Page 1

                              REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1702 OF 2008

Rajendra Singh … Appellant

Versus

State of Uttaranchal … Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Aftab Alam, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated April 30,  

2008 passed by the Uttarakhand High Court in Government Appeal No.1174  

of 2001 (Old No.303 of 1991). By the impugned judgment, the High Court  

allowed  the  Government  Appeal,  set  aside  the  judgment  of  acquittal  

rendered by the trial court, and finding the appellant guilty of the offence of  

murder convicted him under section 302 of the Penal Code and gave him the  

sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life.  

2. The case of the prosecution is based on a written report dated July 26,  

1988 submitted at Police Station Dehradun by one Vijay Singh s/o Puran  

Singh Rana (hereinafter referred to as “the informant”). In the written report

Page 2

it was stated that the informant’s elder brother, namely, Kishan Singh Rana  

(the  deceased)  was  a  peon  in  the  Bank  of  India,  Rajpur  Road  Branch,  

Dehradun.  He had given a  pair  of  pants  and some cloth for  stitching to  

Rajendra Singh tailor (the appellant), whose shop is on the road just near  

their  house.  The  appellant  did  not  return  the  stitched  clothes  even  after  

several days and on the evening prior to the date of occurrence, there was a  

quarrel between the informant’s brother and the appellant on that issue. On  

July 26, 1988 (the date of occurrence) the informant’s brother had gone to  

the bank as usual on his motor cycle. He returned from the bank at about  

1.00 p.m. and as he reached in front of the appellant’s shop, he got down  

from the motor cycle as the road was broken at that point. At that instant, the  

appellant  came out  of  his  shop  carrying a  pair  of  scissors  in  his  hands;  

hurling  abuses,  he  came down to  the  road  and  attacked  the  informant’s  

brother with the scissors with the intent to kill him. In order to save his life,  

Kishan Singh Rana ran down the road but the appellant  chased him and  

caught him after some distance in front of Chintamani’s house. At that spot  

he gave the informant’s brother many blows by the scissors, one after the  

other.  Kishan Singh Rana fell  down bleeding on the road.  It  was further  

stated  in  the  written  report  that  besides  the  informant,  Makhan  Singh  

(PW.2), Laxman (Motor) Auto Mechanic (not examined) and his sister-in-

2

Page 3

law, Deepa (the wife of the deceased – PW.3) and many other persons and  

women of the area witnessed the occurrence. After assaulting the deceased,  

the appellant fled away from there. It was further stated in the written report  

that Makhan Singh took the informant’s brother to Dun Hospital, where he  

was declared brought dead. The written report concluded with the request to  

take legal action against the appellant.  

3. The written report submitted by Vijay Singh was incorporated in the  

first  information  report  (report  No.230)  giving  rise  to  criminal  case  

No.483/88/-under section 302 IPC, P.S. Dehradun.

4. The  police  after  investigation  submitted  charge-sheet  and  the  

appellant was put on trial on the charge under section 302 of the Penal Code.  

5. In  support  of  the  charge,  the  prosecution  examined  11  witnesses.  

PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 are the eye witnesses of the occurrence, of whom  

PW.1 is also the first informant. PW.4 is one of the witnesses of the recovery  

of blood stained and plain earth and a chappal from the place of occurrence.  

He also identified his signature on the site plan (Ex.Ka-3) of the place of  

occurrence.  PW.5 is another witness of the recovery of blood stained and  

plain earth, two chappals and one sandle from the place of occurrence.  He  

identified his signature on the seizure memo (Ex.La-3).  PW.6 and PW.7 are  

3

Page 4

witnesses of the recovery of the scissors from the appellant’s shop. PW.8 is  

the doctor who had conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased.  

PW.9  is  a  formal  witness,  the  scribe  of  the  chik FIR.  PW.10 is  a  Sub-

Inspector  of  Police  who had  examined  the  place  of  occurrence  and  had  

seized the articles from there. PW.11 is the Investigating Officer of the case.  

6. The trial court found that there were a number of discrepancies in the  

depositions of the eye-witnesses and held that the prosecution was not able  

to establish the charge against the appellant. It, accordingly, acquitted the  

appellant by the judgment and order dated November 16, 1990.  

7. The State Government filed an appeal against the judgment of the trial  

court and the High Court took the view that the reasons given by the trial  

court for not accepting the statements of PW.2 and PW.3 were specious and  

quite untenable. The High Court found that both PW.2 and PW.3 are wholly  

reliable witnesses and there was no reason not to accept their evidences. It,  

accordingly, set aside the judgment passed by the trial court and convicted  

and sentenced the appellant, as noted above.

8. The appellant is now in appeal before this Court.  

4

Page 5

9. Before  proceeding to  examine the  ocular  evidence  adduced by the  

prosecution in support of its case, we may first see the medical evidence. As  

noted above, PW.8 conducted the post mortem on the body of Kishan Singh  

Rana on July 27, 1987. He found as many as 16 injuries on the body of the  

deceased which are as under:-

“1. Stab wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on left side of  chest, 9 cm below left nipple midline direction backward and  medially.  

2. Stab wound 1.5 cm x .5 cm x muscle deep on left side of  abdomen, 8 cm below injury No.1 and 11 cm away from the  umbilicus.  

3.  Stab wound 4 cm x 1.5 cm x cavity deep on left  side of  abdomen direction medially backward and downward.

4. Contusion 6 cm x 4 cm on back of left elbow and arm.

5. Contusion 22 cm x 3 cm on right arm extending from right  shoulder up to elbow (front aspect).  

6. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm on right side of forehead x  scalp deep, 6 cm above outer angle of right eye.

7. Stab wound 3 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on right side of chest  lower part on ant axillary line 12 cm below right nipple going  upward medially and backward, 12 cm below right nipple.  

8. Stab wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on right side of  chest in post axillary line 6 cm behind injury No.7.

9. Stab wound 3 cm x 1.5 cm on back of right side x cavity  deep going downwards backwards 7 cm below injury No.8.

5

Page 6

10. Stab wound 2 cm x 1 cm on right buttock x muscle deep 15  cm below injury No.9 and 5 cm away from vert. column.  

11. Stab wound 1.5 cm x .5 cm x cavity deep on right side of  back,  5  cm  away  from  injury  No.9  direction  medially  and  forward.  

12. Stab wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm on right side of back x cavity  deep, 6 cm above injury No.11 direction medially and forward.  

13. Stab wound 3 cm x 1.5 cm on right side of chest x cavity  deep over right back, 10 cm away from injury No.12 over the  inferior  angle  of  scapula  direction  forward,  medially  and  downwards, 10 cm above injury No.12.  

14. Stab wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm on right side of back of chest 8  cm above injury No.13 and 15 cm away from midline over the  upper  part  of  scapula.   Direction  backward,  medially  and  upward.  

15. Stab wound 1.5 cm x .5 cm x cavity deep 5 cm away from  vert. column and 8 cm away from injury No.14.  

16. Stab wound 3 cm x 1.5 cm x chest cavity deep on left side  of lower chest back going downward forward and medially 4  cms away from midline, at L2 level.”  

10. Here,  it  may be  noted  that  apart  from injuries  4  and  5  which are  

contusions  that  may  have  been  caused  due  to  fall,  the  rest  14  are  stab  

injuries. The medical evidence is, thus, quite consistent with the prosecution  

case that the deceased was killed by inflicting injuries by a pair of scissors.  

11. Let us now come to the ocular evidence.  

6

Page 7

12. The informant Vijay Singh who is the younger brother of the deceased  

was examined as PW.1. In his examination-in-chief he fully supported the  

prosecution case but in course of cross-examination in paragraph 12 of his  

deposition he stated as under:-

“……….. On the day of occurrence I had gone to school. I had  come back from school at 2.30 P.M. when I came back then I  was informed that my brother was killed. People were weeping  in the house. Then I had gone to hospital. Scissor blow was not  given in my presence.”

13. It is for the reason of this statement that the trial court discarded the  

evidence of PW.1.  

14. It is difficult to fault the trial court for rejecting the evidence of PW.1  

but let us now see the evidences of PW.2 and PW.3.  

15. It  is  undeniable  that  both  PW.2  and  PW.3  fully  supported  the  

prosecution case in regard to the assault by the appellant on the deceased  

with a pair of scissors.  PW.3, the wife of the deceased also deposed before  

the court regarding the genesis of the occurrence i.e., the quarrel between the  

deceased and the appellant that had taken place on the evening before the  

date of occurrence over the appellant’s failure to return the clothes given by  

the  deceased  for  stitching  even  after  a  number  of  days.  Further,  the  

7

Page 8

deposition of PW.3 in regard to the assault by the appellant on the deceased  

is quite graphic.   

16. The trial  court,  however,  highlighted certain discrepancies  between  

the statements  of  PW.2 and PW.3 and for  that  reason found them to be  

unreliable. Those very discrepancies were emphasized by the counsel for the  

appellant to urge before this Court that the judgment of the trial court was  

quite sound and the High Court was in error in reversing that judgment and  

holding the appellant guilty of the charge.

17.  In  order  to  appreciate  the  view  taken  by  the  trial  court  and  the  

submissions made on behalf of the appellant in its support we may advert to  

the depositions of PW.2 and PW.3.  

18. PW.2 Makhan Singh stated before the court that at the time of the  

occurrence he was not a tenant of the deceased. He further said that he had  

not said to Darogaji that he was a tenant in the house of Kishan Singh and  

he did not  know how he (Darogaji)  had so written in his  statement.  He  

further stated that in those days he was not working in any factory and he  

had not said that he was working in a factory. He had given (the No.) 119/3  

as his address. That house belonged to the deceased. He was a resident of  

Tehri Garhwal and the deceased too was a resident of Tehri Garhwal. They  

thus, belonged to the same place. They also belonged to the same caste. He  

8

Page 9

knew Kishan Singh and Rajendra Singh from before. He also said that he  

had no relationship with Kishan Singh.  

19. PW.2 was recalled for further evidence. On recall he reiterated that he  

had no relationship with the deceased Kishan Singh. He was then shown an  

application that was marked as Exhibit Ka-10 and he admitted that it was  

written in his hand and it was given at the Drona Hotel. In that application it   

was stated that his “Chachera Bhai” (paternal cousin),  Kishan Singh had  

met with a tragic accident and for that reason he was unable to report for  

duty from July 26 to July 30, 1988. He further stated that he had given the  

number of the house of Kishan Singh because the place where he stayed had  

no number.

20.  PW.3, the wife of the deceased denied before the court that Makhan  

Singh lived in their house as a tenant. She further said that Makhan Singh  

lived  in  Indra  Colony  and  she  did  not  know  Makhan  Singh  before  the  

occurrence.  She further said that she had seen him first when the occurrence  

took place and she came to know his name when it was said to her by the  

police.  The police had come to her house at 5.00 to 6.00 P.M. She did not  

remember whether or not Makhan Singh was with them at that time.  

21. The Investigating Officer was examined as PW.11.  No question was  

asked to him with reference to any statement of Makhan Singh recorded  

9

Page 10

under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  He, too, was recalled  

for  further  evidence  and  on recall  he  said  that  Makhan  Singh addressed  

Deepa-PW.3 as “Bhabhi”.  

22. In the statement of the appellant recorded under section 313 of the  

Code of Criminal procedure, the court put to him the following question:-

“It has come in the statement of Shri Naresh Pal Yadav,  SI PW.11 that Makhan Singh had called Deepa as “Bhabhi”.  What do you have to say in this regard?

Ans.: She  is  real  Bhabhi  (sister-in-law).   Witness  Makhan  Singh lives with his Bhabhi.”

23. The depositions of PW.2 and PW.3 are discussed by the trial court in  

paragraph 13 of its judgment where it made the following observations:

“Now,  there  remains  the  testimony  of  Makhan  Singh  Rana  (PW.2) and Smt.  Deepa PW.3.  Makhan Singh Rana (PW.2)  tried to conceal the relationship between him and the deceased.  Makhan  Singh PW.2 stated  that  he had no relationship with  Kishan Singh, deceased. He further stated that he was not the  tenant of Kishan Singh. He further stated that he had not told  the Investigating Officer that he was the tenant of Kishan Singh  in  that  house,  but  the  Investigation  Officer  stated  in  his  statement that Makhan Singh told that he was the tenant and he  gave  the  address  of  his  house  119/3  Nai  Basti.   Naresh  Pal  Yadav, SHO PW.11 stated that Makhan Singh told Deepa as his  Bhabhi.  Makhan PW.2 stated in his re-examination that he had  written in the application Ex. KA-10 Kishan Singh as cousin  brother. He stated that this fact was written in the application  wrongly, but he has not stated the reasons why this fact was  written in the application wrongly.  Moreover, Ghanshyam Das  DW.2 stated that  the application for  Ration-Card of  Makhan  Singh  was  on  the  address  of  119/3  Nai  Basti,  Chukhuwala.  

10

Page 11

Smt. Deepa PW3 also stated in his (sic. her) cross-examination  that  Makhan Singh was not the cousin of her husband.  She  stated in her cross-examination that she did not know Makhan  Singh before the incident.  When this accident took place she  knew the name of Makhan Singh.  The police personnel told the  name of Makhan Singh, then she knew the name of Makhan  Singh.  Thus both the witnesses Makhan Singh PW2 and Smt.  Deepa PW3 are intentionally concealing their relationship.  It is  highly strange that Smt. Deepa does not know the name of her  husband's cousin.”

24. The above quoted passage from the trial court judgment suffers from  

some errors of fact.  We have perused the evidence of PW.11 more than  

once but we failed to notice any statement in his deposition that Makhan  

Singh had given his address as house No.119/3, Nai Basti and had told him  

that he was a tenant of the deceased.   As a matter of fact,  it  was PW.2,  

Makhan Singh himself who truthfully accepted that in his statement before  

the Investigating Officer he had given his address as No. 119/3 which was  

the house of Kishan Singh, the deceased. In his statement on recall he had  

also explained that he had given the address of the house of the deceased  

because  the  place  where  he  lived  had  no  clearly  ascertainable  address.  

Moreover, both he and the deceased came from the same place and belonged  

to the same caste  and he knew the deceased from before.  He repeatedly  

denied that he lived in the house of the deceased as a tenant and there is no  

reason not to accept his statement.   

11

Page 12

25. Further, calling Deepa as “Bhabhi” does not at all mean that Makhan  

Singh was a blood relation of Kishan Singh Rana.  “Bhabhi” is a common  

form  of  address  for  the  wife  of  someone  who  is  known  from  before.  

Moreover, Makhan Singh had clearly said that both he and Kishan Singh  

Rana belonged to Tehri Garhwal and they were also of the same caste and  

further  that  he  knew  Kishan  Singh  Rana  from  before.  In  those  

circumstances, to call the wife of the deceased as “Bhabhi” was quite natural  

for him but at the same time it did not, by any means, show that he had any  

blood relationship with the deceased.  

26. Coming  now  to  Ex.Ka-10,  it  needs  to  be  noted  that  that  was  an  

application  for  leave  of  absence  given  where  he  was  working.  It  is  a  

common failing to try to justify the unsanctioned absence from work by  

making out excuses and by taking some liberty with actual facts. Therefore,  

in his application for condoning the absence for four days, if he said that his  

cousin had met with a tragic accident, it cannot be inferred that the deceased  

was  actually  his  cousin  and  in  court  he  was  trying  to  conceal  the  

relationship.  

27. We see no reason for the trial court to come to the conclusion that  

PW.2  and  PW.3  were  speaking  falsely  and  were  trying  to  hide  the  

12

Page 13

relationship between PW.2 and the deceased or that he lived in the house of  

the deceased as a tenant.

28. In the first  place no such inference is possible  on the basis  of  the  

depositions of PW.2 and PW.3 and secondly and more importantly even if it  

is assumed for the sake of argument that the depositions of PW.2 and PW.3  

were incorrect in regard to the relationship between PW.2 and the deceased  

and in regard to PW.2 living in the house of the deceased as a tenant at the  

time of occurrence, we fail to see how that can be the ground to reject their  

deposition entirely even though it is perfectly sound in respect of the main  

prosecution case. In our system of law, the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in   

omnibus is not followed.

29. Here,  it  is  to  be  stated  that  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

appellant submitted that the deposition of PW.3 was quite unreliable as it  

contained  certain  statements  that  were  either  incorrect  or  quite  

inconceivable.  He referred to paragraph 20 of the deposition of PW.3 where  

she said that the first  fight (between her husband and the appellant) took  

place on the verandah of the shop; that blood also spilled on the verandah of  

the shop and further that the first fight on the verandah of the shop went on  

for about 10-15 minutes. He also referred to paragraph 21 of the deposition  

of PW.3 where she said that the accused held the scissors with both hands  

13

Page 14

and opened both the handles of the scissors and then attacked with one hand  

at her husband.

30.  Learned counsel submitted that there was no verandah in front of the  

shop of the appellant and the manner of assault as described by PW.3 was  

quite inconceivable.   

31. We  are  unable  to  accept  the  submission  that  on  the  basis  of  the  

statements pointed out by the counsel the deposition of PW.3 is liable to be  

rejected.  The statements relied upon by the counsel were made by PW.3  

under the stress of cross-examination.  She is a housewife and apparently not  

highly educated.  She has a limited vocabulary and an imperfect capacity to  

describe the manner of assault on her husband.  Her statement especially in  

paragraph 21 is obviously in answer to some convoluted question by the  

cross-examiner, to which she replied as best as she could.  

32. We find the testimonies of PW.2 and PW.3 wholly reliable and see no  

reason not to accept the same.  

33. Apart  from  the  evidences  of  PW.2  and  PW.3,  there  are  other  

circumstances that lend credence to the prosecution case.

34. The Investigating Officer (PW.11) stated that he arrested the appellant  

at 8.00 p.m. on July 28, 1988.  In course of interrogation he volunteered to  

produce the scissors used for killing the deceased from his shop.  He took  

14

Page 15

the Investigating Officer to his shop, opened it  with the keys kept in his  

pocket and recovered the blood stained scissors from under the shop counter  

and produced it before the Investigating Officer.

35. PW.6 stated that on July 28, 1988, while he was going to the house of  

the deceased, he met the police people in Indira colony (the place where the  

occurrence  took  place).  The  appellant  was  also  with  them.   The  police  

people brought the appellant to his shop and got it opened and on the asking  

of the Daroga, the appellant picked up a pair of scissors from the counter of  

his shop and handed it to the police.  A recovery memo was prepared and the  

signatures of the witness and one Bhim Singh were taken on the recovery  

memo.

36. On  a  careful  consideration  of  the  materials  on  record  and  the  

submissions made on behalf of the appellant and the State, we are of the  

view that the High Court has rightly rejected the view taken by the trial court  

as wholly untenable and has rightly accepted the evidences of PW.2 and  

PW.3 in order to bring home the guilt of the appellant.  

37. In the light of the discussion above, we find no merit in the appeal.  It  

is, accordingly, dismissed.  

38.  The bail bonds of the appellant are cancelled and he is directed to  

surrender  within  four  weeks  from today,  failing  which  the  trial  court  is  

15

Page 16

directed  to  take  all  possible  measures  to  apprehend  him  to  make  him  

undergo the remaining sentence.  

…..………………………J. (Aftab Alam)

…..………………………J. (Ranjana Prakash Desai)

New Delhi April 11, 2013.  

16