VEER SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P.
Bench: SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,C. NAGAPPAN
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000256-000257 / 2009
Diary number: 1082 / 2008
Advocates: S. K. VERMA Vs
ABHISTH KUMAR
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).256-257 OF 2009
Veer Singh & Ors. .. Appellant(s)
versus
State of U.P. .. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
C. NAGAPPAN, J.
1. These two appeals are preferred against the common
judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in
Criminal Appeal No.749 of 1996 and Criminal Appeal
No.761 of 1996 dated 1.10.2007.
Page 2
2. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 749 of 1996 are
accused Nos. 1 to 4 and the appellant in Criminal
Appeal No.761 of 1996 is the accused No.5, in the
Sessions Case No.72 of 1985, on the file of Third
Additional Sessions Judge, Muzafarnagar, and they were
tried along with three other accused for the alleged
offences under Sections 147,148, 307 read with Section
302 read with Section 149 and Section 452 of Indian
Penal Code. Sessions Court found accused Nos. 6 to 8
not guilty of the charges and acquitted them and at the
same time convicted accused Nos.1 to 5 for the charge
under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and
sentenced them to death, subject to confirmation by
the High Court; convicted them for the offences under
Section 307 read with Section 149 of IPC and sentenced
them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
5 years; convicted them for the offence under Section
452 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 4 years, and had also
convicted Veer Singh, A-1, Takal Singh A-2 and Balkar
Page 3
3
Singh A-5, for the offence under Section 148 IPC and
sentenced them to undergo RI for a period of 2 years
and had convicted Amrik Singh, A-3 and Kamir Singh,
A-4, for the offence under Section 147 IPC and
sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of one year.
3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence accused No.1
to 5 preferred appeals being Criminal Appeal No.749 of
1996 and Criminal Appeal No. 761of 1996 and a
Reference regarding death penalty was also made to
the High Court. Besides the State also preferred an
appeal being Appeal No.1341 of 1996, challenging the
acquittal of accused Nos.6 to 8. The Appeals and
Reference were heard together and the High Court by
its common judgment dated 4.12.1997 allowed the
Criminal Appeals filed by accused Nos.1 to 5 and
rejected the Reference and acquitted them of all the
Page 4
charges. It also dismissed the Criminal Appeal
preferred by the State.
4. Challenging the said judgment the State of U.P.
preferred Civil Appeal Nos.727 – 729 of 1998 and this
Court allowed the appeals and remitted the matter to
the High Court for fresh hearing. Thereafter, the High
Court by common judgment dated 1.10.2007
commuted death sentence recorded against the --
accused Nos.1 to 5 to one of life imprisonment and
upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the
Sessions Court against them for all the charges by
dismissing the appeals in Criminal Appeal No.749 of
1996 and Criminal Appeal No.761 of 1996. It also
dismissed the State appeal preferred challenging the
acquittal of accused Nos. 6 to 8. Aggrieved by the
conviction and sentence accused Nos. 1 to 5 have
preferred the present appeals.
Page 5
5
5. The prosecution case as it discerned from the records is
briefly, as follows :
Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh were residents of village
Dongpura, whereas Gurdip Singh was resident of adjacent village
Varnau. On 13/14.7.1984, at about midnight Gurdip Singh heard
firing and cries from the houses of Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh
and armed with his licensed gun he along with Jassa Singh and
Hazoor Singh moved towards the house of Shisha Singh. In the
moonlight and the light of the torch he saw Kartar Singh and his
son Mahender Singh standing on the roof top of the house of
Shisha Singh holding gun and country made -pistol and Kartar
Singh was shouting aloud to his sons Mahendra Singh, Lakkha
Singh, Ginder Singh and Sinder Singh to eliminate the whole
family of Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh and that none should
escape away. They fired several gun shots and Gurdip Singh
withdrew himself back and at that time Harbans Kaur wife of
Shisha Singh escaped from the house with injuries and came and
told him that Kartar Singh and his four sons accompanied by all
the four sons of Sampuran Singh and Balkar Singh had killed all
the family members of Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh and sought
Page 6
help from him. Harbans Kaur was taken to a safer place and
thereafter Gurdip Singh along with Jaswant Singh went to the
Jhinjhana Police Station and gave an oral complaint which was
reduced to writing by PW14 Head-Mouri and First Information
Report came to be registered at about 4.15 a.m. on 14.7.1984.
The police party rushed to the place of occurrence and S.J. Mohd.
Akhtar, S.O., Jhinjhana Police Station, took up the investigation
and sent the injured to the hospital. He seized material objects
from the place of occurrence and conducted inquest on the dead
bodies and -prepared inquest reports and sent the bodies for
post-mortem examination.
6. PW 6 Dr. N.K. Sharma examined Harbans Kaur at 6.30
a.m. on 14.7.1984 in the Civil Hospital Shamli and found
following injuries:
“i) Lacerated wound measuring 11 cms x 1.5 cms x bone deep slanting on the left side of head 6.5 cms above from the left ear. Wound had been bleeding.
ii) Lacerated wound measuring 1.2 cms x 0.5 cm x bone deep on the left ear, bleeding.
Page 7
7
iii) Bluish mark in red colour in the area of 7 cms x 1 cms on the left cheek in between the injury No.2 and 4
iv) Lacerated would measuring 3 cms x 0.7 cms x across through the right cheek. Lacerated wound measuring 3 cms x 0.3 cms x bone deep on the portion of jaw opposite to it.
v) Red bluish marks in the area of 28 cms x 1.5 cms on the third upper portion of back on both side of the backbone.
vi) Many lacerated wounds in the area of 37 cms x 28 cms of chest and abdomen on the frontal portion, out of these the large wound was measured as 3 cms -
x 0.7 cm x depth was not measured and the smallest wound was measuring 0.2 cms x o.2 cm x muscle deep. Some article like hard pellet felt in the injury. Blackening was present nearby the injury.
vii) Lacerated wound measuring 1 cm x 0.7 cm x muscle deep, nearby to it, skin has peeled towards the inner side of the left thigh.
viii) Abrasion in the area of 5 cms x 1.5 cm on the frontal portion and left side of the left knee.”
Page 8
The Doctor opined that injury No.1 could have been caused by
sharp-edged weapon while injury no.6 could have been caused by
a fire arm.
7. Dr. N.K. Taneja (PW 1), Dr. R.K. Vats (PW 2), Dr. B.K.
Mishra (PW 3), Dr. Suresh Chand (PW 10), Dr. R.S.
Kasana (PW 11) and Dr. D.C. Mohar(PW 12) conducted
autopsy on thebodies of 12 victims. They opined that
the death occurred to all the victims due to shock of
hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. Exh. 1
to 6 and 9 to 14 are the post-mortem certificates issued
by the Doctors.
8. During the investigation the Investigating Officer
arrested the accused and on the information furnished
by them made recoveries of the weapons and other
material objects under Mahazar (Fard). After completing
investigation he filed charge-sheet against all the
accused totaling 13. One of the accused died and the
Page 9
9
Sessions Court framed charges against the accused
persons and during the trial the prosecution examined
18 witnesses and marked 93 Exhibits. During trial four
accused absconded. The Sessions Court examined
accused Nos.1 to 8 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All of
them denied the testimony of the prosecution witnesses
and stated that they have been falsely implicated due
to enmity. The Sessions Court convicted accused Nos. 1
to 5 for the charges as indicated above and acquitted
accused Nos. 6 to 8. On appeal the High Court
acquitted all the accused and on further appeal by the
State this Court remitted the matter back to the High
Court for reconsideration. Thereafter the High Court
has passed the impugned judgment. Aggrieved by the
conviction and sentence of the High Court accused
Nos.1 to 5 have preferred these appeals.
9. Mr. R.S.Sodhi, learned senior counsel for the appellants
submitted that Harbans Kaur is the sole eye-witness to
Page 10
the occurrence and in her earlier statement before the
Magistrate within a few hours of the occurrence, she
has told that Surender Singh has fired gun shots at her
and Surender, Mahender, Jinder who are sons of Kartar
Singh were involved and thereafter in her statement
given before the I.O. in addition to the above said
accused persons she named the appellants/accused
Nos.1 to 5 amongst the assailants and, therefore, her
testimony is not reliable, and lot of material
improvements were introduced and there is no motive
attributable to the present appellants and it’s a
midnight occurrence and in the absence of effective
source of light it is doubtful as to whether the witness
could have recognized the assailants and the appellants
have been falsely implicated in the case.
10. Per contra Mr. Ratnakar Das, Senior Advocate appearing
for the respondent contended that Harbans Kaur was
seriously injured in the occurrence and only one
question was asked by the Magistrate as to who caused
Page 11
11
injury to her and in her reply -she named Surender
Singh and the other sons of Kartar Singh and it related
to a part of occurrence so far as the injured is
concerned and did not in any way relate to rest of the
occurrence and after gaining full consciousness in her
statement given before the Investigation Officer she
has narrated the entire occurrence and the names of all
the accused, and in the FIR which came into being
immediately after the occurrence based on the
complaint given by Sardar Gurdip Singh, the names of
all the accused persons are found mentioned and there
was also motive for the occurrence.
11. Harbans Kaur is the wife of Shisha Singh and the
dwelling house of Mohar Singh was adjacent to her
house. PW 4 Harbans Kaur in her testimony has stated
that on the fateful night she along with her sons
Joginder Singh and Jassa Singh and her daughter Rano,
Joginder’s wife Bhajan Kaur and her three children
Bagga Singh, Phulvender and Gurmit Singh were
Page 12
sleeping in her house and her husband was sleeping in
the tubewell and a lantern was burning in the house
and on hearing the barking of dogs they woke-up and
saw group of people at the -gate including Kartar Singh
and his four sons namely Mahendra Singh, Lakkha
Singh, Ginder Singh and Sindar Singh and they were
carrying gun, country made pistol, axe and spade. She
also noticed among them the four sons of Sampuran
Singh namely appellants Veer Singh, Tahal Singh,
Amreek Singh and Kamir Singh along with Balkar
Singh armed with weapons and lathi in the assembly,
and out of fear she and her family members went into
a room and bolted the door from inside. Kartar Singh
and Mahender Singh climbed up the roof and started
demolishing the roof and threw burning wood from the
roof. Kartar Singh was shouting aloud to his sons to
finish off all the members of family of Shisha Singh and
Mohar Singh and not to allow anybody to escape alive.
It is her further testimony that when she and the other
family members tried to escape, accused Kartar Singh,
Page 13
13
Mahender Singh, Balkar Singh and Amreek Singh let
loose killing spree and initially killed her daughter Rano,
her daughter-in-law Bhajan Kaur, her sons Kulvendra
and Gurpreet Singh and they fired gun-shots on her
which struck on her chest and accused Sinder attacked
her with an axe on her hand and mouth and her sons
Jassa Singh and Joginder Singh were killed outside their
-house when they tried to run away. She heard cries
emanating from the house of Mohar Singh and five
persons of their family were also killed and she ran to
the field of paddy hiding herself where she met Gurdip
Singh, Hazoor Singh and Jaswant Singh and narrated
the occurrence to them and sought their help to lodge
the complaint and Gurdip Singh along with Jaswant
Singh proceeded to the Police Station. She has further
testified that she asked Hazoor Singh to go to the
tubewell and inform her husband about the occurrence.
Hazoor Singh came back and told her that Shisha Singh
and Mohar Singh were also hacked to death.
Page 14
12. From the above testimony it becomes evident that PW
4 Harbans Kaur has witnessed the occurrence and also
sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the
occurrence in the morning itself Harbans Kaur was
admitted in the hospital for treatment and information
was sent to Magistrate for recording her dying
declaration. In the hospital she was examined by PW 6
Dr. N.K. Sharma and he noticed 8 injuries on her body
and he has expressed opinion that the lacerated
wounds could have -been caused by sharp-edged
weapons and injury No.6 could have been caused by
firearm. The injuries sustained by her were serious in
nature. The SDM Shamli reached the hospital at 12.45
p.m. and recorded her statement in question-answer
form and only one question was asked as to how she
sustained the injuries and she told that she was shot by
Surender Singh in the presence of other sons of Kartar
Singh. In other words the reply pertained only to that
part of the occurrence in which she was injured and not
the entire occurrence. In fact PW 4 Harbans Kaur in her
Page 15
15
testimony before the Court has clearly stated as to why
she has given a limited answer to the Magistrate.
Further it is not a dying declaration since she survived
and it is only a statement under Section 164 of the
Cr.P.C. which can be used under Section 157 of the
Evidence Act for the purpose of corroboration and under
Section 155 of the Act for the purpose of contradiction.
This statement did not relate to the entire occurrence.
It must be borne in mind that she had witnessed the
brutal murder of all her family members by the
appellants and other accused during the occurrence
and when she was in a state of shock in the hospital she
had given answer to the -question put by the
Magistrate. After regaining her health when she was
examined by the Investigation Officer, she has stated
the entire occurrence naming the assailants and the
attack made by them with weapons.
Page 16
13. There is intrinsic evidence available on record which
lends credence to her testimony. The occurrence took
place in the midnight and the complaint was lodged in
Jhinjhana Police Station at 4.15 a.m. on 14.7.1984
without any loss of time. The complainant Gurdip Singh
was also murdered before the trial. In the complaint
Gurdip Singh has stated that during midnight on the
occurrence day he heard loud noise and screaming
from the house of Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh. He
took up his licensed gun and moved towards the house
of Shisha Singh with Jassa Singh and Hajoor Singh and
saw in the moon lit night and also in the light shed by
the torch, Kartar Singh and his son Mahender Singh
standing on the roof of Shisha Singh’s house and Kartar
Singh loudly directed his sons to wipe off all the family
members of Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh and when
he and his fellows challenged, all of a sudden the
assailants opened -fire on them and he stepped back
and it was at that time injured Harbans Kaur who
escaped from the occurrence place met him and told
Page 17
17
him that Kartar Singh and his sons along with other
accused have killed all the members of her family and
also the family of Mohar Singh, and pleaded for help
and to inform the police. After providing her safety he
went to the Police Station and gave oral complaint
which was reduced to writing and he appended his
signature on it.
14. The Head-Mouri of the Police Station Shri Inder Pal
Sharma, PW14 has recorded the oral complaint of
Gurdip Singh and registered the FIR, Exh.Ka-18. The
extract of G.D. is Exh.Ka-19. The names of assailants
including the names of the present appellants are found
mentioned in the complaint lodged by Gurdip Singh. It
is also relevant to point out that no enmity is
attributed to Gurdip Singh against the assailants and
there is no reason for him to falsely implicate the
appellants in the case.
Page 18
15. Hazoor Singh has been examined as PW 5 and in his
examination-in-chief he has stated that on the
occurrence night he heard the noise of firing coupled
with screaming cries from the house of Shisha Singh
and Mohar Singh and he went to the house of Jassa
Singh and both of them went to the house of Gurdip
Singh who accompanied them by taking gun and torch
and when they went near the house of Shisha Singh
they saw several men and he could not identify any of
them and Harbans Kaur met them there and told them
that Kartar Singh and other assailants have attacked
them. At this point of time he was declared hostile by
the prosecution and in the cross-examination he stated
that Gurdip Singh had lodged the complaint about the
occurrence in the Police Station and when Harbans Kaur
narrated the occurrence, he was also present at the
place and on the request of Harbans Kaur he went to
the tubewell and found Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh
lying dead and he informed Harbans Kaur about the
same and she became unconscious. It is settled law
Page 19
19
that the testimony of the hostile witness need not be
discarded in toto and that portion of testimony in the
chief-examination which supports the prosecution case
can be taken for consideration. In the present case, in
the examination-in-chief itself PW 5 Hazoor Singh has
admitted about his going to -the place of occurrence
along with Gurdip Singh and Jaswant Singh on hearing
the noise of firing and cries emanating from the house
of Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh and the narration of
the occurrence by Harbans Kaur to them which led to
lodging of the complaint. The above testimony of PW 5
lends credence to the testimony of PW 4.
16. The Investigation Officer PW 18 S.J. Mohd. Akhtar,
after taking up the investigation went to the occurrence
place and seized blood-stained materials and also went
to the roof of the house of Shisha Singh and took brick
from the damaged roof and also ashes from the room,
which have been marked as Exh. Ka 40 and 41,
Page 20
respectively. This also lends credence to the testimony
of PW 4 Harbans Kaur that the assailants damaged the
roof and threw burning wood inside the room during the
occurrence.
17. Legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and
quality of evidence rather than on quantity multiplicity
or plurality of witnesses. It is not the number of
witnesses but -quality of their evidence which is
important as there is no requirement under the Law of
Evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to
be examined to prove/disprove a fact. Evidence must
be weighed and not counted. It is quality and not
quantity which determines the adequacy of evidence as
has been provided under Section 134 of the Evidence
Act. As a general rule the Court can and may act on the
testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly
reliable. (Vide: Vadivelu Thevar and Anr. vs. State of
Madras AIR 1957 SC 614; Kunju @ Balachandran vs.
State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2008 SC 1381; Bipin Kumar
Page 21
21
Mondal vs. State of West Bengal AIR 2010 SC 3638;
Mahesh and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
(2011) 9 SCC 626; Prithipal Singh and ors. vs. State
of Punjab and anr. (2012) 1 SCC 10; Kishan Chand
vs. State of Haryana JT 2013 (1) SC 222 and Gulam
Sarbar vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) - 2013
(12) SCALE 504).
18. In the present case we are left with the sole testimony
of injured eye-witness PW4 Harbans Kaur. She has lost
all the members of her family in the attack during the
occurrence. -There is no reason for her to falsely
implicate any of the accused in the case. On the
contrary she would only point out the correct assailants
who are responsible for killing her family members. We
are of the considered view that the testimony of PW4
Harbans Kaur is cogent, credible and trustworthy and
has a ring of truth and deserves acceptance. All the 12
victims of the occurrence died of homicidal violence is
established by the oral testimony of the doctors who
Page 22
conducted autopsies on their bodies and the certificates
issued by them to that effect.
19. There was also motive for the occurrence. It is the
testimony of the PW4 Harbans Kaur that her husband
lent a sum of Rs.8000/- to Mahender Singh son of
Kartar Singh 8 years prior to the occurrence and he was
avoiding to pay back which created bitterness. Besides
the above, it is also indicated in her testimony that
Mahender Singh suspected that family members of
Harbans Kaur had tipped the police about the activities
of Mahender Singh which led to his arrest twice by the
Jhinjhana and Kairana Police. It is her further testimony
that Mohar Singh has also lent some money to
Mahender Singh and this testimony -also finds support
from the evidence of PW 9 Mukhtiyar Singh son of
Mohar Singh to the effect that Lakka Singh had taken
Rs.1600/- from Mohar Singh about 5 years prior to
occurrence which he had declined to pay despite
Page 23
23
repeated demands. Both the above witnesses namely
PW4 Harbans Kaur and PW9 Mukhtiyar Singh have
testified that Mahendro sister of Mahender Singh had
developed illicit intimacy with Avtar Singh @ Pappu son
of Mohar Singh and had once outraged her modesty
which led to convening of a Panchayat and decision
thereof. Enraged by this Mahender Singh wanted to
take revenge and that has resulted in the occurrence.
In this context it is relevant to point out that the
appellants in their answers to the questions put to them
during proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C.in the trial
have alleged that they have been falsely implicated in
the case on account of enmity.
20. From the evidence on record we are inclined to hold
that appellants along with other accused armed with
weapons had committed trespass into the dwelling
houses of Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh during mid-
night with a view to commit murder of -the family
Page 24
members of Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh and carried
out the same. The High Court has rightly sustained the
conviction on the appellants and the sentence awarded
to them are also proper.
21. We find no merit in the appeals and the same are
dismissed.
…………….. ………………………….J.
(Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya)
…………….……………………………J. (C. Nagappan)
New Delhi; December 10 , 2013.