hypothesis  except  the  one  to  be  

proved.  Facts so established must be consistent with the hypothesis  

of the guilt  of the accused and the chain of evidence must  be so  

complete  as  not  to  leave  any reasonable  ground for  a  conclusion  

consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in  

all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.  

(vide:  Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR  

16

1984  SC  1622;  and  Paramjeet  Singh  @  Pamma  v.  State  of  

Uttarakhand, AIR 2011 SC 200).

17. In  a  case  like  this,  where  all  circumstances  stand  proved  

against  the  appellants,  their  defence may be examined to  test  the  

circumstances  stood  proved  against  them.  In  the  instant  case,  

Kulvinder Singh, appellant No.1 is a resident of another district. He  

had not taken the plea of alibi, nor led any evidence to support the  

hypothesis that he was not present at the place of occurrence on the  

date  of incident.  His  only plea has been that  he had falsely been  

implicated without saying anything further.  

18. Shri  Laler,  learned counsel appearing for the appellants  has  

challenged the statement made by Ranbir Singh (PW.3) that he went  

to the place of occurrence in the morning on 10.10.1997 at 9.00 AM.  

The police had reached there.  “Police remained there till the accused  

were  arrested”  stating  that  it  cannot  be  true  as,  admittedly,  the  

appellants  had been arrested on 13.10.1997 on being produced by  

Phool Singh (PW.10).  Ranbir Singh (PW.3) did not remain present  

for three days at the place of occurrence. The relevant part of the  

cross-examination has to be read as a whole in order to examine the  

correctness  of  the  submissions  so  advanced  on  behalf  of  the  

appellants. The relevant part reads as under:  

17

“I reached the tubewell of Singh Ram on the   next morning at 9.00 a.m. Police had reached the   place by that time. Police did not record statement   of anyone else in my presence. Police remained at   the spot till  the accused were arrested.  I  cannot   tell when the accused were arrested.”  

19. By reading  the aforesaid part of the statement it cannot be  

held that Ranbir Singh (PW.3) had deposed that the appellants had  

been arrested in his presence, as he was not even aware when they  

had  been  arrested.  So  his  statement  has  to  be  understood  in  the  

following way: That the police remained at the place of occurrence  

for  several  days  and  may  also  mean  till  13.10.1997  when  the  

accused were arrested. Thus, no case is made out for interference on  

this count also.  

20. The last submission advanced by Shri Laler had been that if  

injuries had been caused by one weapon as deposed by Dr. Vijay  

Mohan  Atreja  (PW.9),  the  involvement  of  Kulvinder  Singh-

appellant No.1 becomes doubtful and he should be acquitted giving  

him the benefit of doubt.  According to the post  mortem report, the  

following injuries were found on the body of  Amardeep-deceased,  

aged 25 years.  

1. Incised wound on the left palm on the thenar eminence  

placed obliquely 4 cm x 1 cm tapering downwards and  

18

laterally towards the left thumb 2 cm deep at the medial  

side.

2. Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm each on the palmer aspect of  

lower phalanx of left index and middle finger and upper  

phalanx of the left little finger.

3. Incised  wound  9  cm in  length  x  1  cm on  the  medial  

aspect  of  the  mid  left  forearm  place  obliquely,  7  cm  

below the left elbow.

4. Incised wound 3.5 cm x 1 cm placed obliquely on the  

right forehead starting from the medial side of the right  

eyebrow and extending upward and laterally 4 cm above  

the lateral border of right eyebrow.

5. Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm on right eye lid just below  

the right  eyebrow and extending laterally  and over the  

skin 2 cm lateral to the lateral angle of the right eye.

6. Incised wound 14 cm x 2.5 cm on the front of the face  

starting  from  the  right  cheek  bone’s  prominence  

traversing obliquely towards the left on the left cheek.

7. Incised wound 5.5. cm x 1 cm on the face just below the  

tip of the nose placed horizontally parallel to the upper  

lip.

8. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm on the right side of the chin  

starting  from  the  right  angle  of  the  lower  lip  and  

extending downward and medially towards the chin.

9. Stab wound tapering at both ends 2 cm x 1 cm on the  

right side of the neck placed obliquely 3 cm below from  

the  right  angle  of  the  mandible  going  medially  and  

downwards.

19

10. Stab wound 2 cm x 2 cm placed on the anterior aspect of  

the middle of the neck transversely.

11. Stab wound 4 cm x 2 cm on the left side of the neck 2 cm  

below the right angle of mandible.

12. Stab  wound  2.5  cm  x  2  cm  placed  vertically  placed  

lateral  to  injury  no.1  (3  cm)  and  6  cm  from  the  left  

mastoid.

13. Stab wound 4 cm x 3 cm on left axillary fold (anterior)  

place vertically spindle shape tapering upwards.

14. Stab wound 4 cm x 2 cm elliptical at lower border of left  

axilla placed vertically.

15. Stab  wound  7  cm x  3  cm elliptical,  placed  obliquely  

starting from 5 cm lateral  to left  nipple and extending  

upto 3 cm medial to injury no.14.

16. Stab wound 4 cm x 3 cm elliptical placed obliquely on  

the left chest, 15 cm from the midline and 7 cm below the  

injury no.15.

17. Incised wound 6 cm x 2 cm placed obliquely on left side  

of chest 3 cm below and lateral to injury no.16.

18. Stab  wound  4  cm  medial  to  left  iliac  crest  placed  

transversely 5 cm x 2 cm.  The loops of small intestine  

were coming out of the wound.

19. Incised wound 4.5 cm x 2 cm placed obliquely on the  

right inguinal ligament.

20. Incised wound 8 cm x 5 cm placed transversely parallel  

to the upper border of left scapula in the supra scapular  

region.

21. Incised wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm placed transversely on the  

interior side of left leg in the middle.

20

22. Incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm on the left posterior axillary  

line 12 cm below left axilla placed vertically going upto  

the left chest wall.

      According to Dr. Vijay Mohan Atreja (PW.9), the cause  

of death in this case was shock and hemorrhage due to extensive  

injuries to the vital organs. All these injuries were found to be anti-

mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course  

of nature.

    The injuries look as if  received by a person whilst trying to  

save himself.

21. The age of the appellants at the time of occurrence had been  

shown  on  the  record  as  19  and  23  years  respectively  and  the  

deceased was 5 ft.10 inch tall and 25 years of age. It is difficult to  

imagine that one person could cause 22 injuries on such a well-built  

person  unless  the  other  persons  had  caught  hold  of  him.  All  the  

injuries found on the person of the deceased are on front side of the  

body and not a single injury has been found on the back. Such injury  

could not have been caused unless somebody had caught hold of the  

deceased from the back.  It is a case of circumstantial evidence  and  

in the facts and circumstance of the case, the submission made by  

21

Shri  Laler  is  merely  worth  taking  note  of  and  not  worth  

consideration.   

22.    In view of the above, we do not find any force in the appeal  

and is, accordingly, dismissed.   

  ……………………..J.     (P. SATHASIVAM)

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

                                                            New Delhi, April 11, 2011

22