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.