CRL.A. 555/2002 & CRL.A. 704/2002 Page 1 of 29

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 28

th

January, 2026

Pronounced on: 16

th

April, 2026

+ CRL.A. 555/2002

MOHAN SINGH .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Mohd. Shamikh, Advocate.

versus

STATE OF DELHI ....Respondent

Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP with

Mr. Manvendra Yadav,

Advocate with Insp. Deepak

Kumar Yadav, PS Mayapuri for

State.

2.

CRL.A. 704/2002

SURINDER SINGH .....Appellant

Through: Mr. B. K. Roy, Mr. Sunder Lal

Sharma and Mr. Yashwant

Sharma, Advocates

versus

STATE OF DELHI ....Respondent

Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP with

Mr. Manvendra Yadav,

Advocate with Insp. Deepak

Kumar Yadav, PS Mayapuri for

State

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

J U D G M E N T

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1.These two appeals have been filed by the appellants against the

judgment of conviction dated 05

th

June, 2002 and the order on

CRL.A. 555/2002 & CRL.A. 704/2002 Page 2 of 29

sentence dated 10

th

July, 2002 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, New Delhi [“trial court”], in Sessions Case No.

40/2001, arising out of FIR No. 182/1996 registered under sections

302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code [“IPC”] at Police Station

Mayapuri. Since both the appeals emanate from the same FIR and

assail the same judgment, they are being disposed of together by this

common judgment.

Brief Facts

2.Pithily put, the case of the prosecution is that on 09

th

June,

1996, at about 5:15 PM, an incident took place at the TSR stand

located in Sagarpur, Delhi. Raj Kishore [PW-8], a TSR driver, was

present at the stand along with his nephew Ram Kishore [deceased].

The appellant Surinder Singh, also a TSR driver, attempted to take

passengers out of turn, leading to an altercation between Raj Kishore

[PW-8] and appellant Surinder Singh

3.After the initial exchange, appellant Surinder Singh, before

leaving, told Raj Kishore [PW-8] that he would let him know how he

had stopped him from taking passengers out of turn. He then left the

spot and returned shortly thereafter accompanied by his parents- Sh.

Brij Mohan and Smt. Sada Kanwar and the appellant ASI Mohan

Singh, armed with weapons like a knife, iron strip (patti), four-

cornered danda and a hockey stick. During the ensuing assault,

appellant Surinder struck Raj Kishore [PW-8] on his right eye with the

hockey stick. Appellant ASI Mohan Singh caught hold of Ram

Kishore [deceased]. He along with Brij Mohan then exhorted to stab

him by uttering “maar sale ko chaku, bach na jaye”, upon which,

CRL.A. 555/2002 & CRL.A. 704/2002 Page 3 of 29

Appellant Surinder took out a knife from the back pocket of his pant

and inflicted 2-3 knife blows on Ram Kishore [deceased]. The mother

of the Appellant Surinder, that is Sada Kanwar, also gave blow with

iron patti to the deceased. Meanwhile, when Raj Kishore [PW-8] tried

to save the deceased, he was caught hold by Brij Mohan and Appellant

ASI Mohan Singh. Appellant Surinder Singh stabbed him with knife

blow on the left side of his chest, while ASI Mohan Singh struck iron

patti on his left eye. He caught hold of that strip which resulted in

injuries on his righthand. Raj Kishore [PW-8] and Ram Kishore

[deceased] ran towards ‘D’ Block police picket but Ram Kishore

collapsed on the way and later succumbed to his injuries. PW8 Raj

Kishore was then removed to the hospital for medical treatment.

4.The information of the incident was recorded vide DD No. 15-

A. The police reached the spot and thereafter went to the hospital,

where (PW-8) was medically examined. On the basis of his statement,

the present FIR No. 182/1996 was registered at Police Station

Mayapuri.

5.During investigation, the police seized the four-cornered danda,

along with the TSRs and the knife. The blood-stained clothes of Sada

Kanwar and blood-stained uniform of ASI Mohan Singh were also

seized. They were arrested on the same day, whereas appellant

Surinder Singh was arrested on 10

th

June, 1996 and was interrogated.

He made a disclosure statement [Ex. PW2/B] and at his instance, a

blood-stained T-shirt [Ex. P6] and a piece of hockey stick [Ex. P7]

was recovered. They were sealed and seized vide memos Ex. PW2/C

and Ex. PW2/D respectively.

CRL.A. 555/2002 & CRL.A. 704/2002 Page 4 of 29

6.Upon completion of investigation, chargesheet dated

03.04.1997 was filed against the accused persons.

7.The learned trial court framed charges under Sections

302/307/34 IPC against all accused persons. Accused Sada Kanwar

was additionally charged under Section 25 read with Section 27 of the

Arms Act. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

8.In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 28

witnesses, including the injured witness Raj Kishore [PW-8].

9.Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure [“Cr.P.C.”], wherein, they denied the

incriminating evidence put to them and claimed innocence. In their

defence, they examined one witness namely Ghanshyam Naruka

(DW-1).

10.The learned trial court, vide impugned judgment dated 05

th

June, 2002, acquitted accused persons Brij Mohan, Sada Kanwar and

appellant ASI Mohan Singh of the charges under Section 302 IPC, but

convicted them for lesser offence under Section 324/34 IPC. However,

appellant Surinder Singh was convicted for offence under Section 302

IPC. Accused Sada Kanwar was also convicted for offence under

Section 25 of Arms Act. Vide order dated 10

th

July, 2002, the convicts

were sentenced as under:-

“Accused Surinder is sentenced U/s 302 IPC

to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a

fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further undergo

R.I. for one week.

Accused Brij Mohan, Sada Kanwar

and Mohan Singh are sentenced to undergo

R.I. for one and a half years and to pay a fine

of Rs. l,000/-each in default to further undergo

CRL.A. 555/2002 & CRL.A. 704/2002 Page 5 of 29

R.I. for seven days.

Accused Sada Kanwar is also

sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months U/s

25 Arms Act and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in

default to further undergo R.I. for seven days.”

11. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the present

appeals.

12.The sentences awarded to the appellants Mohan Singh and

Surinder Singh were suspended vide orders dated 07

th

August, 2002

and 21

st

November, 2002 respectively.

13.During the hearing of these appeals, the counsel for appellant

Mohan Singh in CRL.A. 555/2002 confined his challenge only to the

quantum of sentence and submitted that he does not wish to challenge

the judgment of conviction dated 05

th

June, 2002. It was further

prayed that he may be released for the period already undergone by

him. The said submission is also supported vide an Affidavit dated

28

th

January, 2026 filed by him.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellant Surinder Singh in CRL.A.

704/2002:

14.The learned counsel, appearing for appellant Surinder Singh in

CRL.A. 704/2002, assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that

it is contrary to law and that the prosecution case suffers from inherent

improbabilities. It was submitted that the prosecution version is

neither probable nor appealing to the common sense. It has been

contended that the incident took place in a crowded place that is

‘Sunday Market’, but prosecution failed to produce even a single

independent public witness apart from the injured interested witness

CRL.A. 555/2002 & CRL.A. 704/2002 Page 6 of 29

and the police persons. He submitted that the injured witness at the

best proves his presence at the spot and suffering injuries, but it is not

guaranteed that the version given by him was truthful.

15.The learned counsel has pointed out that PW-8 Raj Kishore

deposed that all accused including Brij Mohan, Sada Kanwar and ASI

Mohan Singh, were present at the spot and participated in the assault,

whereas, PW-6 Constable Richpal categorically stated that only

appellant Surinder Singh was present and that the other accused were

not present at the spot at all. Such contradictory versions regarding the

presence and role of the accused demolish the prosecution story. He

further submitted that PW-8 attributed hockey blows, knife blows and

iron patti blows in a particular sequence, whereas, PW-6 claimed to

have seen the incident from a moving bus and deposed only about a

single blow inflicted by the appellant Surinder Singh. According to

him, these two versions are mutually destructive and cannot co-exist.

The incident of murder cannot be seen by eye witnesses differently.

16.It has been further submitted that PW-18 Constable Dilbag

Singh also deposed about injury to one more person namely Babban,

but the said Babban is neither an accused nor a witness in the case.

The non-examination of such a material witness casts a serious doubt

on the prosecution version and suggests suppression of material facts

and evidence.

17.It was also contended that there is no recovery of knife from the

possession of appellant Surinder Singh. The non-recovery of knife at

his instance and the absence of any forensic corroboration of the

presence of blood on the knife, fatally weakens the prosecution case.

CRL.A. 555/2002 & CRL.A. 704/2002 Page 7 of 29

18.It was also contended that prosecution has failed to prove any

strong motive behind the commission of the crime, inasmuch as, the

incident arose out of a sudden quarrel on a trivial issue and there was

no mens rea or motive for the commission of the murder. It has been

further submitted that prosecution failed to place on record any

document that appellant Surinder Singh ever used to drive scooter or

that the scooter was in his name or in the name of any of his family

members or it was a hired scooter. He further submits that the police

has even failed to produce the driving license in the name of appellant

Surinder Singh.

19.It was further submitted that even though two police witnesses

had already reached at the spot by 5.45 pm and the distance of the

police station from the place of incident was hardly one kilometre and

the incident took place at 5.45 pm on 09

th

June, 1996, but the FIR was

registered at 7.55 pm, that is after more than two hours. The three

accused, the recovered weapon and the case property were allegedly

kept for about two hours without even registration of the FIR and

without seizure of the same. The delay in registration of the FIR and

not sealing the weapon of offence and other case property cannot rule

out the possibility of false implication and plantation of the weapon of

offence because police could not arrest the real culprit despite their

presence at the place of occurrence. It is also submitted that despite

three out of the four accused persons already apprehended at the spot,

their names are not mentioned in the DD entry, which proves

fabrication and false implication.

20.Relying upon the testimony of DW-1 Ghanshyam, it is argued

CRL.A. 555/2002 & CRL.A. 704/2002 Page 8 of 29

that the appellant Surinder Singh was forced to come at the police

station in bargain for the release of Brij Mohan and Sada Kanwar, who

were illegally detained with the assurance that after enquiry he would

be let off, but was falsely implicated in the present case along with the

other co-accused persons namely Brij Mohan, Sada Kanwar and ASI

Mohan Singh.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellant ASI Mohan Singh in

CRL.A. 555/2002

21.The learned counsel for the appellant Mohan Singh while

confining his prayer to only the quantum of sentence, submits that the

appellant has already undergone one year of sentence out of one and a

half years awarded to him and is now aged about 80 years and because

of this case, he was placed under suspension and was not even paid

the service benefits. He therefore prayed that lenient view be taken

and appellant Mohan Singh may be sentenced with imprisonment

already undergone by him.

Submissions on behalf of State

22.Per contra, learned APP for the State contended that the Trial

Court has given detailed and well-reasoned findings and convicted the

appellants after a fair trial and proper appreciation of evidence.

23.It was submitted that the presence of PW-8 Raj Kishore, an

injured witness, at the scene of occurrence stands conclusively

established and carries strong evidentiary value. It was contended that

the absence of independent public witnesses is not fatal to the

prosecution case and conviction can be based on the testimony of an

injured witness and police witnesses if found reliable.

CRL.A. 555/2002 & CRL.A. 704/2002 Page 9 of 29

24.The alleged contradictions in the statements of PW-6, PW-8 and

PW-18 are, at best, minor discrepancies arising from differences in

perception and passage of time. These variations do not go to the root

of the matter and do not discredit the core of the prosecution case and

the trial court has carefully considered their statements before passing

the judgment.

25.It was lastly submitted that the prosecution has proved its case

beyond reasonable doubt and that the learned trial court has rightly

convicted the appellants. Considering the gravity of offence, it was

stated that the appeals are devoid of merit and deserve to be dismissed.

Reasoning and Analysis

26.We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the

material on record. It is well settled that while exercising appellate

jurisdiction in a criminal appeal against conviction, the Court may re-

appreciate the evidence to ascertain whether the findings recorded by

the trial court suffer from perversity, material illegality, or result in

miscarriage of justice.

27.Dealing with the present case, on the basis of the evidence led,

we find that the prosecution case rests primarily on the testimonies of

PW-8 Raj Kishore (injured witness), PW-6 Constable Richpal (eye

witness), as also PW-11 HC Mahender Singh and PW-18 Constable

Dilbagh Singh, who reached at the spot immediately on getting the

information.

28.From the evidence led, it is evident that the occurrence of the

incident itself is not in dispute. The evidence establishes that the

incident took place at the TSR stand at Sunday Market on 09

th

June,

CRL.A. 555/2002 & CRL.A. 704/2002 Page 10 of 29

1996, in which PW-8 Raj Kishore suffered injuries on his person and

one Ram Kishore, the nephew of PW-8, died at the spot due to stab

injuries.

29.The defence has laid considerable emphasis on the

inconsistencies in the testimonies of material witnesses, thereby,

arguing that such contradictions and inconsistencies weaken the

prosecution case. We, therefore, now proceed to examine the material

evidence in order to assess as to whether the same inspires confidence

or create any reasonable doubt in the prosecution narrative.

30.PW-8 Raj Kishore deposed that on 09

th

June, 1996, he was

standing at Sagarpur TSR Stand near Ajanta Park and was waiting for

his turn. His nephew (Bhanja) Ram Kishore was also with him.

Meanwhile, accused Surinder Singh came in his TSR No. DIR 8917.

PW-8 told him that it was his turn to lift the passengers but accused

Surinder Singh was adamant. On his protest, accused Surinder Singh

told him “wait for some time, I will let you know how to stop me from

taking the passengers out of the turn”. Surinder Singh came back

armed with a knife, accompanied by co-accused persons namely SI

Mohan Singh, his father Brij Mohan and his mother Sada Kanwar

(mentioned as Sarda Rani in the testimony of PW-8). Brij Mohan was

having a four cornered danda, Surinder was having hockey stick and

the mother of Surinder was having a knife like iron strip (patti).

Surinder gave hockey blow on his head, as a result, the hockey stick

broke. SI Mohan Singh was in police uniform. Brij Mohan gave danda

blow on his right shoulder. On seeing this, his nephew Ram Kishore

rushed to save him. SI Mohan Singh and Brij Mohan then caught hold

CRL.A. 555/2002 & CRL.A. 704/2002 Page 11 of 29

of Ram Kishore. SI Mohan Singh exhorted “Maar Saale Ko”. On

hearing this, Surinder Singh took out a knife from his back pocket and

gave 3-4 knife blows on the chest of Ram Kishore. When PW-8 tried

to save him, he was caught by Surinder Singh and Brij Mohan, SI

Mohan Singh gave a knife blow near his diaphragm (below his chest)

and the mother of accused Surinder Singh gave him a blow with knife

like iron patti on his face near left eye. PW-8 Raj Kishore further

deposed that public had gathered at the place of incident and on seeing

them, the accused persons tried to run away, but before that, accused

Surinder gave a knife blow to him, resulting in injuries in his

righthand palm. He further stated that he and his nephew Ram Kishore

tried to rush towards D Block, Janak Puri Police Chowki but Ram

Kishore fell down only after 5-10 steps. He rushed to the Police

Chowki and was taken to hospital by the police on a Bullet

motorcycle, where his statement Ex. PW-8/A was recorded by the

police. He identified all the accused, including the present appellants

Surinder Singh and Mohan Singh.

31.In his cross examination, PW-8 stated that he had told the police

in his statement Ex. PW-8/A that as soon as they arrived, SI Mohan

Singh enquired from accused Surinder as to who removed his scooter

from there. He was confronted with statement Ex. PW-8/A, where this

fact is not so recorded. He further stated that he told the police that he

was not allowed to fall as accused Mohan Singh and Brij Mohan had

caught hold of him by his arms. He was confronted with statement Ex.

PW-8/A, where this fact is not so recorded. He further said that he had

told the police in his statement that on seeing Ram Kishore, both the

CRL.A. 555/2002 & CRL.A. 704/2002 Page 12 of 29

accused, that is, Brij Mohan and SI Mohan Singh, had left him and

caught hold of Ram Kishore. However, this fact is not mentioned in

the statement Ex. PW-8/A. Similarly, the fact that accused Mohan

Singh gave him knife blow near his diaphragm, was also not found

mentioned in the statement Ex. PW-8/A. In further cross examination,

he stated that accused persons were also accompanied by one more

person at the time of assault on them, who also gave them beatings.

The fifth such person was having bricks in his hands and he hit him

below the neck. However, no injury was inflicted by the fifth person

on the person of deceased Ram Kishore. He further stated that the

blood did not drop on the clothes or motorcycle of the police official,

who took him to the hospital from the police post.

32.Upon appreciation of the testimony of PW-8 Raj Kishore, we

find that his testimony to the extent that SI Mohan Singh gave him

knife blow near his diaphragm is in contradiction and an improvement

over the previous statement Ex. PW-8/A, which formed the basis of

recording of the FIR. However, his remaining testimony with regard

to the details of the incident, particularly with regard to presence of

the accused persons with weapons at the spot and causing of stab

injury to Ram Kishore by appellant Surinder Singh remains consistent

and cogent.

33.The incident allegedly took place in the month of June 1996.

The testimony of PW-8 was recorded on 17

th

September, 1999, that is

after more than three years. Human memory is short and when such

like incidents involving so many persons happen all of a sudden and

the witness is called upon to depose about them after a long interval,

CRL.A. 555/2002 & CRL.A. 704/2002 Page 13 of 29

due to failing memory, such like contradictions may occur in the

testimonies of even a truthful witness and therefore should not be

given much importance, particularly when the testimony of the

witness on the other material aspects inspires confidence.

34.No doubt, in cross examination, PW-8 has deposed about the

involvement of one more offender who hit brick below his neck but is

not prosecuted, the same cannot be regarded as an improvement or a

contradiction of the prosecution narrative of the incident, inasmuch as,

in his statement Ex. PW-8/A, PW-8 stated that besides four named

accused, there were some other persons also who had beaten them and

therefore the mention of fifth offender in cross examination is not fatal

to the prosecution version.

35.PW-6 Constable Richpal from Delhi Home Guard is the eye

witness of the occurrence. According to him, on 09

th

June, 1996, at

about 5.15 pm, he alighted from a bus coming from Sagar Puri at D

Block, Janak Puri and boarded a bus route No. 832 to Shahdara. On

the way, he saw from glass panes of the bus that two three wheeler

scooters stopped, the driver of one of the scooters and the passengers

in the scooter got down from the said scooter and the drivers of both

the scooters started quarrelling. One of the drivers took out a knife

from the back pocket of his trouser and thrust the same in the chest of

other scooter driver. He deposed that the name of the scooter driver

who gave knife blow was subsequently revealed as Surinder Singh

while the name of the deceased was also subsequently revealed as Raj

Kishore. He deposed that he got the bus stopped and went to the

nearby police booth, where he came to know that the police had

CRL.A. 555/2002 & CRL.A. 704/2002 Page 14 of 29

already reached at the spot. He thereafter returned at the spot where

HC Mahender Singh and HC Dilbagh Singh were found present. At

their instructions, he removed the injured to DDU Hospital and got

him admitted there. According to him, accused Brij Mohan, Sada

Kanwar and Mohan Singh were not present at the spot and were found

sitting at the police station subsequently. He further stated that the

clothes of Brij Mohan, Sada Kanwar and Mohan Singh were seized by

the police. He identified his signatures on the seizure memo Ex. PW-

6/A and Ex. PW-6/B respectively. He is also witness to the arrest of

accused Brij Mohan, Sada Kanwar and Mohan Singh and identified

his signatures on the personal search memos Ex. PW-6/D and Ex.

PW-6/E.

36.PW-6 was declared hostile and was cross examined by the

learned APP with the permission of the court. In such cross

examination, he denied the suggestion that in his statement dated 09

th

June, 1996, he gave the name of injured/deceased as Ram Kishore. He

denied that in his presence after Surinder inflicted a blow on the

person of the deceased, there was an exchange of hockey and danda

blows between both sides. He denied the suggestion that when he

returned from the police booth, he found HC Dilbagh Sigh and HC

Mahender Singh had apprehended the father and mother of accused

Surinder and one Assistant Sub Inspector of Delhi Police. He denied

the suggestion that he had got the injured Ram Kishore admitted in

DDU Hospital and not Raj Kishore. He denied the suggestion that

accused Brij Mohan, Sada Kanwar and Mohan Singh were arrested in

his presence pursuant to evidence having been collected against them

CRL.A. 555/2002 & CRL.A. 704/2002 Page 15 of 29

by the Investigating Officer. He was confronted with statement Ex.

PW-6/F, where the aforesaid facts are so recorded. He denied that

accused Brij Mohan, Sada Kanwar and Mohan Singh were arrested in

his presence. However, he voluntarily stated that they were not present

at the spot but were seen by him subsequently at the police station,

where they were arrested in his presence. He admitted that the saree

and blouse which the accused Sada Kanwar was wearing, were taken

into police possession. He admitted that the clothes of the aforesaid

accused persons were kept in sealed parcels, which were sealed with

the seal of GS. He denied that on 10

th

June, 1996, he joined the

investigation with SI Mehar Singh, SI Karan Singh and Inspector

Gyan Singh or that accused Surinder was arrested from house No.

681/10, Saad Nagar, Palam Colony or that his personal search was

conducted in his presence vide memo Ex. PW-2/A. However, he

admitted that the memo Ex. PW-2/A bears his signatures. According

to him, accused Surinder was arrested on the night of 09

th

June, 1996

itself and he signed the personal search memo Ex. PW-2/A on 09

th

June, 1996. He denied that accused Surinder gave disclosure statement

Ex. PW-2/B on 10

th

June, 1996 but admitted signatures on the

disclosure statement. He denied that accused Surinder had pointed out

house No. 681/10, Gali No. 27-C, Saad Nagar, Palam Colony and got

recovered his black colour T shirt which was seized in his presence

vide memo Ex. PW-2/C but identified his signatures on the memo Ex.

PW-2/C. According to him, accused Surinder had pointed out the

place and got recovered the T shirt on 09

th

June, 1996. He denied that

on 10

th

June, 1996, accused Surinder had got recovered the broken

CRL.A. 555/2002 & CRL.A. 704/2002 Page 16 of 29

hockey stick having black tape on it from near Aditya Apartments,

which was also sealed with the seal of GS and seized vide memo Ex.

PW-2/D. According to him, he had got recovered the piece of hockey

stick on 09

th

June, 1996 itself. He denied the suggestion that accused

Brij Mohan, Sada Kanwar and Mohan Singh were involved in the

murder of Ram Kishore and he saw them at the spot. He identified the

clothes of the accused persons and the broken piece of hockey stick,

which are Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-7 respectively.

37.In cross examination by the learned defence counsel, PW-6

stated that when he got down from the bus, the total number of

persons present at the spot were three and there were two three

wheeler scooters and no other person or vehicle was present there.

38.On appreciation of the testimony of PW-6, we find that PW-6

has not fully supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile.

It is a well settled law that the testimony of a hostile witness cannot be

effaced or washed off the record in entirety. So much of the testimony

of such witness which inspires confidence may be acted and relied

upon. Thus, examining the testimony of PW-6 to the extent that one of

the TSR drivers took out the knife from the back pocket of his trouser

and thrust the same into the chest of the other scooter driver, can still

be relied upon. It clearly appears from his testimony that he had not

witnessed the complete incident and therefore deposed only what he

saw as he witnessed the incident while he was on a moving bus route

and later got the bus stopped and went to nearby police booth The

MLC of Ram Kishore Ex. PW-25/I records that patient was brought

dead by DHG Constable Richpal (PW-6). The statement of PW-6 that

CRL.A. 555/2002 & CRL.A. 704/2002 Page 17 of 29

the name of the injured rushed to the hospital was Raj Kishore and not

Ram Kishore does not also affect the worth of his testimony. Both

names being similar, PW-6 may have mixed up the name of the person

rushed to the hospital by him.

39.PW-11 HC Mahender Singh, who was on duty at Sunday

Market, D Block, Janak Puri, reached at the spot upon getting the

information regarding quarrel. He categorically deposed that on

reaching the spot, he found accused Mohan Singh in the uniform,

accused Brij Mohan armed with danda and accused Sada Kanwar. He

stated that accused Surinder gave knife blows to one Raj Kishore in

his presence. He further deposed that Ram Kishore was also lying in

an injured condition. In the meanwhile, PW-18 HC Dilbagh Singh and

PW-6 DHG Richpal also reached there. PW-6 took injured Ram

Kishore to the hospital. He further deposed that when they tried to

overpower accused Surinder and Sada Kanwar, the mother of accused

Surinder snatched the knife from him and helped him in escaping from

the spot. With the help of HC Dilbagh Singh, he overpowered SI

Mohan Singh, Brij Mohan and Sada Kanwar. Raj Kishore also left for

the hospital. He further stated that the danda and the knife were seized

from accused Brij Mohan and Sada Kanwar vide memos Ex. PW-10C

and Ex. PW-10/D. One broken piece of hockey was seized vide memo

Ex. PW-10/G. The blood spots and earth control were lifted from the

spot vide memo Ex.PW-10/F. The TSR was seized vide memo Ex.

PW-10/H. He identified the recovered articles including the knife and

the broken piece of hockey.

40.In cross examination, PW-11 stated that there were number of

CRL.A. 555/2002 & CRL.A. 704/2002 Page 18 of 29

shops near the place of occurrence and that PW-6 and PW-8 reached

at the spot after 5-7 minutes of his arrival at the place of occurrence.

He further stated that he was holding accused Mohan Singh and that

accused Sada Kanwar and Brij Mohan tried to run away. He admitted

that the Home Guard Constable had taken Ram Kishore (deceased) to

DDU Hospital.

41.The testimony of PW-11 to the extent that Surinder Singh gave

knife blows to Raj Kishore in his presence, has not been contested

during cross examination. There is not even a suggestion that he did

not inflict knife blows to Raj Kishore. The testimony of PW-8 Raj

Kishore thus stands corroborated to the aforesaid extent by the

testimonies of PW-6 and PW-11. PW-11 further corroborated the

presence of all the accused persons at the spot and the recovery of

weapon of offence, that is knife, danda and broken piece of hockey

from the spot. Another important aspect proved through the testimony

of PW-11 is that Sada Kanwar helped accused Surinder run away from

the spot and, in the process, took away the knife from him, which

explains the reason why he was not apprehended from the spot itself

then and there.

42.PW-18 HC Dilbagh Singh, who was on duty at Police Picket,

Maya Puri, also rushed to the spot upon getting the information

regarding quarrel, involving TSR drivers at Sagar Pur near Aditya

Apartments and TSR Stand. He deposed that on reaching the spot, he

found that HC Mahender Singh was holding the hand of accused Brij

Mohan. SI Mohan Singh was also present there. He deposed about the

presence of mother of accused Surinder also at the spot, who made

CRL.A. 555/2002 & CRL.A. 704/2002 Page 19 of 29

him escape from the spot after snatching the knife from his hand. He

further deposed that the injured lying there after receiving the knife

blow, was sent to DDU Hospital through DHG Richpal Singh.

According to him, one more injured namely Babban was also sent to

the hospital.

43.There is no cross examination of PW-18 with regard to his

testimony that accused Surinder was made to escape from the spot by

his mother.

44.Much emphasis has been laid by the defence regarding

introduction of one more injured namely Babban. In the absence of

any other evidence in this regard, any reference of injured Babban

appears to be just one stray and unsubstantiated statement and cannot

be treated as constituting an integral or pivotal part of the prosecution

case. Even, the defence did not question about the presence of any

such injured at the spot or hospital from the IO. Hence, such averment

made by of PW-18 cannot be given undue importance.

45.Admittedly, the incident took place near the TSR Stand near

Sunday Market. It is also in evidence that there were shops near the

place of occurrence. It is also in evidence that public persons had

gathered but none of them was joined in the investigation or made

witnesses. In the matter of appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is

not the number of witnesses but the quality of their evidence which is

important, as there is no rule of law or evidence that any particular

number of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact. It is a

time honoured principle that evidence must be weighed and not

counted. The test is whether the evidence led has a ring of truth, is

CRL.A. 555/2002 & CRL.A. 704/2002 Page 20 of 29

cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. It is the quality and not

the quantity which determines the adequacy of evidence as provided

under Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the present

case, the evidence of the injured witnesses cannot be discarded merely

on the ground that the independent public witnesses were not

examined. The Supreme Court in Appabhai and Anr. Vs. State of

Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696 held that:-

“11. ......It is no doubt true that the

prosecution has not been able to produce any

independent witness to the incident that took

place at the bus stand. There must have been

several of such witnesses. But the prosecution

case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that

ground alone. Experience reminds us that

civilized people are generally insensitive when

a crime is committed even in their presence.

They withdraw both from the victim and the

vigilante. They keep themselves away from the

Court unless it is inevitable. They think that

crime like civil dispute is between two

individuals or parties and they should not

involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the

general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is

there everywhere whether in village life, towns

or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with

which the investigating agency has to

discharge its duties. The court, therefore,

instead of doubting the prosecution case for

want of independent witness must consider the

broad spectrum of the prosecution version and

then search for the nugget of truth with due

regard to probability, if any, suggested by the

accused.”

46.We do find that there are certain contradictions/omissions/

improvements in the testimonies of the witnesses, but they are not of

such a magnitude as to demolish the substratum of the prosecution

case. In cases of sudden violence, the witnesses cannot be expected to

CRL.A. 555/2002 & CRL.A. 704/2002 Page 21 of 29

narrate the occurrence with photographic precision. Normal

discrepancies with passage of time are natural and may in facts and

circumstances of the case lend assurance that the witnesses are not

tutored.

47.The presence of PW-8 Raj Kishore at the spot stands

conclusively established, he being an injured witness. His testimony

assumes considerable significance for more than one reason. Firstly,

he was himself injured in the same transaction and is, therefore, a

natural witness to the occurrence. Secondly, his evidence, insofar as

the role of appellant Surinder Singh is concerned, has remained

substantially unshaken. He has also elaborated the role played by the

appellant Mohan Singh during the incident. Merely because PW-8 was

related to the deceased, would not be a valid ground to discard his

testimony, particularly when he himself suffered injuries in the

incident of assault. There is no reason why he would shield the real

culprits and implicate innocent persons with whom he has no axe to

grind. No material contradictions of such magnitude have been

brought out as would render his evidence unworthy of acceptance.

48.It is a settled principle that the testimony of an injured witness

carries strong evidentiary value and stands on a higher pedestal than

any other witness and deserves acceptance unless strong reasons exist

for its rejection. In Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

[(2010) 10 SCC 259], the Supreme Court held as under:

“28. The question of the weight to be attached

to the evidence of a witness that was himself

injured in the course of the occurrence has

been extensively discussed by this Court.

Where a witness to the occurrence has himself

CRL.A. 555/2002 & CRL.A. 704/2002 Page 22 of 29

been injured in the incident, the testimony of

such a witness is generally considered to be

very reliable, as he is a witness that comes

with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the

scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his

actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate

someone. “Convincing evidence is required to

discredit an injured witness.” [Vide Ramlagan

Singh v. State of Bihar, Malkhan Singh v.

State of U.P., Machhi Singh v. State of

Punjab, Appabhai v. State of Gujarat,

Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra, Bhag Singh,

Mohar v. State of U.P.(SCC p. 606b-c),

Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan,

Vishnuv. State of Rajasthan, Annareddy

Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P. and Balraje

v. State of Maharashtra.]”

49.What remains constant and materially unshaken in the

prosecution evidence is that the appellant Surinder Singh was the

person who wielded the knife and inflicted the fatal injuries on Ram

Kishore. On this core aspect, the evidence of PW-8 remains clear and

categorical. Even the testimony of PW-6, when read fairly, does not

exculpate Surinder Singh, but rather supports the prosecution case to

the extent that the principal assailant Surinder caused stab injuries to

PW-8. The consistent thread running through the prosecution evidence

is thus that the fatal knife assault was committed by appellant Surinder

Singh and this core evidence remains unshaken. Minor inconsistencies

or variations in narration are natural in the case of sudden violence

and do not erode the core of an otherwise credible prosecution case.

50.It is evident from the testimony of PW-8 that appellant Surinder

Singh attempted to take passengers out of turn, which led to

altercation, following which, he went and came back with the co-

accused persons, including appellant Mohan Singh, armed with

CRL.A. 555/2002 & CRL.A. 704/2002 Page 23 of 29

weapons, that is knife, danda, hockey stick and patti and inflicted stab

wounds to PW-8 Raj Kishore and his nephew Ram Kishore

(deceased). The medical evidence corroborates the ocular testimony of

causing stab wounds with knife.

51.The argument of defence regarding absence of motive to kill

and the act being not premeditated is not impressive. Multiple stab

injuries with knife were caused to PW-8 and the other victim. Such

stab injuries were caused on the vital parts of the body. Appellant

must be attributed the knowledge that by such act, he would cause

death of the victim. The case in hand does not fall under any of the

exceptions of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence on

record clearly reveals that appellant Surinder Singh was not a passive

bystander or a mere participant in a sudden scuffle, but the person who

escalated the incident into a fatal assault by using a deadly weapon.

The act of taking out a knife from the back pocket of his pant and

inflicting repeated blows on the deceased Ram Kishore, clearly

establishes the requisite knowledge that by such act, he would cause

death of the victim. The nature of weapon used, the manner of assault

and the resultant death leaves no room for doubt that the offence

squarely falls within the ambit of Section 302 IPC.

52.It is evident from the testimonies of PW-11 HC Mahender

Singh and PW-18 HC Dilbagh Singh that accused Mohan Singh, Brij

Mohan and Sada Kanwar were overpowered at the spot. PW-10 SI

Karan Singh, the first IO of this case, who reached the spot after

receiving DD No. 15-A Ex. PW-4/A, also confirmed the presence of

the aforesaid three accused at the spot in the custody of HC Dilbagh

CRL.A. 555/2002 & CRL.A. 704/2002 Page 24 of 29

Singh and HC Mahender Singh. Inspector Gyan Singh, second IO

(PW-28) deposed about the arrest of the aforesaid three accused from

the spot with weapons. Thus, the presence and arrest of accused

Mohan Singh from the spot is beyond doubt. Admittedly, the names of

accused Mohan Singh, Brij Mohan and Sada Kanwar are not

mentioned in the FIR. The FIR Ex. PW-4/B was recorded on the basis

of the statement of PW-8 Raj Kishore Ex. PW-8/A, recorded at the

hospital. In such statement, he did not mention the names of the

accused persons except accused Surinder. However, it is recorded that

accused Surinder came back at the spot along with an ASI, having one

star, his father and mother. There is no cross examination of PW-8 Raj

Kishore as to whether he knew the names of the aforesaid three

accused persons at the time when he gave the statement Ex. PW-8/A

and therefore accused Mohan Singh cannot take any benefit on

account of the reason that his name is not mentioned in the FIR.

53.The incident took place at 5.15 pm and the information

regarding the incident reached the Police Station vide DD No. 15-A

Ex. PW-4/A at 5.45 pm, whereafter, SI Karan Singh (PW-10) firstly

went at the spot and from there to the hospital, where, he recorded the

statement of the injured Raj Kishore, prepared the Rukka Ex. PW-

10/A and sent the same at Police Station at 7.30 pm for the registration

of the FIR. As per PW-4, ASI Om Prakash, Duty Officer, the Rukka

was received at 7.55 pm, on the basis of which, he recorded the FIR.

We find no inordinate delay in the registration of the FIR, which may

create any kind of suspicion or doubt of any manipulation or

interpolation.

CRL.A. 555/2002 & CRL.A. 704/2002 Page 25 of 29

54.The evidence on record, as appreciated by the learned trial

court, clearly establishes that appellant Surinder Singh was the

principal assailant and gave fatal injuries to the deceased Ram

Kishore. As per the MLC and post-mortem report of the deceased

Ram Kishore, he suffered multiple ante-mortem stab injuries caused

by a sharp-edged weapon. One of the stab wounds was located on the

chest, a vital part of the body and was found to be penetrative in

nature and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

The weapon used and the repeated blows to the two victims, leave no

manner of doubt that accused had the knowledge that by such act, he

would cause the death of the victim.

55.The gravity of the offence committed by the appellant Surinder

Singh, resulting in the loss of a human life, cannot be diluted based on

minor contradictions. The judgment of the learned Trial Court

therefore does not warrant any interference. It is also noteworthy that

the learned Trial Court, while appreciating the evidence, carefully

distinguished the role of the present appellant from that of the co-

accused persons and did not accept the prosecution case in its entirety

against the other accused persons. This indicates a judicious

evaluation of evidence and lends assurance to the correctness of the

findings recorded against all the accused persons.

56.This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that

prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt

against the appellant Surinder Singh. We find no merit in the

challenge laid to his conviction under Section 302 IPC. Upon an

independent re-appreciation of the evidence on record, we are of the

CRL.A. 555/2002 & CRL.A. 704/2002 Page 26 of 29

considered view that the learned trial Court was justified in convicting

Surinder Singh and that his conviction and subsequent order on

sentence are just, proper and proportionate to the gravity of the

offence.

57.The case of appellant Mohan Singh [in CRL.A. 555/2002],

however, stands on a different footing. The learned Trial Court itself

has recorded a clear finding that he did not give fatal injuries to the

deceased and that the principal role in causing death was attributable

to Surinder Singh. While the presence and participation of Mohan

Singh in the occurrence stands proved, the evidence does not attribute

to him any direct act resulting in the death of the deceased, as held by

trial court. The appellant Mohan Singh is not challenging his

conviction, but simply prays for reduction of his sentence and has also

filed an affidavit in this regard.

58.The criminal justice system in India embodies the reformative

theory of punishment. The object of sentencing is not merely to punish

but to transform the individual into a law-abiding citizen, particularly

where the circumstances do not disclose a continuing propensity for

violence and the offender is capable of reform. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977)

3 SCC 287, while emphasizing the reformative theory of punishment,

observed as under:

“9. It is thus plain that crime is a pathological

aberration, that the criminal can ordinarily be

redeemed, that the State has to rehabilitate

rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads

to anti-social behaviour has to be countered

CRL.A. 555/2002 & CRL.A. 704/2002 Page 27 of 29

not by undue cruelty but byre-culturisation.

Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is

the individual, and the goal is salvaging him

for society. The infliction of harsh and savage

punishment is thus a relic of past and

regressive times. The human today views

sentencing as a process of reshaping a person

who has deteriorated into criminality and the

modern community has a primary stake in the

rehabilitation of the offender as a means of

social defence. We, therefore, consider a

therapeutic, rather than an “in terrorem”

outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts,

since brutal incarceration of the person merely

produces laceration of his mind.”

59.The Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Mishra v. State of Uttar

Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1104, while relying on the judgment

of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) held that while imposing sentence,

aggravating and mitigating circumstances of a case are to be taken into

consideration. Further, in K. Pounammal v. State Represented by

Inspector of Police, 2025 INSC 1014, the appellant chose not to

contest his conviction, but sought a reduction in sentence. The

Supreme Court upheld the conviction but modified the punishment

considering the mitigating circumstances. The relevant portion of the

judgment reads as under:-

“6. The conviction and sentence have their

respective realms. While the conviction would

be recorded on the basis of evidence adduced

before the Court which would establish the

implication of the accused in the offence, the

guilty person or the convicted when to be

awarded a sentence, a host of factors would

operate to govern.”

6.1. In determining the final sentence and the

nature thereof, variety of factors that would

CRL.A. 555/2002 & CRL.A. 704/2002 Page 28 of 29

operate would include the intervening time

between the commission of offence and the

actual award of the sentence, age of the

accused, the stress which he or she might have

suffered because of passage of time during

each case has remained pending and

undecided, the family circumstance and such

other factors, without becoming exhaustive.”

7. The process of sentencing by the courts is

guided by theories such as punitive, deterrent

or reformative. Each school of thought has its

own object and purpose to explain awarding

of sentence and its utility. Amongst these

theories, reformative approach has become

increasingly acceptable to the modern

jurisprudence. Reformation is something

always considered progressive. When there

are mitigating circumstances, the court would

lean towards reducing of the sentence. The

focus would be on the crime, and not on the

criminal. The society and system would

nurture the guilt with positivity, while

selecting the sentence.”

60. The appellant Mohan Singh in CRL.A. 555/2002 is stated to be

80 years old. This Court while suspending the sentence of appellant

Mohan Singh vide order dated 07

th

August, 2002 noted that he has

already deposited the fine amount and has undergone one year in jail

during the trial. The judgment of conviction is of the year 2002. He

has suffered the ignominy and ordeal of the trial for over two decades.

The prolongation of a criminal case for an unreasonable period is in

itself a kind of suffering and the convict who has appealed against

conviction and sentence, everyday awaits the fate of litigation and

spends time in distress.

61. In light of the cumulative facts and circumstances of the case

CRL.A. 555/2002 & CRL.A. 704/2002 Page 29 of 29

and taking the mitigating circumstances in totality, we are of the view

that the ends of justice would be adequately met by reducing the

sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant Mohan

Singh.

Conclusion:

62.In view of the above discussion, CRL.A.555/2002 is partly

allowed and the sentence awarded to appellant Mohan Singh is

reduced to the sentence already undergone by him. However, CRL. A.

704/2002, filed by appellant Surinder Singh, is dismissed. He is

directed to surrender before the Superintendent, Jail immediately to

serve the remaining sentence. In the event of failure to surrender,

appropriate steps shall be taken by the State to ensure his arrest for

undergoing the remaining sentence.

63.Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial Court and

Superintendent, Jail for information and necessary action.

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

APRIL 16, 2026/AK/RM