Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 562-563 OF 2010

Pramod Kumar ... Appellant

Versus

State (GNCT) of Delhi        ...Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, J.

On 19.3.1999, SI Prahlad Singh along Ct. Baljit Singh went  

to  Village  Gittorni  where  Inspector  Mohd.  Iqbal,  PW-16,  had  

reached  along  with  his  staff.   After  some  time,  ACP,  Delhi  

Cantt., arrived at the spot.  On enquiry, they came to know that  

one constable of P.S. Hauz Khas, namely, Maharaj Singh, having  

suffered a gun shot injury, had been taken to the hospital.  The  

Head Constable Samar Singh narrated the occurrence to the  

effect  that  he  along  with  other  officials  had  received  

1

Page 2

information about the presence of Pramod Kumar, a proclaimed  

offender of PS Hauz Khas, was hiding in the house of Chander  

Pal and about 4.30 p.m., they reached Village Gittorni and as  

per the instruction of SI Jaswinder Singh, he and Ct. Maharaj  

Singh  went  to  the  place  to  obtain  information  about  the  

presence of Pramod Kumar and SI Jaswinder Singh waited along  

with the staff at a distance of 100 meters from the house of  

Chander Pal.   When he and Maharaj Singh reached near the  

house  of  Chander  Pal,  accused  Pramod Kumar  was  standing  

outside the room.  Maharaj Singh disclosed his identity to him  

and asked  him to  surrender,  but,  Pramod Kumar,  instead of  

surrendering, took out a knife from his shirt pocket with his left  

hand  and  tried  to  assault.   However,  immediately  he  was  

caught hold of by Maharaj Singh from the rear and both of them  

grappled with each other for some time.  The Head Constable,  

Samar  Singh,  tried  to  snatch  the  knife  from  the  hands  of  

Pramod Kumar and ultimately he was successful in snatching  

away the knife from his hands but,  at  that juncture, Pramod  

Kumar took out a desi katta and fired at Maharaj Singh and the  

bullet hit in the stomach area.  Hearing the sound, the villagers  

surrounded and assaulted Pramod Kumar.  During that time, SI  

2

Page 3

Jaswinder  Singh  came  to  the  spot  along  with  his  staff  and  

injured Maharaj Singh was taken to the hospital.  Desi katta and  

knife which were seized from the accused were given to the IO  

by Samar Singh.  As further revealed, accused Pramod Kumar  

was apprehended and five cartridges were recovered and on  

the  basis  of  the  statement  of  Samar  Singh,  an  FIR  was  

registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (for short  

“IPC”).   When  Maharaj  Singh  succumbed to  his  injuries,  the  

case was converted to one under Section 302 IPC.  The bullet  

that had hit the stomach of the deceased was kept in a sealed  

cover  and  the  same  was  sent  to  F.S.L.  Malviya  Nagar  and  

ultimately,  on  completion  of  the  investigation,  charge-sheet  

was filed in the competent court which, in turn, committed the  

matter to the Court of Session.  Be it noted, after hearing the  

accused,  charges under  Sections  186/332 and 302 IPC were  

framed and separate charges under Sections 25 and 27 of the  

Arms Act,1959 were also framed against the accused-appellant.

2. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. The  prosecution,  in  order  to  establish  its  case,  

examined 19 witnesses and got number of documents  

exhibited.   

3

Page 4

4. The accused, in his statement under Section 313 of the  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after CrPC),  

denied the entire allegations and pleaded that he was  

absolutely innocent.   It  was his further  plea that one  

person caught hold of him and pushed him and started  

assaulting him.  At that stage, he got up and grappled  

with  that  person  who  twisted  his  hand.   The  other  

person accompanying the first person gave him a kick  

and took out  some weapon and fired at  him,  but  he  

saved  himself.   The  bullet  hit  the  person  who  had  

caught hold of him and receiving the bullet injury, he  

fell down and later on, he learnt that he was Maharaj  

Singh and the person who had fired was Samar Singh.  

The neighbours, who had collected, started assaulting  

Samar  Singh.   Thereafter,  many  other  police  officials  

entered his room and beat him as a result of which his  

right  leg  was  severely  fractured  and  the  plaster  

remained  for  eight  months.   That  apart,  23  stitches  

were put on his head due to the beatings given by the  

police.  He had become unconscious on the spot after  

receiving injuries.  When he regained consciousness, he  

4

Page 5

found himself in Safdarjung Hospital.  It was his further  

plea that to save the police official  Samar Singh,  the  

investigating  agency  had  falsely  implicated  him.   He  

had also taken the plea that they had got his signatures  

on blank papers at the Police Station.  Sanjay, who was  

brought by the police, had witnessed the entire episode.  

The police deliberately did not cite any one from the  

public as witness as they gave beating to Samar Singh.  

Chander Pal was not present at his house on that day as  

he had gone out with his van.  He came to know later  

on that the house of Maharaj Singh was at a distance of  

50 yards from the place of  occurrence,  i.e.,  house of  

Chander Pal.   

5. The defence, in order to substantiate its plea, examined  

one witness, namely, Sanjay.

6. We have heard Dr. V.P. Appan, learned counsel for the  

appellant  and Mr.  R.  Nedumaran,  learned counsel  for  

the respondent.

7. Two fundamental points that have been urged before us  

are  that  apart  from  the  police  officials,  no  other  

5

Page 6

independent witness has been examined and that the  

appellant was not responsible for causing injury on the  

deceased. On the contrary, it was the Head Constable  

Samar Singh who intended to fire at the accused when  

the deceased and the accused were grappling, but the  

bullet  hit  the  deceased.   Elaborating  the  said  

contention, it is canvassed by the learned counsel that  

to hide the atrocities of the police, the case has been  

foisted, but the learned trial Judge as well as the High  

Court  failed  to  appreciate  the  same  in  proper  

perspective  which  makes  the  judgments  absolutely  

faulted.   

8. Per  contra,  the  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent  

would  contend  that  the  post  mortem report  and  the  

weapons seized would clearly show that the bullet was  

not fired from the pistol of  Samar Singh but from the  

desi  katta  which was seized from the custody of  the  

accused.  It is also contended that the plea taken under  

Section 313 CrPC is fundamentally incredible and it only  

shows a figment of fertile imagination of the accused as  

such a situation could never have occurred.

6

Page 7

9. To appreciate the aforesaid submissions, it is necessary  

to reproduce the autopsy report brought on record and  

proven by Dr. O.P. Murli, PW-3, which is as follows: -

“One lenear cresentric abrasion measuring 3 x 8  cms, 2 x 7 cms. and 1 x 3 cms with bruising in and  around.

Gun shot entry wound of 2.5 x 1 cms.  Over front  of right side abdomen 5 cms. above the embilicus  1 cm from mid line, 21 cms. from right nipple and  45 cms above right sole.  Margines were inerted  blackened and surrounding hairs showed singeing,  abdominal fact (omentum) protruded with effusion  of  blood  in  and  around  underneath  the  tissues.  Omentum and small intestine were lacerated and  showing cavitation consequent upon the fire arm  injury with full of abdominal cavity blood bruising  was also also seen in other parts of intestine.  Fire  arm exit wound of 1 x 1.5 cm. over the back side  of  right  side  abdomen  6.5  cms.  from midline  3  cms. from waist line 20 cms.  From right back bone  anble  margines  everted  and  protruded  wound  communicating with the entry and all intervention  structure  were  lacerated  and  injury  effect.   All  organs were pale.  Rest was NAD.

Clothing examination : One shirt was having a tear  of 2.5 x 2.3 cms. soaked in block showing fire arm  effect and the bullet entry had also fractured one  button and half was present.  The hole of the shirt  was  28  cms.  from lower  margine  on  right  side.  The back part of the shirt shows corresponding to  the exit wound of size 1 x 7 cms on the right lower  part 18 cms from the margine.  The direction of  wound was from front to back and slight above to  down.

The underneath banian showed tear of 1 x 7 cm  on the back front tear was cut in the casualty.

7

Page 8

Blood soaked pants and underwear

Opinion :  

Death in this case was due to haemorrhage shock  as result of gun shot injury which was sufficient to  cause death in the ordinary course of nature and  was fired from a close range showing powder and  heat effect.”

From the aforesaid report, it is quite clear that the death was  

due to bullet injury and the direction of the wound was from  

front to back and slight above to down.  We shall dwell upon  

this aspect when we deal with the said point.

10. We shall deal with the first contention first.  In the plea  

advanced under Section 313 CrPC, it has been stated by  

the accused-appellant that as the public became angry  

due to the conduct of Samar Singh, they assaulted him  

and  in  order  to  save  him,  the  investigating  agency  

chose not to cite any independent witness though many  

witnesses were present who had seen the occurrence.  

There is no denial of the fact that the occurrence had  

taken place in the house of Chander Pal who has turned  

hostile.   However,  from  his  testimony  and  other  

evidence  brought  on  record,  it  is  evident  that  the  

occurrence took place in his house.  His turning hostile  

8

Page 9

does  not  affect  the  case  of  the  prosecution.   The  

witnesses from the department of police cannot per se  

be said to be untruthful or unreliable.  It would depend  

upon the  veracity,  credibility  and unimpeachability  of  

their testimony.  This Court, after referring to State of  

U.P. v. Anil Singh1, State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v.  

Sunil and another2 and  Ramjee Rai and others  v.  

State of Bihar3,  has laid down recently in  Kashmiri  

Lal  v.  State of  Haryana4 that  there  is  no  absolute  

command of law that the police officers cannot be cited  

as  witnesses  and  their  testimony  should  always  be  

treated with suspicion.  Ordinarily,  the public at large  

show their  disinclination  to  come forward  to  become  

witnesses.  If the testimony of the police officer is found  

to be reliable and trustworthy, the court can definitely  

act upon the same.  If, in the course of scrutinising the  

evidence,  the  court  finds  the  evidence  of  the  police  1

1988 Supp SCC 686

2  (2001) 1 SCC 652

3  (2006) 13 SCC 229

4  2013 AIR SCW 3102

9

Page 10

officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may  

disbelieve  him but  it  should  not  do  so  solely  on  the  

presumption  that  a  witness  from  the  department  of  

police should be viewed with distrust.  This is also based  

on  the  principle  that  quality  of  the  evidence  weighs  

over the quantity of evidence.

11. Thus,  the  submission  that  the  whole  case  should  be  

thrown  overboard  because  of  non-examination  of  

independent  witness  and  reliance  on  the  official  

witnesses  cannot  be  accepted.   Presently,  we  shall  

proceed to deal with the veracity and acceptability of  

the testimony of the witnesses.  The learned trial Judge  

and the High Court, after x-ray of the evidence of the  

witnesses,  have come to  the  conclusion  that  Pramod  

Kumar was a proclaimed offender; that information was  

received by the competent authority that he was hiding  

in the house of Chander Pal; that a team had gone to  

apprehend him; that SI Jaswinder Singh along with other  

members of the team waited at a distance of 100 yards  

and Maharaj Singh went to the house of Chander Pal;  

that  the  accused  was  found  on  the  verandah  of  the  

10

Page 11

house and was asked to surrender but he immediately  

took out a knife from his shirt pocket; that before he  

could  inflict  a  knife  blow,  he  was  overpowered  by  

Maharaj  Singh and there  was  a  grapple  between the  

two;  and Maharaj  Singh,  receiving a bullet  injury,  fell  

down and eventually succumbed to the injuries in the  

hospital.   It  is  not in dispute that Pramod Kumar has  

received some injuries, but that would not be a ground  

for discarding the prosecution version and acceptance  

of the plea of the defence.  The evidence on record is  

required  to  be  scrutinized  and  appreciated.   The  

witnesses, namely, Baljit Singh, PW-6, Samar Singh, PW-

8, Jaswinder Singh, PW-9, Rajbir Singh, PW-11 and Md.  

Iqbal,  PW-16,  who have been examined in  support  of  

the prosecution, have stood embedded in their version.  

The witness, Samar Singh,   PW-8, has vividly described  

the  occurrence  and  the  graphic  description  has  not  

been,  in  any  manner,  dented  in  spite  of  the  roving  

cross-examination.   It  is  apt  to  note  that  despite  

searching cross-examination, none of the witnesses has  

given way to any tergiversation.  When their testimony  

11

Page 12

has  not  been  varied  from any  spectrum,  there  is  no  

reason to discard them.  Thus, the contention that there  

should  have  been  examination  of  independent  

witnesses  to  corroborate  the  evidence  of  the  police  

officials has to be treated as mercurial.  Therefore, we  

unhesitatingly repel the said submission.  

12. The next  limb of  argument  pertains  to  the nature of  

weapon that has caused the injury on the deceased and  

the circumstances and the position in which the injury  

was caused.   The first  plank of  this  argument  of  the  

learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased  

has  been  fired  at  by  Samar  Singh  from  his  service  

revolver.   On a  perusal  of  the  evidence and the  FSL  

report  relating  to  the  country-made  pistol,  Ext.  F-1,  

seized from the accused, it is manifest that the fire arm  

country-made pistol  .303 bore was designed to fire a  

standard  .303  cartridge  and  that  the  pistol  was  in  

working  order.   Its  test  fire  was  also  successfully  

conducted and the empty cartridge of .303 bore, Ext. C-

1, found in the chamber of the country-made pistol was  

the empty cartridge fired from the country made pistol.  

12

Page 13

Therefore,  to  say  that  no  shot  was  fired  from  the  

country-made  pistol  is  belied  and  the  prosecution  

version that it was the country-made pistol which was  

fired  by  the  accused  that  caused  injuries  to  the  

deceased deserves acceptance.   

13. The second plank of this limb of proponement is that  

the  accused-appellant  could  not  have  fired  at  the  

stomach region of the deceased.  From the post-mortem  

report, it is clear that the bullet injury was from front to  

back.   It is not in dispute that the deceased and the  

accused  were  grappling.    The  version  of  the  

prosecution in that all of a sudden, the accused brought  

out his desi katta and fired from a close range.  This has  

been  clearly  established  by  the  evidence.   Learned  

counsel would submit that while grappling the position  

changed and the bullet fired from the service revolver  

of  Samar  Singh hit  the deceased.   In  our  considered  

opinion,  such  a  submission  cannot  be  given  any  

acceptance  as  the  desi  katta  was  seized  from  the  

accused and the weapon, as opined in the FSL report, is  

the desi katta and further there is no material to prove  

13

Page 14

that  gun  shot  was  fired  from  the  weapon  of  Samar  

Singh.  Thus, from the aforesaid, it is clear as crystal  

that  the  shot  was fired from the country-made pistol  

seized  from  the  custody  of  the  accused-appellant.  

Hence,  the  plea that  there  was  a  gun shot  from the  

revolver  of  Samar  Singh  while  the  accused-appellant  

was  grappling  with  the  deceased  being  absolutely  

mercurial in nature is rejected.   

14. In view of the aforesaid premised reasons, the appeals,  

being sans substance, stand dismissed.

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

..............................................J.  [Dipak Misra]

New Delhi; July 01, 2013

14