Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.2329-2331 OF 2009

State of Punjab .. Appellant              versus Jagga Singh Etc. ..          Respondents

WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2327 OF 2009

AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2328 OF 2009

J U D G M E N T C. NAGAPPAN, J.  

1. All  these  criminal  appeals  have  arisen  out  of  the  

common  judgment  dated  17.09.2007  passed  by  the  High  

Court of Punjab and Haryana  at Chandigarh.  

2. The appellants/accused  in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2327  

and  2328  of  2009  numbering  2,  and  the  

respondents/accused in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2329-2331 of  

2009 herein numbering 5, were the accused in sessions case  

Nos. 14,15 and 16 of 2003 on the file of  Additional Sessions  

Judge, Ludhiana and the first two of them were convicted for

Page 2

2

the offences under Section 302 IPC  and Section 25 of the  

Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment  for life  

each  and  to  pay  a  fine  of  Rs.2000/-  each  with  default  

sentence for the offence of murder and further sentenced to  

undergo rigorous imprisonment for  two years each and to  

pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each  with default sentence for the  

offence punishable  under the Arms Act.   Rest of them were  

convicted for the offences under Section 302 IPC read with  

Section 120-B IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment  

for life each, and to pay  a  fine of  Rs.2000/- with default  

sentence.   All  the  convicted  accused preferred  appeals  in  

criminal appeal Nos.65, 90, 101 and 617 of 2006 on the file  

of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and the  

High Court by the impugned common judgment allowed the  

appeals  preferred  by   five  of  the  accused  who  were  

convicted  for  the  offence  under  Section  302  read  with  

section 120-B IPC and acquitted them of the said charges  

and at the same time dismissed the appeal preferred by two  

of  the accused who were convicted for  the offence under  

Section 302 IPC, confirming their conviction and sentence.  

Challenging  their  conviction  and  sentence  the  said  two  

accused preferred independent appeals in  Criminal  Appeal

Page 3

3

Nos. 2327 and 2328 of 2009 on the file of this Court.  The  

State of  Punjab aggrieved  by the acquittal  of  five of  the  

accused preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2329-2331  

of 2009.  All these appeals are heard together and common  

judgment is rendered.  

3. The  prosecution  case  in  brief  is  as  follows:  PW1  

Balwinder Kaur is the mother of the deceased Satnam Singh.  

PW2 Gurmeet  Kaur is his wife.  They were originally living in  

Village Gholia Khurd and 10 years prior to occurrence they  

had shifted to Ludhiana.  Satnam Singh was working with one  

Jugraj Singh for two years and thereafter he started working  

with Avtar Singh and Surjeet Singh.  On 09.11.2002 at about  

7/8 P.M. Satnam Singh received a call on his mobile phone  

from certain persons from village Dhandra asking him to do  

some earthwork and it  was agreed that  they should come  

next morning at 5.30 A.M.  Satnam Singh sent a message to  

his partner Avtar Singh about the visit of the callers for going  

to the plot.  On 10.11.2002 at 5 A.M. on hearing the door bell  

PW1 Balwinder  Kaur  opened  the  door.   Two  persons  aged  

about  30  and  40  respectively  wrapping  themselves  in  

Chaddars were standing outside and they  were let in.  On the

Page 4

4

direction  of  Satnam  Singh  his  wife   PW2  Gurmeet  Kaur  

prepared  tea and after taking it both went outside and asked  

Satnam Singh to come alongwith them on his scooter to see  

the plot.  Satnam Singh took out his scooter  and while he  

was  starting  it  both  the  visitors  took  out  pistols  from the  

respective folds of their garments and fired at Satnam Singh  

who fell on the scooter.  PW2 Gurmeet Kaur fell upon Satnam  

Singh and in  the  meanwhile  Avtar  Singh also  reached the  

spot.   Both the assailants  ran away.   PW1 Balwinder  Kaur  

heard the noise of starting of some vehicle from the other  

side of the road and she suspected that the assailants had  

boarded  the said vehicle for fleeing from the spot.  

4. PW1 Balwinder Kaur gave Exh.PA statement at 7.30A.M.  

and same was recorded by sub inspector, Gurpreet Singh at  

Hambran Road and he prepared Exh. PA/2 FIR at 7.45 A.M.  

and reached the spot.  PW6 fingerprint expert Surinder Singh  

raised the fingerprints from two glasses and both the glasses  

were made into a sealed parcel and handed over to the sub  

inspector Gurpreet Singh  in memo No. Exh. PW23/B.  Scooter  

of Satnam Singh,  footwear of left foot lying on the spot, two  

empty  cartridges  of  .12  bore  were    also  seized  from the

Page 5

5

occurrence  place.   Besides  two .303  country  made pistals  

with two live cartridges were also recovered  from the spot.  

He prepared Exh.PD/5 inquest report and sent the body for  

post mortem.   

5. PW5 Dr.  Sanjiv  Hans conducted autopsy on the body  

and found the following:

 “1. A  lacerated  wound  with  inverted  margin 1¼” x 1” in size, oval in shape present  on left side of lower portion of upper back just  below  lower  border  of  left  scapula  and  2”  medical  to  posterior  axilliary  line.   There  was  blackening  around  the  wound  with  corresponding  hole  and blackening  of  hole  on  left side of back of shirt.

On dissection of thorax, a big haemotoma  was found present  in  the pleural  cavity along  with mediastinum.  There was perforating injury  of left lung upper part of heart and right lung  along  with  major  vessel  in  the  mediastinum  corresponding to injury no.1.

One  plastic,  2  rubber  objects  joining  together and a metallic foreign object removed  from  right  pleural  cavity,  sealed  and  handed  over  to  police.   Corresponding  rib  and  underlying  structure  corresponding  to  injury  no.1 on left side of chest was lacerated.  The  heart was empty.  Lever spleen, kidneys were  pale.  As per information provided by the police,  the above said person had died due to fire arm  injury.

The  cause  of  death  in  this  case  in  our  opinion was due to shock and haemorrhage as a  result  of  the  injuries  to  the  vital  organ  as  mentioned in PMR corresponding to injury no.1

Page 6

6

due to fire arm injury, which was ante mortem  in nature.”         

6. Accused Charanjit Singh and Jagga Singh were arrested  

on 21.11.2002 and were  identified by PW1 Balwinder Kaur  

and PW3 Shamsher  Singh.   On  23.11.2002  accused Bahal  

Singh  was arrested.  The Investigation Officer on 12.12.2002  

examined the statement of the some of the witnesses and  

got  the  arms and ammunition  tested    in  the  Armoury  in  

Ludhiana  and  obtained  the  sanction  orders  of  the  District  

Magistrate for prosecuting the accused under the Arms Act.  

He completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet  

against the accused.  

7. The Sessions Court framed the charges against all the  

seven accused  and during the trial the prosecution examined  

25 witnesses  and marked documents.  The accused  were  

questioned under  Section 313 of  Cr.P.C.  and their  answers  

were recorded.  The Trial Court found all the accused guilty of  

the charges  and convicted and sentenced them as stated  

above  On the appeals preferred by the accused the High  

Court acquitted five of them by allowing their appeals and at  

the same time confirmed   conviction and sentence imposed  

on accused Charanjit Singh and Surjeet Singh by dismissing

Page 7

7

their appeals. Challenging the same they have preferred   two  

independent appeals and challenging the acquittal, the state  

has preferred three appeals.   

8. We heard the submissions made by the learned Addl.  

Advocate   General  of  Punjab  on  behalf  of  the  State,  the  

learned Counsel for the convicted appellants and the learned  

counsel for the respondents/acquitted accused  and perused  

the material on record.   

9. Satnam Singh died of homicidal violence is established  

by  the  testimony  of  PW5  Dr.  Sanjiv  Hans  who  conducted  

autopsy on his body and the post mortem report issued by  

him.    The medical evidence reveals that there was lacerated  

wound with blackening around it, on left  side of the chest,  

piercing the left lung and damaging major blood vessel.  The  

doctor  opined that death has occurred on account of shock  

and haemorrhage as a result of injuries to the vital organ and  

it is a fire arm injury.

10. PW1 Balwinder Kaur and PW2 Gurmeet Kaur are said to  

have witnessed the occurrence.  PW1 Balwinder Kaur is the  

mother of deceased Satnam Singh and PW2 Gurmeet Kaur is

Page 8

8

his wife.  The occurrence had taken just outside their house in  

the early morning at  5.30 A.M.  Both the above witnesses  

have testified that  on 9.11.2002 at about 7/8 P.M. Satnam  

Singh   received   a  call  on  his  mobile  phone  from certain  

persons  from  village  Dhandra  asking  him  to  do  some  

earthwork  and  it  was  agreed  that  they  should  come next  

morning at 5.30 A.M.  It is, their  further testimony that on  

10.11.2002 at 5 A.M. on hearing the door bell, PW1 Balwinder  

Kaur opened the door and two persons aged about 30 and 40  

years  respectively  wrapped  themselves  in  chaddars,  were  

standing outside and they were let  inside the house.  On the  

direction of Satnam Singh, PW2 Gurmeet Kaur prepared and  

served tea to them.   PW1 and PW2 further testified that the  

visitors told Satnam Singh that they wanted to show him the  

plot where filling was to be done and asked Satnam Singh to  

come along with them on his scooter and Satnam Singh took  

out  his  scooter  and  while  he   was  starting  it,  accused  

Charanjit Singh took out firearm from the fold of his garments  

and fired a  shot  at  Satnam Singh  and Surjeet  Singh also  

pulled out a firearm  from his garment and fired a shot in the  

air and Satnam Singh fell down and PW2 Gurmeet Kaur fell  

upon him and both of them raised alarm and they heard the

Page 9

9

noise of the starting of a jeep from the other side of the road  

and the assailants fled away.    

11. It is the further  testimony of PW1 Balwinder Kaur that  

Satnam Singh died on the spot after receiving the injury and  

she proceeded to lodge a complaint with police and on the  

way,  in  Hambran Road,  she happened to  meet  PW23 Sub  

inspector  Gurpreet  Singh and she orally  gave a  statement  

about the occurrence which was reduced into writing by him.  

Exh. PA is the statement given by her and Exh. PA/2 is the FIR  

prepared by him.  

12. The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the   convicted  

appellants  contended  that  PW1  Balwinder  Kaur  had  not  

named the accused persons in her complaint and has only  

stated that two assailants after killing her son ran away from  

the  place  of  occurrence  and  as  per  the  prosecution  case  

accused Charanjit Singh was  working as driver with accused  

Jugraj Singh and he was known to PW1 Balwinder Kaur and  

still  she  has  not  disclosed his  name in  her  complaint  and  

there was no identification parade conducted and they have  

been falsely implicated in the case.  Few years before the  

occurrence Satnam Singh was doing business with his cousin

Page 10

10

brother accused Jugraj  Singh and due to misunderstanding  

separated  from  him.   It  is  when  they  were  working  in  

partnership,  accused  Charanjit  Singh  was  working  under  

them.  In this context it is pertinent to note the testimony of  

the investigating officer PW 23 S.I. Gurpreet Singh.  According  

to  him  he  arrested  accused  Charanjeet  Singh and Surjit  

Singh in the presence of PW1 Balwinder Kaur.  PWs 1 and 2  

have also identified both of them as assailants during the trial  

in the court.  In such circumstances the omission to mention  

their names in the complaint does not affect the prosecution  

case  and there  is  no  doubt  about  the identity  of  the  said  

accused.

13. There is yet another clinching evidence against the said  

accused   which  corroborates  the  testimonies  of  the  eye-

witnesses.   The  assailants  had  taken  tea  in  the  house  of  

Satnam  Singh  few  minutes  before  the  occurrence.   The  

Investigating Officer after registering the case proceeded to  

the  house  of  Satnam  Singh  and  solicited  the  services  of  

Surinder Singh, finger print expert through the control room.  

PW6 Surinder Singh reached the place at 9.00 A.M. and found  

two glass tumblers lying on the table smeared with tea and

Page 11

11

according  to  him he applied  the  grey  powder  on  the  said  

tumblers and raised  the finger prints in it and encircled those  

places of finger prints and put his initials  thereon readable as  

S. Singh and the date as 10.11.2002 in it and prepared sealed  

parcel by putting them in wooden box duly nailed and handed  

it over to the investigating officer for onward transmission to  

finger  print  bureau.   The  sealed  parcel  was  sent  through  

PW15 Constable Anish Kumar to the finger print bureau.   PW  

25 Subhash Chander,  finger print expert has testified that he  

received the sealed parcel with the seal ‘SS’ through Anish  

Kumar PW15 and on opening he found two glass tumblers  

which contained already developed finger impressions  and  

he prepared the photographs of those finger impressions.  It  

is his further testimony  that he received specimen 10 digits  

finger  impression of  the two hands in  respect  of  Charanjit  

Singh as well as another specimen 10 digits finger impression  

in respect of accused Surjit  Singh and made a comparison  

and  prepared  Exh.PW25/A  report.    As  per  report,  the  

questioned  finger  impressions,  Mark  –  A/1  and  B/1  and  

specimen  finger  impressions  A/A/1  and  B/B/1  of  Charanjit  

Singh were found to be similar. Similarly, questioned finger  

impressions  C/1,  D/1  and  E/1  and  specimen  finger

Page 12

12

impressions of Surjit Singh C/C/1, D/D/1 and E/E/1 were also  

found to be similar.

14. The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  convicted  

appellants contended that  both the said accused were made  

to hold glass-tumblers while they were in police custody and  

thereafter the finger prints were taken and it is only to falsely  

implicate them in the case. It is her further contention that  

the specimen finger impressions were not taken before the  

Magistrate in accordance with Section 5 of the Identification  

of Prisoners Act, and it is unsafe to accept the evidence led in  

this regard.  She placed reliance on the decision of this Court  

in  Mohd.  Aman and another   vs.  State  of  Rajasthan  

[(1997) 10 SCC 44].

15. Both  the  above contentions  are  devoid  of  merit.   As  

already  seen  on  the  direction  of  the  investigating  officer,  

finger  print  expert  PW6  Surinder  Singh  reached  the  

occurrence place at 9.00 A.M. on the occurrence day itself  

and raised the finger impressions on the two glass tumblers  

and duly packed them with his seal  and date and handed  

over  the  same  to  the  investigating  officer  for  onward  

transmission to the finger print bureau. The seal was found to

Page 13

13

be  intact  by  PW25  finger  print  expert  who  opened  it  for  

examination.  Exh.PW25/G is the 10 digits finger impression  

of  accused  Charanjit  Singh.  It  contains  the  signature  of  

Judicial  Magistrate,  First Class,  Ludhiana  with his seal  and  

date.  Exh. PW25/H is 10 digits finger impression of accused  

Surjit  Singh.    It  also  contains  the  signature  of  Judicial  

Magistrate, First Class, Ludhiana with his seal and date.  In  

fact   the  word  ‘attested’   is  put  by  the  Magistrate  while  

putting his signature in the said documents.  In the facts of  

the  case  in  which  the  decision  cited  supra  arose  the  

specimen  finger  prints  of  the  accused  were  never  taken  

before or under the order of a Magistrate in accordance with  

Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act and in such  

circumstances this Court held that it is unsafe to accept the  

said  evidence.   As  already  seen  in  the  present  case  the  

specimen  finger  print  impression  have  been  taken  in  the  

presence of Judicial Magistrate and there is no room for any  

suspicion as to its bonafide.

16. Yet  another  contention  was  raised  on  behalf  of  the  

convicted appellants  that  the presence of  PWs 1 and 2 in  

their  house  on  the  occurrence  day  is  doubtful  since  they

Page 14

14

would have gone far away to village Landey for attending the  

marriage  of  daughter  of  Satnam  Singh’s  maternal  uncle.  

There  is  evidence  to  show  that  the  said  marriage  was  

scheduled on that day in the village .  It does not mean that  

PWs 1 and 2 had left for the village one or two days prior to  

the marriage.  On the contrary PWs 1 and 2 have specifically  

denied such a suggestion put to them in cross-examination.  

Further,  there is also no evidence let in by the defence to  

show that both of them had gone to the village the previous  

day of the marriage.   Hence this contention is also liable to  

be rejected.  The presence of PWs 1 and 2 being the family  

members  in  the  house  is  natural  and  the  occurrence  had  

taken place in the early morning hours.   When Satnam Singh  

took out his scooter, his mother and wife came to close the  

door  and  at  that  time  they  happened  to  witness  the  

occurrence.   Their  testimonies  are  cogent,  natural  and  

trustworthy.   Moreover,  we  do  not  find  any  material  

discrepancy  in  their  testimonies  and  they  are  credible  

witnesses.   The  Courts  below  have  rightly  relied  on  their  

testimonies and the conviction and sentence imposed on the  

convicted appellants does not call for any interference.

Page 15

15

17.  Insofar  as  the  implication  of  other  accused  is  

concerned the prosecution relied on the testimony of  PW9  

Sukhwinder  Singh  cousin  of  Satnam  Singh  before  whom  

accused Ranjit Singh is alleged to have made extra judicial  

confession.  As  rightly  held  by the High Court   Sukhwinder  

Singh  is  not  a  person  of  any  authority  to  help  the  said  

accused to get any assistance from him by confessing the  

crime  and in the absence of any corroboration, his testimony  

with regard to extra judicial confession cannot be relied on.  

The  presence  of  PW3  Shamsher  Singh  at  the  occurrence  

place  as  claimed  by  him  is  also  doubtful  on  account  of  

testimony of PW4 Surjit Singh. According to PW4 Surjit Singh  

he  reached  the  occurrence  place  and  thereafter  informed  

PW3 Shamsher Singh who was present at village Samalsar  

about the occurrence and then PW3 Shamsher Singh reached  

the place of occurrence.  Moreover in the inquest report the  

presence of Shamsher Singh is not recorded.  Therefore his  

presence at the time of occurrence is not proved.  There is  

also no  evidence to prove that the accused had entered into  

conspiracy in carrying out the act of committing murder of  

Satnam Singh.  On a proper appreciation of evidence the High

Page 16

16

Court  had given the  benefit  of  doubt  to  5  of  the  accused  

persons by acquitting them and no interference is called for.

18. In the result all the criminal appeals are dismissed.  The  

bail granted to the appellant/accused Surjit Singh in Criminal  

Appeal  no.    2328  of  2009  shall  be  cancelled  and  he  is  

directed  to surrender before the Additional  Sessions Judge,  

Ludhiana to serve out the remaining sentence, failing which  

the learned Additional  Sessions Judge is  requested to  take  

him into custody and send him to jail to serve his left over  

sentence.     

 ………………………….J.          (V.  Gopala  

Gowda)          

….………………………J.           (C. Nagappan)

New Delhi; December 17, 2014.

Page 17

17

ITEM NO.1C-For JUDGMENT    COURT NO.11               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).  2329-2331/2009

STATE OF PUNJAB                                    Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

JAGGA SINGH ETC.                                   Respondent(s)

WITH Crl.A. No. 2327/2009

Crl.A. No. 2328/2009

Date : 17/12/2014 These appeals were called on for pronouncement of  JUDGMENT today.

For Appellant(s)  Mr. V. Madhukar, AAG  Ms. Anvita Cowshish, Adv.  Mr. Mohit Nain, Adv.

                    Mr. Kuldip Singh,Adv.                                            Mr. M. P. Jha,Adv.                       For Respondent(s)                      Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra,Adv.

                    Mr. S. R. Setia,Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan pronounced the judgment  

of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda  

and His Lordship.

The  criminal  appeals  are  dismissed  in  terms  of  the  

signed  reportable  judgment.   The  bail  granted  to  the  

appellant/accused Surjit Singh in Criminal Appeal no.   2328  

of 2009 shall be cancelled and he is directed to surrender

Page 18

18

before the Additional  Sessions Judge, Ludhiana to serve out  

the remaining sentence, failing which the learned Additional  

Sessions Judge is requested to take him into custody and send  

him to jail to serve his left over sentence.

   (VINOD KR.JHA)    (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

(Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file)