Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2356 OF 2009

Palwinder Singh    ….Appellant

VERSUS

State of Punjab    ….Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division  

Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh dated  

12.09.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.350-DB of 1998.

2. The  case  of  the  prosecution  as  projected  before  the  Court  

below was that the deceased Dr. Jasbir Singh was running a  

chemist shop in the village Wadala Banger, that on 20.08.1996  

at 08:00 pm, the cousin of the deceased P.W.2 Gurmeet Singh,  

along with one Baldev Singh wanted to meet the deceased,  

that he was proceeding from Kalanaur in his scooter and that  

near  Mir  Kachana,  near  a  brick  kiln,  they  found  people  

gathered around on the road and learnt that somebody was  

Criminal Appeal No.2356 of 2009                                                                           1 of 14

Page 2

murdered. When they went to the spot P.W.2 found that his  

cousin Dr. Jasbir Singh was found dead with stab wounds and  

blood was oozing out. He also found the scooter belonging to  

the  deceased  lying  nearby.  He  further  found  100  rupee  

currency notes were also lying scattered around the deceased.  

P.W.2, thereafter, asked his companion Baldev Singh to remain  

at the spot and proceeded to lodge a report, which came to be  

registered as FIR No.115 under Section 302, 392 read with 34  

IPC on 20.8.1996.  

3. P.W.11  the  Assistant  Sub-Inspector  visited  the  place  of  

occurrence, examined the body of the deceased, prepared the  

inquest  report  and  sent  the  body  for  postmortem.  He  also  

collected  the  currency  notes,  which  were  in  100  rupee  

denomination,  the  scooter  and  a  rope  measuring  about  24  

feet, which was lying near the dead body. Blood stained earth  

was also collected from the spot.  

4. P.W.1  Dr.  Kulwant  Singh,  conducted  the  postmortem  

examination  on  the  body  of  the  deceased  on  21.08.1996.  

Exhibit  PA  is  the  postmortem  certificate  issued  by  him  

Criminal Appeal No.2356 of 2009                                                                           2 of 14

Page 3

wherein,  as  many  as  8  injuries  were  noted  by  him.  At  the  

instance  of  P.W.14,  Om  Prakash,  P.W.12,  the  Investigating  

Officer,  arrested  four  accused  including  the  appellant  on  

26.08.1996.  Based  on  the  admissible  portion  of  the  

confessional statement of the appellant, as well as the other  

accused,  various  recoveries  were  made  including  weapons,  

cash, two gold rings with the inscription ‘JSK’ and one wrist  

watch.  

5. The  prosecution  examined  15  witnesses  and  marked  PA  

postmortem  certificate,  PV  and  PX  Report  of  Chemical  

Examiner  and  PY  and  PZ  report  of  Serologists.  When  the  

incriminating  circumstances  were  put  against  the  appellant  

and  the  other  accused  under  Section  313,  they  denied  the  

same  and  pleaded  that  they  have  been  falsely  implicated.  

They also examined D.Ws.1 and 2 on their side. P.Ws.3 and 4  

were examined as eye-witnesses of whom P.W.4 was treated  

hostile.  

6. Having  considered  the  evidence  of  the  prosecution,  in  

particular the version of P.Ws.1 to 4, the medical report, the  

Criminal Appeal No.2356 of 2009                                                                           3 of 14

Page 4

serologist  report,  chemical  examiner’s  report  and  the  

recoveries made at the instance of the accused, the trial Court  

found all  the accused guilty of  the offences  alleged against  

them and while convicting them for the said offences, imposed  

the sentence of life with fine of Rs.2500/- each and in default  

to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months under  

Section 302 read with 34 IPC. For the offence proved under  

Section 392 read with 34 IPC, sentence of 10 years rigorous  

imprisonment  with  a  fine  of  Rs.1000/-  and  in  default  to  

undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months was imposed.  

The sentences were directed to run concurrently.  

7. On  appeal  by  all  the  four  accused,  the  High  Court  by  the  

judgment  impugned in  this  appeal  confirmed the conviction  

and sentence imposed on the appellant and acquitted the rest  

of the accused from all the charges.  

8. We heard Mr. Vikas Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant  

and  Ms.  Bansuri  Swaraj,  learned  counsel  for  the  

respondent/State.  Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  mainly  

contended  that  there  were  too  many  contradictions  in  the  

Criminal Appeal No.2356 of 2009                                                                           4 of 14

Page 5

version of P.W.3, the so-called eye-witness, that when the High  

Court chose to disbelieve his version, insofar as it related to  

the other three accused on the same reasoning, it  ought to  

have  acquitted  the  appellant  as  well.  The  learned  counsel  

contended  that  the  arrest  of  the  appellant  based  on  the  

version of P.W.14, was not true, that since the appellant was  

involved in some other criminal  case earlier,  he was falsely  

implicated in the case on hand.  Learned counsel  contended  

that  there  was  no  evidence  to  show  that  there  was  any  

matching of blood group in order to hold that the appellant  

was involved in the murder of the deceased.  

9. As against the above submissions, Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, learned  

counsel for the State contended that though P.W.4 was treated  

hostile, his version insofar as his going along with P.W.3 to the  

place  of  occurrence  and  the  factum of  the  deceased  being  

attacked  by  certain  persons  as  stated  by  PW-3  was  fully  

corroborated and consequently the conclusion reached by the  

trial  Court  based  on  the  eye-witness  account  of  P.W.3,  

supported by the version of P.W.4 to that extent read along  

with  the  medical  evidence  for  convicting  appellant  and  the  

Criminal Appeal No.2356 of 2009                                                                           5 of 14

Page 6

confirmation of the same by the High Court in the impugned  

judgment, does not call for interference.  

10. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant as well  

as  the  respondent/State  and  having  bestowed  our  serious  

consideration  to  the  case  pleaded  and  on  perusal  of  the  

material papers including the judgment of the High Court, as  

well  as  the  trial  Court,  we  are  also  convinced  that  the  

conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant cannot be  

assailed.

11. The thrust of the submission of the learned counsel for  

the appellant was that the whole case of the prosecution was  

built  upon P.W.3 and his  version was wholly unreliable.  The  

learned counsel in support of his submission, placed reliance  

upon the decisions reported in Govindaraju alias Govinda v.  

State  by  Sriramapuram  Police  Station  and  another -  

(2012)  4  SCC  722  paragraph  25  and  Lallu  Manjhi  and  

another  v.  State  of  Jharkhand -  (2003)  2  SCC  401.  By  

relying  upon  the  above-said  decisions,  learned  counsel  

Criminal Appeal No.2356 of 2009                                                                           6 of 14

Page 7

contended that P.W.3 could not have witness the occurrence  

as deposed by him.  

12. We  perused  the  evidence  of  P.W.3.  The  version  of  

P.W.3 was that on the date of occurrence, namely, 20.08.1996,  

he  went  to  Batala  to  see  his  sister  who  was  married  in  

Sagarpura adjoining Batala, that around 8.00 p.m. he started  

from his  sister’s  house  and on the way he met  P.W.4  who  

agreed to provide a lift to P.W.3. It is his further version that  

when both of them reached a brick kiln at Mir Kachana around  

8.45  or  9.00  p.m.  they  saw  the  deceased  as  well  as  the  

accused in a melee among whom the appellant  was one of  

them. He, however, stated that he was not able to identify the  

rest  of  the  accused.  He  also  stated  that  appellant  and  the  

three  other  persons  were  attacking  the  deceased by giving  

dagger  blows  and  that  he  saw  the  appellant  giving  such  

specific  dagger blows on the palm of  the right  hand of  the  

deceased, as well as, wrist on the chest. He also stated that  

further dagger blows were also inflicted upon the deceased.  

According to P.W.3, he could notice the above incident with  

the aid of the head lamp of the scooter.  

Criminal Appeal No.2356 of 2009                                                                           7 of 14

Page 8

13. In  the  cross-examination,  he  stated  that  the  other  

accused muffled their faces and he was able to mention their  

names with the help of the police personnel.  He also stated  

that it was 10 p.m. and, therefore, he left that place and on  

the next day morning he first  informed his family members  

and along with P.W.4 he met police officials by around 8 or  

8.40 a.m. at the place of occurrence where the body was still  

lying  where  he  also  gave  his  statement.  According  to  him,  

none of the relatives of the deceased met him. He also fairly  

stated  that  he  did  not  make  any  attempt  to  rescue  the  

deceased.  

14. P.W.4  who  was  treated  as  hostile  supported  the  

version of P.W.3 upto the factum of assault on the deceased  

by 4 or 5 persons near brick kiln of Mir Kachana, including the  

lift which he extended to P.W.3 on Dera Baba Nanak Road near  

Tonga stand. He also mentioned that both of them were going  

to village Wadala Banger. He, however, stated that he could  

not  identify  any  of  the  accused  who  were  assaulting  the  

Criminal Appeal No.2356 of 2009                                                                           8 of 14

Page 9

deceased.  He  also  expressed  his  inability  to  identify  the  

appellant.  

15. P.W.1,  Dr.  Kulwant  Singh  identified  the  postmortem  

certificate issued by him as Exhibit PA and deposed that he  

noticed the following injuries on the body of the deceased:

“1. An incised wound C shaped 4 cm x ¼ cm on the  Palmer side of right wrist joint, muscle deep.

2. An incised wound 1½ x ¼ cm on the palmer side  of right hand in the middle, muscle deep.

3. An  incised  penetrating  (both  sides)  wound  spindle shaped 3 cm x 1 cm on the front of right  shoulder joint, muscle deep.

4. An  incised  penetrating  (both  sides)  wound  spindle shaped 2 ½ cm x 1 cm on right lateral  side and lower part of the chest on the interior  axillaries line 17 cm from the axilla.  

On dissection underlying liyar was ruptured and  whole abdominal cavity was full of blood.

5. An incised penetrating wound (both side) spindle  shaped 2 ½ cm x 1 cm on the front and upper  part of left side of chest, 6 cm from midline 2 cm  below clavical.

On dissection: underlying left lung was ruptured  and thorax cavity is full of blood

6. An incised penetrating wound (both side) spindle  shaped 2 ½ cm x ½ cm on the front and left side  of chest 2 cm medial to the left nipple.

Criminal Appeal No.2356 of 2009                                                                           9 of 14

Page 10

On  dissection:  underlying  chest  wall  and  pericardieum was pierced.  Heart was ruptured  and pericardieum was full of blood.

7. Incised penetrating wound ¾ cm x 1 ½ cm (both  side) spindle shaped on the left side of abdomen  19 cm from the umbilicus and parallel) do it.

On  dissection:  The  abdominal  cavity  was  ruptured.   Colon  on  left  side  was  ruptured.  Abdominal cavity was full of blood.

8. 6  incised  penetrating  wounds  (spindle  shaped,  sharp from both sides) 2 cm x 1 cm, 3cm x 1½  cm, 2 ½ cm x 1cm, 2cm x ½ cm, 2 cm x ½ cm,  2cm x ½ cm on the back and left side of chest.  All were muscle deep.”

16. The Investigating Officer, P.W.12, deposed that based  

on  the  interrogation,  the  appellant  made  a  confessional  

statement  and  the  admissible  portion  of  which  was  to  the  

effect that he had concealed one dagger used in the crime  

near a Shisham tree near brick kiln of Mir Kachana, apart from  

the concealment of one ring, one shirt and pant and Rs.1200/-  

in the iron box lying in his house, which were recovered under  

Exhibit  PQ attested by Harjinder  Singh.  P.W.14 Om Prakash  

deposed  that  all  the  four  accused  met  him  and  confessed  

about the killing of the deceased and that he produced them  

before the police. P.W.5, the wife of the deceased Jasbir Singh  

stated that her husband used to wear two gold rings with the  

Criminal Appeal No.2356 of 2009                                                                           10 of 14

Page 11

impression ‘JSK’, one Titan wrist watch and one purse and that  

above  articles  were  missing  from  the  dead  body  of  her  

husband.  

17. The above evidence led by the prosecution, disclosed  

that the deceased died of ante-mortem injuries and that it was  

a homicidal death, which was fully supported by the version of  

P.W.1  Dr.  Kulwant  Singh.  The  injuries  were  all  grievous  in  

nature and the deceased met with gruesome death. When we  

come to the evidence of P.W.3 it is true that with regard to the  

identity of the rest of the accused other than the appellant, he  

stated that he could name them only at the instance of the  

police  personnel.  As  far  as  his  presence  at  the  place  of  

occurrence  was  concerned,  his  version  read  along  with  the  

evidence of P.W.4 discloses that the presence of both of them  

was  beyond  any  pale  of  controversy.  Even  as  regards  the  

assault  on  the  deceased,  the  version  of  P.W.3  was  fully  

corroborated by P.W.4. Therefore, when the presence of P.W.3  

at  the place of  happening of  the occurrence  was thus  fully  

established with the support of P.W.4, as rightly concluded by  

the  trial  Court,  as  well  as,  the  High  Court,  the  only  other  

Criminal Appeal No.2356 of 2009                                                                           11 of 14

Page 12

question was whether the rest of the statement made by P.W.3  

merited any acceptance. In that respect, we find that the High  

Court made a close scrutiny of the version of P.W.3 and has  

found that he was a totally independent witness and he had no  

axe to grind against the appellant. In fact, his statement that  

he could not identify the other accused, as rightly held by the  

Division Bench of the High Court, was a very fair statement.  

When  he  also  belonged  to  the  same village,  there  was  no  

reason for him to implicate the appellant alone. He could have  

simply stated that he knew the other accused also and that he  

had  noted  their  presence  at  the  place  of  occurrence.  

Therefore,  the conclusion of the High Court that such a fair  

statement made by the witness, namely, P.W.3 cannot be used  

to  totally  erase  his  version,  was  perfectly  justified.  Further,  

because he did not make any attempt to go to rescue of the  

deceased  cannot  be  put  against  the  witness,  inasmuch  as  

when  four  persons  were  assaulting  the  deceased  with  

dangerous weapons that too in the night hour in the present  

day  set  up,  one  cannot  expect  an  unarmed  person  to  get  

himself  entangled  and  suffer  unnecessary  harm  to  himself.  

Moreover, the occurrence took place late in the light at around  

Criminal Appeal No.2356 of 2009                                                                           12 of 14

Page 13

9 pm and, therefore, prudence might have dawned upon him  

not to fall a cheap prey at the hands of such criminals who  

were  already  assaulting  a  person  with  a  dagger  and  other  

weapons. Equally his conduct in having come back to the place  

of occurrence in the early morning at around 7.30 am along  

with P.W.4 only shows his earnestness in disclosing what he  

witnessed on the previous night to the police.  

18. Therefore,  we  find  force  in  the  submission  of  the  

learned counsel for the State that the presence of P.W.3 along  

with P.W.4 at the time when the occurrence took place and the  

identity  of  the  appellant  by  P.W.3  and  describing  his  

involvement in the commission of the offence as narrated by  

him, was rightly believed by the trial Court, as well as, by the  

High Court  and we are  also convinced that  such a reliance  

placed upon the eye-witness account of P.W.3 for convicting  

the  appellant  with  the  aid  of  other  witnesses  is  perfectly  

justified.    The  recoveries  made  at  the  instance  of  the  

appellants also fully supported the case of the prosecution.

19. Having reached the above conclusion, we find that the  

reliance  placed  upon the  decision  reported  in  Govindaraju  

Criminal Appeal No.2356 of 2009                                                                           13 of 14

Page 14

alias Govinda  (supra), as well as,  Lallu Manjhi (supra) will  

be  of  no  avail  to  the  appellant.  We  say  so,  since  we  are  

convinced that the version of P.W.3 was wholly reliable and  

there was no reason to doubt his version in order to apply the  

principles set out in the above referred decisions.  

20. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. The  

appeal fails and the same is dismissed.                          

………….……….…………………………..J.                                [Dr. B.S. Chauhan]

   ...……….…….………………………………J.

                   [Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim  Kalifulla]

New Delhi;  May 08, 2013.

Criminal Appeal No.2356 of 2009                                                                           14 of 14