http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3

PETITIONER:

BHAG SINGH & ORS. ETC., GURMUKH SINGH AND ANOTHER

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/09/1997

BENCH:

M.M. MUKHERJEE, K.T. THOMAS

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:

THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1997

Present:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.K. Mukherjee

Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas

U.R. Lalit, and T.S. Arunachalam, Sr. Advs. L.K. Pandey,

Adv. with them for the appellants. in Crl. A.No. 638/95.

K.B. Sinha, Sr. Adv., H.S. Munjral, Vikrant Rana and Ms.

B. Rana, Advs with him for the appellant in Crl. A.No.

402/95 for M/S. S.S. Rana & Co., Advs.

Ajay Bansal, Adv. for R.S. Sodhi, adv. for the Respondents

J U D G E M E N T

The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 402 OF 1995

THOMAS, J.

This is the story of a murder committed as revenge for

another murder. Appellants were involved in the second

murder and they challenged the conviction and sentence

imposed on them by the sessions court and confirmed by the

High court in appeal.

The murdered person in this case was one Bagicha Singh.

There was a dispute over one house building as between the

said Bagicha Singh and one Jagtar Singh which remained alive

for some time. In that dispute, Karnail Singh (father of

accused Nos.1 to 3) gave support to jagtar Singh. In a

Previous incident the said Karnail Singh was murdered and a

criminal case was charge-sheeted against PW-12 Balkar singh,

PW-13 Swaran Singh and PW-14 Hardip Singh and some others.

According to the prosecution version the occurrence in

this case happened on the night of 27-1-1985 at about 8.00

P.M. when deceased Bagicha Singh was going in the company of

PW-12, PW-13 and PW-14 to reach their village. They were

waylaid by eight assailants including the appellants herein

near the yard of one Harbans Singh. Appellant Gurmukh Singh

(A-1) made an exhortation to his companion assailants to

carry out the onslaughts for avenging the murder of his

father Karnail Singh. A-4 Satnam Singh Shot at the deceased

with a gun and A-1 Gurmukh Singh, A-3 Gurbinder Singh and A-

6 Gurbux Singh attacked the deceased with kirpans and A-2

Harjinder Singh with a spear. A-5 Mohinder Singh and A-7

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3

Darshan Singh dealt blows on PW-13 Swarn Singh with kirpans

while A-8 Bhag Singh fired a gun shot at him. As the

assailants thought that their mission was accomplished they

all fled from the place with the weapons.

Bagicha Singh died on the spot and PW-13 Swarn Singh

injured was removed to the hospital. First Information was

lodged by PW-14 Hardip Singh. All the accused were arrested

ought not have been relied on. Second is, there was no

reason for the appellants to persist with the revenge for

the murder of Karnail Singh as the murderers were convicted

by the Court. Third is, it was impossible for any person to

recount with meticulous exactitude the various individual

acts done by each assailant and since the witnesses in this

case have testified so, their testimony should have been

rejected on that score alone.

It may be true that PW-12 Balkar Singh, PW-13 Swarn

Singh and PW-14 Hardip Singh must have been simmering with

grouse against the appellants for giving evidence against

them which led to their conviction. Bad Blood would have

existed as between them, But it is a fact that PW-13 Swarn

Singh had also suffered injuries in this occurrence. Hence

it is most unlikely that he would have spared the actual

assailants and falsely implicated these appellants merely

because he is otherwise ill disposed to them.

It is in evidence that despite conviction and sentence

passed on the accused in Karnail Singh Murder case they were

released on bail as per orders of this Court during pendency

of the appeals filed by them. So the fact of conviction

would not have quenched the revenging thirst towards the

murderers of Karnail Singh.

The third point which was forcibly pressed into service

by counsel is that no eye witnesses can be expected to and

some weapons were recovered by the police and completion of

investigation eight persons including the appellants were

challenged. Though the Sessions Court convicted all the

eight accused of offences of murders, attempt to commit

murder an rioting etc. the High Court of Punjab and Haryana

acquitted A-2 Harjinder Singh, A-4 Satnam Singh and A-5

Mohinder Singh. The conviction and sentence passed on the

appellants were, however, confirmed by the High Court and

hence these appeals by special leave.

There is no dispute that PW-13 Swarn Singh was present

at the scene and he also sustained serious injurious

including lacerated and incised wounds on the head. This

fact helps us to agree with the finding of the two courts

that PW-13 Swarn Singh was able to see the assailants who

attacked him and the deceased. He mentioned the names of the

appellants as assailants without doubt. Evidence shows that

it was a moonlit night. The other two eye witnesses PW-12

Balkar Singh and PW-14 Hardip Singh supported the version of

PW-13 Swarn Singh.

Learned counsel for the appellants adopted a three

pronged contention on the above evidence. First is, as the

witnesses were all ill disposed to the appellants by the

fact that they were convicted in the earlier murder case (in

which Karnail Singh died) on the strength of the evidence

given by the appellants, the testimony of those witnesses

peak with precision regarding the respective roles played by

each assailant including the sites of the body where each

blow fell particularly since the occurrence happened during

night time and in that case when the witnesses spoke with

exactitude their testimony become highly incredible.

It is a general handicap attached to all eye witnesses,

if they fail to speak with precision their evidence would be

assailed as vague and evasive, on the contrary if they speak

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3

to all events very well and correctly their evidence becomes

vulnerable to be attacked as tutored. Both approaches are

dogmatic and fraught with lack of pragmatism. The testimony

of a witness should be viewed from broad angles. It should

not be weighed in golden scales, but with cogent standards.

In a particular case an eye witness may be able to narrate

the incident with all details without mistake if the

occurrence had made an imprint on the canvass of his mind in

the sequences in which it occurred. He may be a person whose

capacity for absorption and retention of events is stronger

then another person. It should be remembered that what he

witnessed was not something that happens usually but a very

exceptional one so far as he is concerned. If he reproduces

it in the same sequences as it registered in his mind the

testimony cannot be dubbed as artificial on that score

alone.

Here the trial court which had the opportunity to hear

the narration of the incident from those witnesses was

impressed by the truth of the version. It is not fair to say

now that the testimony of those witnesses deserved rejection

for its precision. That apart, they would have spoken in the

court as answers to different questions put to them by the

chief examiner. It depends on the ability of the chief

examiner in eliciting answers from the witness in the

correct order of events. Looking at the evidence from this

angle we are not disposed to castigate the evidence of the

eye witness in this case for speaking to the details

correctly.

We do not find any good ground to interfere with the

conviction and sentence passed on the appellants as

confirmed by the High Court. Accordingly, we dismiss these

appeals.