Page 1 Page 1 of 34

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1110 OF 2009

Bakhshish Singh …. Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab & Anr. ….

Respondents

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1112 OF 2009

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1111 OF 2009

JUDGMENT

S. A. BOBDE, J.

1.By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of

these appeals as they arise out of the same incident

and involve common questions of law and facts.

2.These appeals are directed against the judgment and

order dated 17.07.2008 passed by the High Court of

Page 2 Punjab and Haryana at -Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal

No. 334-DB of 2007 whereby the High Court affirmed

conviction of the appellants as held by the Addl.

Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, Punjab by convicting and

sentencing accused – Bakhshish Singh - appellant in

Appeal No. 1110 of 2009, Satbir Singh - appellant in

Appeal No. 1111 of 2009 and Rachhpal Singh -

appellant in Appeal No. 1112 of 2009 for imprisonment

life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

[for short ‘IPC’] and fine in F.I.R. No. 271 dated June

21, 2003.

3.The charge was that Bakhshish Singh conspired with

Satbir Singh and Rachhpal Singh to murder Gurcharan

Singh. Bakhshish Singh was found guilty by the Addl.

Sessions Judge, Rupnagar and sentenced to

imprisonment for life for offences punishable under

Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the IPC. A fine

of Rs. 5,000/- was also imposed upon him. In default

of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further

rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

Other appellants Satbir Singh and Rachhpal Singh were

found guilty for offences punishable under Section 302

Page 3 Page 3 of 34

and Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the IPC.

Under Section 302 of the IPC, they were sentenced to

imprisonment for life. A fine of Rs. 1,000/- each was

also imposed upon them and in default of payment of

fine; they were further directed to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of one month. Under

Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the IPC they

were sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of

Rs. 1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they

were further directed to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of one month. However, it

was made clear that all sentences shall run

concurrently.

4.According to the prosecution, on June 21, 2003 at

about 5.30 am, Gurcharan Singh went to the park

adjoining his house for a morning walk. Soon

thereafter his wife – Kulwinder Kaur, PW 1, joined him.

She was 20/25 steps behind her husband. When

Gurcharan Singh reached near the main gate of the

park, two tall young men attacked Gurcharan Singh

with daggers. They inflicted injuries on his chest and

neck. He cried for help. His wife - Kulwinder Kaur also

Page 4 cried for help. The two men stabbed Gurcharan Singh

barbarically and fled the scene. The said assailants are

appellants - Satbir Singh and Rachhpal Singh.

5.Hardev Singh, PW-2, a neighbourer of Gurcharan Singh

heard the cry of Kulwinder Kaur, PW 1, and reached the

spot and arranged a vehicle and removed Gurcharan

Singh to the Fortis Hospital at Mohali. The doctors who

examined him at the hospital declared him dead.

6.At the Fortis Hospital, Gurcharan Singh was attended

by PW-7 - Dr. Kamaljit Chachal and PW-8 - Dr. Sanjay

Ahulwalia. They noticed multiple stab injuries on the

dead body of Gurcharan Singh. They -confirmed his

death as having been occurred at 6.00 am on June 21,

2003. The cause of death was given as multiple stab

injuries.

7.On receipt of intimation, sub-inspector Ramandeep

Singh (P.W. 21) reached the Fortis Hospital and

recorded statement of Kulwinder Kaur (PW 1). He

made his endorsement over it and sent it to the Police

Station, Mohali. The complainant, Kulwinder Kaur, PW

1, apart from reporting the incident to sub-inspector

Page 5 Page 5 of 34

Ramandeep Singh (P.W. 21) asserted that she could

identify the assailants on seeing them. Sub-inspector

Ramandeep Singh (P.W. 21) recorded statements of the

witnesses and sent the dead body of Gurcharan Singh

to the Civil Hospital, Mohali, for post mortem

examination.

8.Thereafter, sub-inspector Ramandeep Singh (P.W. 21)

accompanied by Kulwinder Kaur, PW 1, went to the

place of occurrence and inspected the spot. He

collected blood-stained earth from there and took into

his possession two buttons lying nearby. He also took

into his possession blood-stained dagger (Exhibit P.2)

from the hedge of the park and some leaves from the

nearby hedge which were blood-stained. Alongside the

hedge, there was a barbed wire and a piece of cloth

was found entangled therein. That piece of cloth

appeared to be a part of the pocket of a shirt of a man.

It was blood stained and was taken into possession.

Since Kulwinder Kaur, PW 1, expressed her suspicion

regarding the involvement of the Bakhshish -Singh,

sub-inspector Ramandeep Singh (P.W. 21), raided his

house. It was found, that he was away to Pakistan.

Page 6 9.The post mortem examination revealed as many as 17

wounds on the chest and neck of the deceased

Gurcharan Singh. Dr. Navneet Kaur (PW 8) conducted

post mortem examination on the dead body of

Gurcharan Singh at Civil Hospital, Mohali. Later, the

Doctor at the request of the police gave her opinion

that the injuries were inflicted by a sharp edged

weapon.

10. On June 22, 2003, sub-Inspector Ramandeep

Singh (PW 21) sent a notice under Section 160 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter referred to as

‘the Code”] to Bakhshish Singh. The said notice was

served upon Bakhshish Singh at the Wagha Border,

immediately on his entering India from Pakistan. Sub-

inspector Ramandeep Singh made inquiries from him

and asked him to meet on the next day. However, he

did not turn up.

11. Since there was no clue regarding the assailants,

a notice was published in the newspaper of the area on

June 22, 2003 calling upon public in general to disclose

if they had any clue about the incident. Upon reading

Page 7 Page 7 of 34

the said notice, Narinder Banwait (PW 19) met sub-

inspector Ramandeep Singh (P.W. 21) on June 23,

2003. He disclosed that on the material day, when he

came near the hedge of the park in -question, he saw

two young men running towards Phase XI, Mohali in

suspicious circumstances. One of them had a cut mark

on his arm; both of them had blood stains on their

clothes; one of them was having a blood stained

dagger type knife in his hand; both of them jumped

the hedge of the park and went away on a Bajaj

Chetak Scooter bearing registration No. CH-01-D-4465,

which was parked near the road outside the park. The

police eventually found that said scooter was registered

in the name of one Rakesh Kumar (PW -5), who stated

that he had sold the same to accused/appellant Satbir

Singh through Sirikant Bhandari (PW -3), who was

doing the business of sale-purchase of vehicles. The

sale of scooter to Satbir Singh was made against the

payment receipt (Exhibit P.W. 4/B) and delivery receipt

(Exhibit P.W. 4/C), which carried signatures of Satbir

Singh.

Page 8 12. According to the prosecution on July 03, 2003 a

call was received by Deputy Superintendent of Police –

Daljit Singh (PW 20) from Amar Singh (PW 13), to the

effect that appellants Satbir Singh and Rachhpal Singh

were present at his house with him and that they had

on June 21, 2003 murdered Gurcharan Singh at the

instance of Bakhshish Singh and that he had requested

them to surrender before the police as the police was

looking for them. These two appellants were formally

arrested by sub-inspector Ramandeep Singh (P.W. 21)

on July 03, 2003.

13. Appellant/accused - Bakhshish Singh was also

arrested on July 03, 2003, from the Bus Stand at Ropar

after sub-inspector Ramandeep Singh received

information that he was there.

14. On July 04, 2003, sub-inspector Ramandeep

Singh (P.W. 21) produced all the accused before the

Ilaqa Magistrate. Satbir Singh and Rachhpal Singh

applied before the Ilaqa Magistrate that they are not

willing to their identification parade. Hence the Ilaka

Page 9 Page 9 of 34

Magistrate did not hold their identification parade and

passed the order dated July 04, 2003 in this regard.

15. On July 05, 2003, Rachhpal Singh made a

disclosure statement to the effect that he had

concealed blood-stained dagger used by him in the

crime and his blood-stained clothes near the under-

construction Railway Bridge in the area of Village

Chilla. In consequence of disclosure statement, the

police party led to said Railway Bridge and recovered a

blood-stained dagger (Exhibit P.W. 19/D) and a blood-

stained shirt (Exhibit P.W. 19/G) and trouser (Exhibit

P.W. 19/F) from the disclosed place. These articles

were found wrapped in a polythene bag and kept

beneath the earth. These articles were taken into

possession vide seizure memo (Exhibit P.W. 19/E),

attested by Narinder Banwait (PW 19) and Assistant

sub-Inspector Iqbal Singh.

16. Accused - Satbir Singh also made a disclosure

statement, as a consequence of which, a Bajaj Chetak

scooter bearing registration No. CH-01-D-4465 and a

blood-stained shirt (Exhibit P.W. 19/L), which was lying

Page 10 in the bushes near the drain beside the road that

connects Papri and Manauli were recovered. His driving

licence and visiting cards from the boot of the scooter

were also recovered. These articles along with scooter

were taken into possession vide seizure memo Exhibit

P.W. 19/H.

17. The blood-stained earth and dagger recovered

from the place of occurrence were sent to the Forensic

Science Laboratory. Upon perusing the report of the

Forensic Science Laboratory it was found that the

dagger and the earth were stained with human blood.

The dagger and the clothes recovered at the instance

of Rachhpal Singh were also found to be blood-stained

with human blood, vide report Exhibit P.A/4.

18. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as

21 witnesses. After completion of the prosecution

evidence, statements of the accused were recorded

under Section 313 of the Code. Appellants/accused

pleaded their innocence.

19. The case of Satbir Singh and Rachhpal Singh,

who had assailed Gurcharan Singh, can be taken up

Page 11 Page 11 of 34

separately from that of accused Bakhshish Singh, who

is said to be the mastermind of the crime. Satbir

Singh is a nephew of Bakhshish Singh. Rachhpal Singh

is an accomplice of Satbir Singh having no apparent

connection with Bakhshish Singh. The Trial Court and

High Court have rendered a clear finding that these

two killed Gurcharan Singh in the park. The courts

below have rendered a finding on the basis of recovery

and on the evidence of Kulwinder Kaur, PW 1, who was

an eye witness. Kulwinder Kaur, PW 1, in her

deposition has stated that when she was walking about

20/25 steps behind her husband, two boys “ clean

shaven with trimmed beard” came from the main gate

and assaulted her husband with a dagger. They were

about 26/27 years old. She raised an alarm “Bachao-

Bachao”. The said two boys jumped over the hedge

and ran away. In court, she stated that the said two

boys are present in court and she can identify them as

they are the same persons who stabbed her husband.

She stated that motive may be the result of a

conspiracy entered by Bakhshish Singh along with his

wife – Hardev Kaur to get the Chairman Ship of the

Page 12 “Khandi Friends Educational Trust ” of which

Gurcharan Singh was the Chairman.

20. We may now turn to the statements of the sole

eye-witness of the assault, Kulwinder Kaur, PW 1, the

wife of the deceased. She has described the incident

with sufficient clarity. She stated that she used to

accompany her husband for the morning walk. On the

material day, she started little later than him but

followed him to the park. Later, when she was about

20/25 steps behind his husband two boys came inside

the park from the main gate and assaulted his

husband. Both the said boys were with trimmed

beard. Her actual description is “clean shaven with a

trimmed beard”. It must be understood to mean as

conveying persons without a full grown beard. She

and her husband raised an alarm “ Bachao-Bachao”.

She remembers that the dagger was lying there. She

has unequivocally identified the said boys, who were

present in the court as Satbir Singh and the other as

his friend. As regards her identification of Satbir

Singh, it was argued that she was confused. The

reason behind it might be that when she had identified

Page 13 Page 13 of 34

him in a photograph he was having full grown beard.

According to the learned counsel for the appellants, her

description of Satbir Singh was that he had a trimmed

beard but in the court when he was identified by

Kulwinder Kaur, PW 1; he did not have a trimmed

beard but had a full grown beard. This contention

must be rejected since it would appear quite natural for

a person when he is about to commit a crime to

change his appearance by shaving his beard. Also,

there is nothing improbable for a wife whose husband

is attacked to have carefully noticed the face of the

assailant and thereafter to identify the same person

even if his beard has grown back and also to -identify

that person from photograph. We may mention that

Satbir Singh is said to be employed by the “Institute

of Engineering and Technology, Bhaddal ” run by

the trust known as “Khandi Friends Educational

Trust”, whose founder Chairman was Gurcharan Singh

(deceased) and the witness used to see him on several

occasions. We also see no reason to disbelieve her

identification of Rachhpal Singh, who was also seen

from close quarters by her when he assaulted her

husband.

Page 14 21. Narinder Banwait (PW 19), who had informed the

police, after reading the public appeal for clues, stated

in his evidence that he had gone to that park for a

morning walk on 21

st

June, 2003. When he was

outside the park, he saw two young men running

towards Phase-XI Mohali, in suspicious circumstances.

One of them was 32/33 years and the other was of the

age of 28 years. One of them was having a cut-mark

on his arm. Their clothes were stained with blood.

One of them had a dagger/knife in his hand, which was

also blood stained. They jumped the bushes in his

presence and fled away on a Bajaj Chetak scooter

bearing registration No. CH-01-D-4465, which was

parked near the road. He identified them in the court.

He stated that he read a public notice in the newspaper

issued by S.P. Police requesting the public for any clue

for the murder of Gurcharan Singh and then he

approached the police and got his statement recorded

by the police. He further stated that he signed the

disclosure statement of Satbir Singh and went to the

place of occurrence as disclosed by the accused along

with the police. He also deposed to the disclosure

Page 15 Page 15 of 34

made by Rachhpal Singh and the recovery of one

dagger and blood stained clothes. He identified the

items recovered in the court. He then deposed to the

recovery of Bajaj Chetek Scooter bearing registration

No. CH-01-D-4465 of blue colour. He also deposed

that Satbir Singh led the police party to the disclosed

place and got recovery of a driving licence, the sale

letter regarding the purchase of the scooter and one

visiting card of some Hotel from the dickey of the

scooter along with one blood-stained shirt, which was

torn from the left side. He identified scooter and other

articles also. He, however, stated that both the

accused were saying that “ Kanda Kad Ditta Hai of

Chairman and Chacha is not present in India and they

should go to Chachi to take the money ”. At this

juncture, we may note one of the submissions made by

Mr. H.S. Phoolka, learned senior counsel, appearing for

Bakhshish Singh – appellant/accused in Criminal

Appeal No. 1110/2009 that in his statement with the

police, this witness has got recorded his name as

Maninder Banwait and later in the court as Narinder

Banwait. This is undoubtedly so, but we do not

consider this discrepancy significant since it does not

Page 16 cast any suspicion on the identity of the witness and

his presence at the spot, particularly in view of his

explanation.

22. Several contradictions occurring in the

depositions of this witness and in his statement to the

police have been referred to by Mr. H.S. Phoolka,

learned senior counsel. It was pointed out that he

stated that he had been taken to the police station,

whereas the investigating officer denied that this

witness was taken to the police station. According to

the learned counsel for the appellants, Narinder

Banwait (PW 19) has stated in his deposition that he

stayed in the police station for 15/20 minutes, after the

occurrence i.e. when he had gone to lodge his report

with the police. Whereas the investigating officer had

stated that on June 23, 2003, Narinder Banwait (PW

19), stayed with him for 1 ½ hours and he did not

produce Narinder Banwait (PW 19) before any of his

senior officers in the police station on that day. It was

submitted that it was a major contradiction. Having

gone through the evidence, we find that the statement

of the said witness is that he had been to the police

Page 17 Page 17 of 34

station once, but due to the lapse of the time, he

cannot remember the date and time. Thereafter, he

stated that on a subsequent visit to the police station

he stayed there for 15/20 minutes. Apart from the fact

that the alleged contradiction is not regarding June 23,

2003 visit but about a subsequent visit, we do not

consider this contradiction significant enough to affect

the credibility of this witness which is otherwise

corroborated. He further submitted that Narinder

Banwait (PW 19) -has falsely stated that these two

accused while running away stated that “ Kanda Kad

Ditta Hai of Chairman and Chacha is not present in

India and they should go to Chachi to take the money”.

According to the learned senior counsel this witness is

trying to rope in Bakhshish Singh in a conspiracy, who

is not guilty because he was in Pakistan on the date of

incident. However, on going through the evidence on

record, we do not find that these contradictions have

shaken the credibility of the witness in regard to his

presence on the spot outside the park or that he saw

the accused running away. These facts have been

amply corroborated by the evidence of Kulwinder Kaur,

PW 1 and the recoveries effected by the disclosure

Page 18 made by the said accused. We are also not inclined to

accept the submission that merely because the witness

did not approach the police immediately on the date of

the incident but approached the police after he had

read the public notice; his testimony is liable to be

thrown out. Though it was suggested that this witness

was connected with Gurcharan Singh (deceased) and

Kulwinder Kaur, PW 1, there is no material on record to

demonstrate this statement. No motive can be

attributed to this witness that he approached the police

and gave his deposition due to any relation with the

Gurcharan Singh (deceased) or his wife or the

prosecution.

23. It was urged by Mr. Mahavir Singh, learned senior

counsel appearing for Satbir Singh and Rachhpal Singh

- accused/appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1111 of

2009 and 1112 of 2009 respectively that the Narinder

Banwait (PW 19) is not speaking the truth that the

assailants escaped through the hedge as in his

statement he deposed that the hedge of the park at

some points was 5 ½ feet/6 feet tall and that barbed

wire was also passing through the hedge and that he

Page 19 Page 19 of 34

did not re-call whether barbed wire was there or not at

the place where he was present, whereas PW 19/A –

Gian Chand, Draftsman, in his deposition has stated

that there were three lines of barbed wire which is

shown in the site plan, prepared by him. As such,

Narinder Banwait (PW 19) is not speaking the truth

because the two assailants could not have escaped

through a barbed wire fence. There is no substance in

this contention, in view of the categorical assertion of

PW 19/A – Gian Chand, Draftsman, who has prepared

a site plan, which is brought on record, that the height

of the barbed wire was only three feet. Above the wire

presumably there was only the hedge without any

barbed wire. Moreover, there is no doubt that accused

have escaped through the hedge since blood stained

leaves were found from the hedge and a torn piece of

cloth, presumably, the torn cloth of pocket of the shirt

was found entangled in the barbed wire.

24. It was further urged that the dagger which was

produced in court could not have been used as an

instrument for the crime because the dagger was not

shown to the doctor during post mortem -examination

Page 20 and the doctor has only stated that the injuries could

have been caused through the sharp edged weapon

given in court. We find from the testimony of the

doctor that he deposed that the injuries were caused

by a sharp edged weapon, which is quite consistent

with the use of dagger for the offence.

25. It was further submitted that the prosecution

case is suspicious because there was a delay in sending

clothes and dagger to the Forensic Science Laboratory

and that even otherwise the report of the Forensic

Science Laboratory shows that the dagger contained

human blood but without referring to any blood group.

Upon perusal of the record, we find that submission

that the blood group was not ascertained and therefore

it was not the blood of the deceased, was not made

before the courts below. In any case, this does not

cast any doubt on the prosecution case which has been

proved from the evidence and the findings of the

courts below.

26. It was also urged that there is some overwriting

on the bundle by which the items were deposited in the

Page 21 Page 21 of 34

court and the delay in depositing the items. We have

examined the records carefully. Though there is

something incongruous in it but that is not sufficient to

dislodge the substance of the prosecution case which is

based on evidence properly adduced. There is no

doubt that Gurcharan Singh was assaulted when he

was taking a walk in the park and that Narinder

Banwait, PW 19, saw the two assailants escape from

the park on a scooter. These two were Satbir Singh

and Rachhpal Singh as identified by Kulwinder Kaur.

The dagger and the scooter traced at the instance of

the two accused were used in the crime. The dagger

was stained with human blood. So also the alleged

attempt of the police authorities to induce Rachhpal

Singh to become an approver does not discredit the

prosecution version of an incidence which transpires

confidence before it. In any case, it is not necessary to

consider that aspect any further.

27. It was next urged that the said witness stated

several things before the court which were not stated

under Section 161 of the Code such as (i) “Kanda Kad

Ditta Hai of Chairman and Chacha is not present in

Page 22 India and they should go to Chachi to take the

money”; (ii) The Chairman of the Institute was

Gurcharan Singh; (iii) Bakhshish Singh disclosed that

they had political rivalry with the Chairman, namely,

Gurcharan Singh and it was disclosed by Bakhshish

Singh that Rs. 20,000/- each was paid to Satbir Singh

and Rachhpal Singh for the murder of Chairman,

Gurcharan Singh; (iv) Persons who were seen running

away by Narinder Banwait (PW 19) were running away

in suspicious circumstances; ‘suspicious circumstances’

was not mentioned under 161 statement (v) the said

two persons had passed -and he was just ¾ feet away

from them; ‘distance’ was not mentioned under 161

statement; (vi) on seeing the same I got scared;

‘factum of getting scared’ was not mentioned under

161 statement; (vii) Bakhshish Singh disclosed that

murder was to be executed only when Bakhshish Singh

would be abroad. These undoubtedly seem to be

embellishments by this witness. The question is

whether these embellishments are such as to destroy

core of the prosecution story, which is otherwise found

to have been established. This Court in several cases

observed that minor inconsistent

Page 23 Page 23 of 34

versions/discrepancies do not necessarily demolish the

entire prosecution story, if it is otherwise found to be

creditworthy. In Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of

Police : (2012) 4 SCC 124 , this Court after

scrutinizing several earlier judgments relied upon the

observations in Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v.

State of Maharashtra : (2000) 8 SCC 457 to the

following effect:

“42. Only such omissions which amount

to contradiction in material particulars

can be used to discredit the testimony of

the witness. The omission in the police

statement by itself would not necessarily

render the testimony of witness

unreliable. When the version given by

the witness in the court is different in

material particulars from that disclosed

in his earlier statements, the case of the

prosecution becomes doubtful and not

otherwise. Minor contradictions are

bound to appear in the statements of

truthful witnesses as memory sometimes

plays false and the sense of observation

differ from person to person.”

-

28. In Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v.

State of Maharashtra : (2010) 13 SCC 657 , this

Court observed as follows:

“30. While appreciating the evidence, the

court has to take into consideration

whether the contradictions/omissions

had been of such magnitude that they

may materially affect the trial. Minor

Page 24 contradictions, inconsistencies,

embellishments or improvements on

trivial matters without effecting the core

of the prosecution case should not be

made a ground to reject the evidence in

its entirety. The trial court, after going

through the entire evidence, must form

an opinion about the credibility of the

witnesses and the appellate court in

normal course would not be justified in

reviewing the same again without

justifiable reasons. (Vide State v.

Saravanan) (2008)17SCC 587”

29. The embellishments in the statements of

Narinder Banwait (PW 19) referred to above, in our

view do not constitute such contradictions which

destroy the core of the prosecution case as this Court

in the case of Raj Kumar Singh alias Raju Alias

Batya Vs. State Of Rajasthan : (2013) 5 SCC 722 at

page 740 has observed as under:

“ It is a settled legal proposition

that, while appreciating the

evidence of a witness, minor

discrepancies on trivial matters,

which do not affect the core of the case

of the prosecution, must not prompt

the court to reject the evidence thus

provided, in its entirety. The

irrelevant details which do not in any way

corrode the credibility of a witness,

cannot be labeled as omissions or

contradictions. Therefore, the courts

must be cautious and very particular,

in their exercise of appreciating evidence.

The approach to be adopted is, if the

Page 25 Page 25 of 34

evidence of a witness is read in its

entirety, and the same appears to have

in it, a ring of truth, then it may

become necessary for the court to

scrutinize the evidence more

particularly, keeping in mind the

deficiencies, drawbacks and

infirmities pointed out in the said

evidence as a whole, and evaluate

them separately, to determine whether

the same are completely against the

nature of the evidence provided by the

witnesses, and whether the validity

of such evidence is shaken by virtue of

such evaluation, rendering it

unworthy of belief.”

30. We are of the view that in spite of alleged

omissions and embellishments the evidence of

Narinder Banwait (PW 19) remains within zone of

credibility.

31. The only other witness, who came close to the

scene of crime, is Hardev Singh, PW 2, who stated that

when he went for walk in the nearby park on the

material day, he heard an alarm that “Mar Ditta Mar

Ditta”. He then went inside the park and saw

Kulwinder Kaur, PW 1, standing there and Gurcharan

Singh lying in an injured condition on the ground. He

stated that Kulwinder Kaur, PW 1, told him that two

persons inflicted knife blows on Gurcharan Singh and

Page 26 fled away. He then stated that he called a neighbour,

who came with his City Honda car and took Gurcharan

Singh to the Fortis Hospital, Mohali. It was next

contended that the prosecution story is obviously false

since Hardev Singh; PW 2 heard the words “ Mar Ditta

Mar Ditta” whereas Kulwinder Kaur, PW 1, stated she

had raised the alarm of “Bachao-Bachao”. We do not

consider this discrepancy as significant enough to

discard the veracity of the statements of either

Kulwinder Kaur, PW 1 or Hardev Singh, PW 2, since in

an emergency of this nature witnesses are not

expected to remember the precise words spoken by

them. Often what comes out from witnesses who have

witnessed a brutal murder is gibberish. The testimony

is not liable to be rejected on that ground alone. We

are satisfied that the Trial Court and the High Court

have recorded a correct finding that Satbir Singh and

Rachhpal Singh assaulted Gurcharan Singh with knife,

which caused his death.

32. The question regarding the motive of Satbir

Singh and Rachhpal Singh to murder Gurcharan Singh

has a great significance in this case. There is nothing

Page 27 Page 27 of 34

on record to show that either Satbir Singh or Rachhpal

Singh have personal grudge or were on such inimical

terms with the deceased that they would want to kill

him. There is no robbery involved in the murder. There

appears to be no conflict between these two accused

and the deceased Gurcharan Singh, who was the

Chairman of “Khandi Friends Educational Trust ”.

Satbir Singh seems to have been employed as

Construction Supervisor in the said Trust but nothing is

brought on record that he has any conflict with

Gurcharan Singh. Rachhpal Singh does not appear to

have any connection whatsoever with Gurcharan Singh.

From the entire evidence, it is clear that these two had

nothing to gain by eliminating Gurcharan Singh. They

had no conflict with him and they made no attempt to

relieve him of any property. The question is: then why

did they kill him? If there was no personal motive in

the sense of animosity against Gurcharan Singh then

the only motive could have been instigation by another,

who had such a motive. According to the prosecution

the only person who had a motive sufficient to warrant

killing of Gurcharan Singh was the appellant Bakhshish

Singh, who was undoubtedly away to Pakistan on the

Page 28 day of murder June 21, 2003. In fact his being away

on the fateful day is itself creates a doubt about his

complicity in the crime. The thrust of the prosecution

is to prove that in order to eliminate Gurcharan Singh

and to make free the Trust from the control of

Gurcharan Singh; Bakhshish Singh employed his

brother’s son Satbir Singh and his friend Rachhpal

Singh. “Khandi Friends Educational Trust ” appears

to have been the bone of contention which runs the

“Institute of Engineering and Technology,

Bhaddal” and it appears that annual turnover of the

said Trust was in the region of about 20 crores.

According to the prosecution, Gurcharan Singh was the

founder Chairman of the said Trust and there were 8

Trustees/Members of the Trust, including Kulwinder

Kaur, PW 1, Bakhshish Singh – accused/appellant and

his wife Hardev Kaur. Bakhshish Singh -

accused/appellant, wanted to become Chairman of the

said trust and often used to give threats to -Kulwinder

Kaur, PW 1 and her husband Gurcharan Singh

(deceased). Guneet Kaur, daughter of Kulwinder Kaur,

PW 1, was also studying in the said institute in the year

2002. An election was held to the post of

Page 29 Page 29 of 34

Chairmanship of the said Trust, in the year 2002, in

which Gurcharan Singh was elected as Chairman

whereas appellant Bakhshish Singh was not elected to

any of the offices of the Trust and therefore he was

annoyed with Gurcharan Singh.

33. We have perused the record of the proceedings of

Election. The election proceedings show that

Bakhshish Singh had objected to the said proceedings

on the ground that it was illegal. We are not inclined

to go into the correctness of his objections. Suffice it

to say that Bakhshish Singh was opposed to Gurcharan

Singh. To get the Chairmanship of the said Trust or in

any case to remove Gurcharan Singh was a sufficiently

strong motive to have the opponent eliminated

particularly when seen in the surrounding

circumstances. Further, it appears that relationship

between Gurcharan Singh (deceased) and Kulwinder

Kaur, PW 1 on one hand and Bakhshish Singh and his

wife - Hardev Kaur on the other hand was completely

hostile. Kulwinder Kaur, PW 1 has stated that

Bakhshish Singh and his wife Hardev Kaur used to give

threats to her and Gurcharan Singh (deceased) in the

Page 30 meetings for the Chairmanship of the said Trust. The

accused Bakhshish Singh and his wife Hardev Kaur had

given threats to rape her daughter, who was studying

in the same institute and that they could achieve it as

their relatives are hardened criminals. They used to

also say that they are “Gurdaspurias” and they could

even murder opponent for getting the Chairmanship of

this Institute. The threats forced Kulwinder Kaur, PW

1, to ask her husband to withdraw their daughter from

the said institute and to migrate her to some other

institute, so that, Bakhshish Singh could not do any

harm to anybody but her husband did not agree. In

cross-examination, Kulwinder Kaur, PW 1, was asked

whether she had told the police that Hardev Kaur had

also given a threat to rape her daughter since she had

apparently used the word ‘rape’, she clarified that she

had clearly stated in the statement given to the police

that Bakhshish Singh had given a threat to rape her

daughter. As regards, her statement that she had

proposed her daughter to migrate to some other

institute and when she was confronted with the

absence of such statement in her examination-in-chief,

she clarified that it is implied that after taking her from

Page 31 Page 31 of 34

the said institute she was to be admitted to some other

institute. We find that the cross examination is not

sufficient to dislodge the testimony of Kulwinder Kaur,

PW 1 that Bakhshish Singh had an animosity of high

degree against her husband and herself which became

the motive for the murder in question. This inference

is fortified by the fact that Satbir Singh and Rachhpal

Singh did not appear to have any personal motive or

grudge for murdering -Gurcharan Singh, as observed

earlier. Satbir Singh, admittedly was the nephew of

Bakhshish Singh.

34. It is also significant that Bakhshish Singh had

ensured his absence from Mohali on the material day

and even from India by going to Pakistan on

14.06.2003 and returned only on 22.06.2003 and in

the meanwhile Satbir Singh and Rachhpal Singh

stayed at various places near the scene of the crime in

preparation of plan. In this regard, we find no reason

to interfere with the findings of the High Court that the

motive of Bakhshish Singh is established to eliminate

Gurcharan Singh from the declarations that he would

rape Guneet Kaur, daughter of the deceased, who was

Page 32 studying in the said institute and that he would gain

control of the Institute in which huge finances were

involved. It is not possible to determine the exact

cause of the motive, or the exact factor which impelled

the motive. When a high degree of animosity is

established the existence of the motive may be taken

to be established.

35. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon

the Judgment of this Court in Sampath Kumar

(supra). According to the learned counsel, it is a

settled law as held in Santosh Kumar Singh v. State:

(2010) 9 SCC 747 and Rukia Begum v. State of

Karnataka: (2011) 4 SCC 779 approved in Sampath

Kumar (supra) that motive alone can hardly be a

ground for conviction and in absence of any other

circumstantial evidence, motive alone would not be

sufficient to convict an accused. Mr. H.S. Phoolka,

learned senior counsel appearing for Bakhshish Singh

submitted that at the most the prosecution has placed

on record the alleged motive of Bakhshish Singh by

pointing out his animosity against Gurcharan Singh.

That is, however, not sufficient to bring home the guilt

Page 33 Page 33 of 34

of crime of murder against him. It is not possible to

accept this contention since this is not a case where

what is established is only the motive without any

circumstantial evidence as in the cases referred to

above. What has been brought on record is the motive

of Bakhshish Singh along with other circumstantial

evidence referred to above, which in our view is

sufficient to convict the appellants. As observed

earlier, the evidence does not demonstrate instances of

any personal motive borne by Satbir Singh and

Rachhpal Singh against the deceased Gurcharan Singh

and the only reason why they killed Gurcharan Singh is

that Bakhshish Singh master minded the murder.

36. On reading the evidence of the Kulwinder Kaur,

PW 1 and other prosecution witnesses we find the

same to be convincing, reliable and trustworthy. We

find no reason to disbelieve the aforesaid statements

and consequently, we find no merit in these appeals,

which are dismissed accordingly.

37. Bakhshish Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.

1110 of 2009 is on bail. His bail bonds stand

cancelled. Bakhshish Singh is directed to surrender

before the learned Sessions Judge, Rupnagar (Punjab)

Page 34 to undergo the remaining period of sentence. If he

does not surrender, the Trial Court is directed to take

appropriate action in the matter in accordance with

law.

..................………………..J.

[DR. B.S.

CHAUHAN]

............………………………J.

[S.A. Bobde]

New Delhi,

August 06, 2013