http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5

PETITIONER:

JAGTAR SINGH

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/01/1988

BENCH:

RAY, B.C. (J)

BENCH:

RAY, B.C. (J)

SHETTY, K.J. (J)

CITATION:

1988 AIR 628 1988 SCR (2) 794

1988 SCC (1) 712 JT 1988 (1) 200

1988 SCALE (1)191

ACT:

lndian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302-Accused giving

blow with handle of tractor-Resulting in death of deceased

on spot-Report of serologist and chemical examiner-Iron

handle stained with human blood-Weapon recovered pursuant to

disclosure statement of accused-Acguittal ordered by High

Court set aside-Conviction and sentence by Sessions Court

confirmed.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Section 154-FIR-Not

expected to contain all details-Effect on value of testimony

of witnesses

HEADNOTE:

%

The accused-respondent No. 2 in the appeal and the

deceased were neighbours. The prosecution alleged that on

October 8, 1983 at about 4 P.M. the deceased along with one

of his sons, P.W. 8 were taking their buffaloes from their

house towards the fields. When they were moving in the lane

the accused came from the opposite side driving a tractor.

While the tractor was passing, it hit one of the buffaloes

whereupon the deceased asked the accused whether he could

not see the buffaloes and there was altercation. The accused

suddenly got down from his tractor, and taking the handle of

the tractor in his hand gave a blow on the forehead of the

deceased. The deceased fell on the ground with his face

downward. At that time P.W. l-appellant in the Appeal,

another son of the deceased, and P.W. 2 were coming towards

the spot and they saw the occurrence. The accused gave 3-4

blows on the deceased who was Iying on the ground, and

thereafter took to his heels leaving the tractor behind. The

deceased died on the spot.

P.W. t keeping P.W. 8 to guard the dead body, went to

the police station which was about 12 kms from the spot of

the occurrence, by bicycle, and there lodged the FIR (Ext.

PA). The statement was recorded by the Sub-Inspector, P.W. 9

who came to the spot at about 7 P.M. and made an inquest

report. The tractor was taken into possession by the Sub-

Inspector, and after preparing the inquest report, he

despatched the dead body for autopsy. The accused was

arrested on October 9, 1983 and on the basis on his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5

disclosure statement Ext. PG the handle of the tractor

stained with blood was recovered.

795

The accused in a statement under section 313 of the

Criminal Procedure Code pleaded innocence and stated that

due to enmity he had been falsely involved. The Additional

Sessions Judge on a consideration and appraisal of the

evidence, convicted the accused-respondent No. 2 under

section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer R.I. Of life

and also pay a fine of Rs.200 and in default to undergo

further imprisonment of two months

The accused-respondent No. 2 appealed to the High

Court. A Division Bench held that the occurrence was not

witnessed by P.W. 1 and P.W. 8, that the accused was named

in the FIR because of the previous prolonged enmity, and

that it would be unsafe to rely upon the ocular evidence

without any independent corroboration, and acquitted the

accused.

Allowing the complainant's appeal by Special Leave,

^

HELD: 1. An FIR is not expected to contain all the

details.[799C-D]

2. The statement of the eye witnesses are very clear

and straight forward. There cannot be any doubt or

possibility regarding the presence of the two eye witnesses,

PW l and PW 8 at the time of the incident. [799A-B]

3. There is no room for doubt that the tractor was left

at the place of occurrence by the accused while running away

with the handle of the tractor. It is also very significant

that the handle of the tractor used to give blows to the

deceased was recovered as per the recovery memo (Exhibit PG)

in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the accused

in presence of independent witnesses. It appears from the

report Exhibit PH of the Serologist and Chemical Examiner

that the Iron handle was stained with human blood. [799E-F]

4. The prosecution case has been proved beyond

reasonable doubt. The judgment and order of acquittal passed

by the High Court is, therefore, set aside and the order of

conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions

Judge is affirmed. Non-bailable warrants be issued forthwith

for the arrest of the accused-respondent No. 2, and to put

him in jail to undergo the remaining period of sentence.

[799E-G ]

JUDGMENT:

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Appeal No.

532 of 1988.

796

From the Judgment and order dated 8.1.1985 of the

Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl. A. No. 302-DB of 1984.

M.S. Gujral and Vishnu Mathur for the Appellant.

A.K. Mulla, R.K. Garg, R.S. Suri and N.D. Garg for the

Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RAY, .1. This appeal by special leave is against the

judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and

Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 302-DB of 1984

reversing the conviction and sentence passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala and acquitting the

appellant Paul Singh (respondent No. 2 in this appeal) of

the charge under section 302.

On October 8, 1983 at about 4 P.M. the deceased,

Karnail Singh who was the next door neighbour of Paul Singh,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5

along with his son Kuldip Singh (PW 8) were taking their

buffaloes from their house towards the fields. When they

reached near the house of one Baldev Singh in the lane where

the houses of Weaver community are situated, respondent No.

2, Paul Singh came from the opposite side driving a tractor.

While the tractor was passing, it hit one of the buffaloes

whereon Karnail Singh asked Paul Singh whether he could not

see the buffaloes. There was some altercation between the

parties. Paul Singh suddenly got down from his tractor

taking the handle of the tractor in his hand and gave a blow

on the forehead of Karnail Singh, the deceased. The deceased

fell on the ground with his face downward. At that time

Jagtar Singh (PW 1), another son of the deceased, Karnail

Singh along with Gurmit Singh was coming towards the spot

and they saw the occurrence. Paul Singh gave 3-4 blows on

Karnail Singh Iying on the ground and took to his heels as

Jagtar Singh (PW 1) and Gurmit Singh were hastening to the

spot to intervene. The tractor was left behind. The deceased

died at the spot on receipt of the injuries. Jagtar Singh

(PW 1) keeping Kuldip Singh (PW 8) and Gurmit Singh to guard

the dead body, went to the police station by bicycle which

is about 12 KMs from the place of occurrence in Village

Sangatpur Sodhian and reached there at about 5.15. P.M. The

statement of Jagtar Singh (Exhibit PA) was recorded as FIR

by the Sub-Inspector, Harbans Singh (PW 9). The Sub-

Inspector and Jagtar Singh came to the spot at about 7 P.M.

and made an inquest report. The said report (F.I.R.) was

despatched by the Sub-Inspector to Illaqa Magistrate who

797

received the same at about 8.15. P.M. On October 8, 1983.

The tractor of the respondent No. 2, Paul Singh was taken

into possession by the Sub-Inspector vide Memo Exhibit PL.

After preparing the inquest report (Exhibit PE), the Sub-

Inspector despatched the dead body of Karnail Singh for

autopsy. The respondent No. 2 was arrested on October 9,

1983 and on the basis of his disclosure statement (Exhibit

PG) the handle of the tractor (Exhibit PF) stained with

blood was recovered by the Sub-Inspector. Respondent No. 2

in his statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal

Procedure pleaded his innocence and stated that due to

enmity he has been falsely involved in this case.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the

counsel for the parties and on a consideration and appraisal

of the evidences on record, convicted the accused Paul Singh

under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer R.I.

for life and also pay a fine of Rs.200 in default of payment

of fine to undergo further R.I. for 2 months. It was also

ordered that the period of detention already undergone by

him during the investigation, inquiry or trial would be

allowed to be set off under section 428 of Code of Criminal

Procedure.

Against this judgment and order the accused, Paul Singh

filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 302-DB of 1984 in

the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The said

appeal was heard by a division bench of the High Court and

without properly considering and marshalling the evidences

of the eye-witnesses, Jagtar Singh (PW 1) and Kuldip Singh

(PW 8) as well as the FIR (Exhibit PA) and also the Inquest

Report (Exhibit PE) and other evidences on record, wrongly

held that the occurrence was not witnessed by Jagtar Singh

and Kuldip Singh and Paul Singh, respondent No. 2 in this

appeal was named in the FIR because of the previous

prolonged enmity with him. It was also held that it would be

unsafe to rely upon the ocular evidence without any

independent corroboration and acquitted the respondent No. 2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5

setting aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the

Additional Sessions Judge.

The incident occurred on October 8, 1983 at about 4

P.M. and the FIR was lodged by Jagtar Singh (PW 1) who is

the son of the deceased, Karnail Singh at Police Station

Moolepur which is at a distance of 12 KMs. from the place of

occurrence in Village Sangatpur Sodhian at about 5.15 P.M.

In the FIR (Exhibit PA) it has been stated by the informant,

Jagtar Singh (PW 1) that he and his brother, Kuldip Singh

(PW 8) and one Gurmit Singh were present at the place of H

798

occurrence and witnessed the assault by the accused, Paul

Singh with the handle of the tractor on the deceased,

Karnail Singh over an altercation as to the striking the

tractor against one of the buffaloes of the deceased. It

also appears that in the FIR it has been stated that the

accused gave a blow with the handle of the tractor to the

father of the informant hitting his forehead towards the

left and he also gave 3-4 blows with the handle while the

deceased fell down on the ground with his face downward

hitting his head. He and Gurmit Singh were hastening to

intervene when the accused fled away with the handle. It is

also evident from the Inquest Report (Exhibit PE) prepared

by the Sub-Inspector (PW 9) on the date of the incident that

he found amongst other articles one tractor-Escorts bearing

registration No. PUC 5206 which he sealed vide Memo Exhibit

PL. Admittedly, there was longstanding enmity between the

accused and the deceased. The accused filed papers which

were exhibited in the case showing that several criminal

cases were filed between the parties and this long-standing

enmity between the parties was the motive on the part of the

accused to inflict injuries on the deceased, Karnail Singh

and the immediate motive was the altercation which the

deceased had with the accused when the tractor of the

accused struck one of the buffaloes of the deceased.

It has been urged on behalf of the respondents that in

the FIR (Exhibit PA) it was merely stated that the accused

gave one handle blow on the forehead of the deceased. Then

the deceased fell down and the accused gave 3-4 handle blows

to the deceased whereas in his deposition before the Court

the informant made the improvement by stating that out of

the 3-4 handle blows one hit him on the right side of the

forehead, one on the back of the left side of the head, one

on the back of the right side of the head and one on the

back of the head. It has also been urged that in the FIR it

was not stated that Jagtar Singh, PW 1 and Gurmit Singh

tried to intervene when the accused was giving blows to the

deceased with the handle. It was therefore urged that

because of these improvements, the prosecution story as made

out in the FIR was doubtful. It was further submitted that

in the FIR it was not stated that the accused left the place

leaving the tractor at the place of occurrence though the

FIR stated in detail about the occurrence. This submission

cannot be sustained as it is evident from the FIR which was

lodged with utmost promptitude that PW 1 had stated therein

that 'he and Gurmit Singh went ahead in order to separate

him'. As regards the statement in his evidence regarding the

3-4 blows made with the handle of the tractor it cannot be

said to be an improve-

ment but it merely explains the places where the

assault was made on

799

the body of the deceased. On this basis, it cannot be said

that there wasan improvement made on what was stated in the

FIR. The statements of the eye witnesses cannot be discarded

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5

on this score. The statements of the witnesses are very

clear and straight forward. There cannot be any doubt or

possibility regarding the presence of the two eye witnesses

PW 1 and PW 8 at the time of the incident.

On a careful appraisal of the evidences of these two

eye witnesses we cannot but hold that they were present at

the place of occurrence and witnessed the entire incident.

It appears from the post mortem report also that that there

were six injuries on the person of the deceased and these

injuries according to the opinion of the Doctor, PW 2 were

sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

The appellate court held that the recovery of the

tractor was of no help to the prosecution case as in the FIR

it was not mentioned that the accused had left the tractor

at the spot. FIR is not expected to contain all the details.

This finding of the appellate court is wholly erroneous in

as much as it is evident from the inquest report (Exhibit

PE) made on the date of occurrence i.e. October 8, 1983,

that the tractor was seized on that date from the place of

occurrence vide recovery memo No. PL by the Sub-Inspector,

Harbans Singh, PW 9. There is therefore, no room for doubt

that the tractor was left at the place of occurrence by the

accused while running away with the handle of the tractor.

It is also very significant to note that the handle of the

tractor used to give blows to the deceased was recovered as

per the recovery memo (Exhibit PG) in pursuance of the

disclosure statement made by the accused in presence of

independent witnesses, Nirmal Singh and Jarnail Singh. It

appears from the report Exhibit PH of Serologist and

Chemical Examiner that Iron handle was stained with human

blood.

In view of the reasons stated hereinbefore the

prosecution case his been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court

is therefore, set aside and the order of conviction and

sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is

hereby affirmed. Let non-bailable warrants issue forthwith

for the arrest of the accused, Paul Singh, respondent No. 2

and to put him in jail to undergo the remaining period of

sentence.

N.V.K. Appeal allowed.

800