:B

c

D

E

F

G

Ii

RA VINDER SINGH

v.

STATE OF HARYANA

Februflfy 7, 1975

[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, P. K. GOSWAMI AND R. S. SAllAIUA, JJ.]

Criminal· Trial-Statement of the approver-Appro:ver's evidenu to be

tested by the touchstoM of independent credible evidence.

. Criminql Tria/-lssue-Estoppel-Parties and facts-in.Jissue to be the same

m both f(za/3-A.pprovers statement not materially corroborated by other evi­

den~e, against an 11ccused 'In anothe~ trial-Cimviction, if could be based on the

testimony.

of

the same apyrover azamst another accused in a difierent triai.

The case of the 'prosecution is that the appellant who was married to Bimla

was employ~d in the Air Force Department at Sirsa. Durina his stay at Sirsa,

when his ~1f.e .was not there, he developed intimacy with a aifl, Balbir' Kaur,

who was .ms1stin~ on. marnaee, which however, the appellant posing to be a

bachelor was putuns o!T holdma out hopes to her. The appellant and the Jasbir

Jnder Singh (approver) who was his friend, want on two months' leave. When

the appellant and the approver went to brine Bimla back from her father's house

at Komt1, the appellant asked his wife that she should a11ree to a div01ce, but

she would not. .·· The appellant used to say that he would finish his wife c·ne

day. On July, 29, 1968, Bhanu Prakash, cousin of the appellant went to the

house of the appellant.

On the same day the approver alsc returned from

Lucknow.

On July 30, the accused told the approver in the presence of Bhanu

Prakash Singh. that he would kill his wife that day. He replied that he had

brought acid with him and it would help

in expediting her death.

On July 30,

1969, the appellant, his wife Bimla, his brother Satinder Kumar, the approver

dnd Bhanu Prakash Singh left for Sirsa bv train from Sasni Rai!w~y Station

which

is·

at a distance of four or five miles from KOiari.

After leaving Sasni at 12 Noon, they arrived at Delhi Railway Station at

6.30 P.M. and changed for Bhatinda Railway Station. T: ~y reached Rewari

Railway Station at about 10.30 P.M. At Rewari their bogie was attached to the

train bound for Srlsa· Bhatinda. When the train left Rewari at l.15 A.M. on

Tuly 31, 1968, there WM no other passenger in the compartment except the

above

five persons. The train

stoppect for some time at the next Railway

Station. When it aeain started. the accused threw his wife :Simla on .the ftoor

.if the compartment by catching bold of her by the neck. When she fell down

in the compartment the approver ca\lght hold of her by the feet and Bhanu

, Prakash Singh "threw acid in her mouth". Satinder Kumar did not take any

· part: The accused removed the pazebs from her feet and gold jumlas from her

.ears. The accused threw Bimla from the running train in between the first and

the second railway sta.tions beyond Rewari. Some acid drops fell on the hands

of the accused and Bhanu Prakash Singh and on their pants and lln the accused's

shirt. When the train reached Bhiwani the accused got down for purchasing

two tickets f6r Bhaiiu Pral:ub Singh and ~tinder Kumar, but the Ticket <;:ol·

lector, Ragbbir Singh (PW 29) detained hiln and he missed the train. Three

of the aforesaili company reached Sirsa at 9.00 A.M. on July 31, 19G8. When

asked about the accused, the approver told Baosi Lal (PW 25) and Yudhishter

Kumar' (PW 26) that the accused had missed the train at Bhiwani and would

be coming by the next train. The accused arrived

at

Sirsa 11t 1.30 P.M. on July

31 . Bhanu Park:uh Singh left for Aligarh in the evening ot August 1. The

accused and the approver resumed their duties at the Air Forllll Station on

August 2. 1968.

Bimla who had been thirown from the running train waa ricled up, si:mi

conscious, by Udmi (J'W 10) and another person from !l railway tr.ack betwee!1

Tatusana and Kosli Railway Stations, and taken to Railway HospttGI, Rewan,

Where Doctor (Miss) K: Dass (PW 3) and Miss V. K. Sharma, Nurse (PW 2)

454 SUPREME. COURT REPORTS [ 197 5] 3 s.c.R.

attended upon her: Shi: could speak out a little before Mi•s Sharma, g:ave her A

name as B11nla, wife of the accused and daughter of Narain Smi:h, and indicated

that she

was travelling wiih her

hmband by train. She wai; later Sl:nt to 1he Civil

Hospital, Rewari, whm: she was received by Dr. Manocha (PW 1). She was

not in a position to ma:k.e a statement at the Civil Ho•p:tal and she expired at

g,45 P.M. on July 31, 19_68.

The appellant husband being Charged under section 3();l.!34, I.P.C. nlong

Nith some others obtained an acquittal from the Trial Judi;e. Oa the State's

Appeal, the High Court entered his conviction under section 302, I.P.C. and was I}

given life sentence. Under section 2 of the Supreme Court l Enlargement uf

Criminal Appdlate Jarisdiction) Act, !970, this appeal nas been preferred.

It was lOntended for the appellant that (i) the approver was not a reliable

witness; (ii) the approver's statement was not corroborated in material p<1rtkuiars

by other evidence connecting the accused with th' ~rime; and that, in as much as

the High Court has, in the appeal by Bhanu l'irakash Singh, acqui'.ted him, on

rhe ground that the approver'g evidence was not corroborated in matenal parti-

cuJars, the rule of igsue-estoppel should be applied in uppellaut's favou;·. C

Rejecting the contentions.

HELD : (i} and (ii)

An approver is a mmt unworthy fiiend, if at <11! and he, having bargained

for his immunity, must prove his worthiness for nedibility in court. This test

is fulfilled, firstly, if the story lie relates involves him in the crime and appears

111strins1cally IO be a natural and probable catalogue of eve.its that had taken

olace. The st.ory tf g!ven of minute details according with reality is likely ro D

·save it from being rejected brevi manu. Secondly, once that hurdle is crossed,

the •tory given by an apJPrOver so tar as the accused on trial ts ~oncerned, must

implicate him

in such

a manner as to give rise to a conclusion of guilt beyond

reasonable doubt. In a ram ·case taking into consideration all the facton;, cir­

cumstances and situations governing a particular case, conviction bSJSed on the

. uncorroborated evidence of an approver confidently held to be true and reliable

by the .:ourt may be permissible. Ordinarily, however, an approver's statement

has

to be corroborated in material particuJarg bridging closely the

distance bet-E

ween the crime a.nd the criminal. Certain clinching features of involvement dis­

closed by an approver appertaining directly to an accused, if reliable, by the

touchstone of oiher independent credible eviden:e, would give the needed assu-

rance for accep'.ance of his testimony on which a conviction may be based.

[459B-H]

Judged

by these principleg, the evidence of the

approver, while revealing the

story, stands amply corroborated

by the facts deposed to by the independent Witnesses m certain material and clinching aspects and c .. mneeling the a1;cused l

with the crime. [4600]

\iii) ln ord•r to invoke the rule of issue-estoppcl not only \he parties in the

two trials must be the rnme but also the fact-in-issue proved ur 110t m the earlier

trial must be ideatkal with what is sought to be reagitated in the subsequent

trial. [4610-E]

Lalta and Ur~. v. State of Uttar Prade.rh, [l 9691 2 S.C.R. 526 and Tlie King

v. Wilkes, 77 S.L.R. 511 at 518 referred to. G

Manipur Administration v. Thokclwm Bira Singh [1964] 7 S.C.R. 123 at

p. 133, relied On.

In the present case, the parties are the State and the appellant. In the other

case relied upon, the parties were the State and the accused Bhanu Prakash

Singh. There is no inconsistency between the finding that the approver's statement

there was not materially corroborated

by other

evidence ai,ainst Bhanu Prakash

a11d the contrary rinding i11 the affirmative in the present case against the appel-

lant. [461E-FJ H

CRIMINAL APPELU•TE JURISDICTION : Crimin.al Appeal No. 156

of 1974.

A

B

c

0

F

G

H

~rom the Judgmen~ and Order d<ttt"J 12th February, 1974 of the

r~~i~b & Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1055 of

R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal and V. J. Francis for the appellant.

H. S. Marwah and R. N. Suchthe.y, for the resp0ndent.

The Judgment. of the Colirt was delivered by

. GoswAMI, J. On July. 30, 19?~· Bimla, a hale and hearty young

girl. ( 19), mdeed, by her nght, leg1t1mate wife of the accused Ravinder

Si1!-gh. (23 l, accompanied on a rail journey her husband, ~ho. after

er.ioyrng two months' furlough at home, r.:::unwJ to his Air· f·orcc

Station at Sin,a without her and without the !ea~'t concern. She was

found next morning nearby a wayside distant railway station with acid

?UL:m ~n her f~ce and on other parts of the body with multipl~ in­

]tmes, mcapac1tated by

the shock and affiliction, to tell her gruesome st~iry tr the few persons who came l>y h.::r. The only unchallenged

thmg

was that she

was pronounced dead in a hospital on July 31, 1968,

at 8.45 PM.

Did the husband cause the murder of his wife, is for a final judi­

cial solution before us. The accused husband being charged under

section 302/34, I.P.C., along with some~ others obtained an acquittal

from the Ttial Judge. Government'~ c.1nscience was roused and the

High Court

on the State's appeal entered his

convidion under section

302 l.P.C., Shrinking, however, from administering the extreme

penalt:r under the law. That is how the liter is before u~ in this appeal

as a matter of right under section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlarge­

ment of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act 1970.

The entire story as given below is revealed

1

by a friend of the

accused, approver Jasbir lnder Singh (21) (PW 5), who "'.as arr~sted

along with the accused on August 13, 1968. Accused Ravmder Smgh

and the approver were employed in the Ai~ Force Departm.ent at. Sirsa

and were good friends. Bhanu Parkash Smgh, smce acq1;t<ted, 1s the

cousin

of the accused.

Satinder Kumar (11) is the accused's brother.

Daring his stay at Sirsa, when his wife Bimla was not there, the accused

developed intimacy with a girl, Balbir Kaur, who "."as insisting on

marriage which, however, the accused posing to be a bachelor was put­

ting

off holding out hopes to her. Both the accused ana the approver

took two months' leave, the former

to ·constru.ct his house at village

Komri. The accused and the approver with SatiJider Kumar reached

Komri on June 3, 1968, when Bimla ·was in her parents' ·house. On

June 12 or 13, the accused and the approver went to bring her back

from her father's house, but on account of a son being ·born to her

brother's wife, a

few days earlier, the father-in-law

sc1id that he would

.send her after some days. This led to some exchange Of hot word~.

Howei.

1er, after 7 or 8 days, Bimla returned to 'her husband's home

with her.fathe.r

and. brother. Lekh Raj

Singh (·PW 1'8). The accused

went in early 'July to see Bhanu Parkash ·Singh, his ·cousin, ·who was

employed as Health Visit& at Arnod Dispensary· and returned after S

456 SUPREME COURT REPPRTS (1975] 31 S.C.R.

or 10 days. The approver was in the accused's house during the

periOO. The accu~ed ar,ked his wife that she should a~ee to a divorce,

but she would not. The accused used to say that he would finish his

wife one day. On July 29, 1968, Bhanu Parkash Sin~h came to the

accused's house. On the same day the approver also returned from

Lucknow where he had gone 7 or 8 days back. On July 30, the

accused told the approver in the presenec of Bhanu Parka.sh Singh that

:he would kill hig wifo that day. Bhanu Parkash Singh replied that he

had brought acid with him and it would help in expeditini her &ath.

On July 30, 1968, the accused, his wife Bimla, the approver, Bhanu

Parkash Singh and Satinder Kumar left for Sirsa by train from Sasni

Railway Station which is at a distance of four or five miles from Komri.

The father of the accused came to sec them off at the Railway Station.

The acq1sed booked a cycle at Sasni Railway Station and purchased

two tickets for his wife and Bhanu Parkash Singh, but did not pur­

chase anv ticket for Satinder Kumar. Both the accused and the

approver bad Military Railway Warrants for travel.

After leavin2 Sasni at 12 Noon, they arrived at Delhi Ra.ilway

Station at 6.30 P.M. and chan2ed for Bhatinda Railway Station. They

reached Rewari Railway Station at about 10.30 P.M. At Rewari their

bogie was attached to the train bound for Sirsa-Bhatinda. When

the train left R.ewari at 2.15 AM. on July 31, 1968, there was no other

passenger

in the compartment except the above five persons. The train

stopped

for some time at the next Railway

Station. When it again

started. the acc:used threw his wife Bimla on the floor of the compart­

ment bv catching hold of her bv the neck. When she fell k!own in the

compartment the approver caught hold of her by the feet and Bhanu

Parkash Singh "threw acid in her mouth". Satinder Kumar did not

take

anv part. The accused removed the pazebs from her feet and

gold jhumkas from her ears. The accused threw

Bimla from the mn­

ming train in between the first and the s~nd railway stations beyond

Rewari. Some aci(l drops fell on the Hafids of the accused and Bhanu

Parkash Singh and on their pants and on the accused's shirt. When

the train reached Bhiwani the accused got down for purchasing two

tickets for .Bha111ii. Parkash Singh and Satinder Kumar, but the Ticket

Collector, Raghbir Singh (PW 29) detained him and he missed the

train. ThrCFt>f th~t.tlforesaid company reached Sirsa at 9.00 A.M. on

July :n, 1968. When asked about the accus~. the approver told

Bansi Lal (PW 25) and Yudhishter Kumar (PW 26) that the accused

had missed the train at Bhiwani and would be coming by the next

train. lbe accu11ed arrived at Sirsa 'at 1.30 P.M. on July 31. Bhanu

ParkOO!t Sin~ l~ft for Aliv.arh in the evening of Aultllst 1. The

accused and the 1lpprover resumed their duties at the Air Force Statii:>n

on August 2, 1968.

On August 3, 1968. the mother ofJhe accused and her nephew,

Malklum Singh, came to Sirsa and she told that Bimla hQlf .J>een ad­

mittea in the Civil Hospital, Rewari, and suggested thatlbey should

register their prescmce in the Air Force Station at Sirsi' ;n~order to sa,•e

themselves. On August 4, tho accused and the approver went t~ .· t11e

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

c

D

RAVINDER v. HARYANA (Goswami, J.)

457

Medical Assistant at the Air Force Station and the accused showed the

burns on his hands and the Medical Assistant (PW 50) made a not•

in his register. They decided to leave their house at New Mandi and

again started living in the barracks of the Air Force from August 8.

Both of them were arrested from the Air Force barracks on August 13,

196$. This is as disclose~ by the approver (PW 5).

Let us now turn to tho fate of Bimla thrown from the running

train. She was picked up, semi conscious, by Udmi (PW 10) and

another person from a railway track between Jatusana and Kosli Rail­

way Stations, and taken to Railway Hospital, Rewari, where Doctor

(Miss)

K.

Dass (PW 3) and Miss V. K. Sharma, Nurse (PW 2)

att1:;nded upon her. She could speak out a little before Miss Sharma,

.!!ave her name as Bimla. wife of the accused and daughter of Narain

Singh, and indicat~ that she was travelling with her husband by train.

She was later sent to the Civil Hospital, Rewari, where she was re­

ceived bv Dr. Manocha (PW 1). She was not in a position to make

a statement at the Civil Hospital and she exPired at 8.45 P.M. on July

31, 1968.

Postmortem examination of Bimla disclosed lacerated wounds on

the head and multiple abrasions on different parts of the body. Face

was disfigured by acil:I burns caused by sulphuric acid. Thero were:

other stains on the body which, according to the Doctor, were of sul­

phuric acid. Cause of death, in his opinion, was due to shock on ac­

count of burning caused by sulphuric acid. Sulphuric acid was also

found by the Chemical Examiner on jumper, dopatta, and petticoat

E ·in the wearing of the deceased.

F

G

H

The Additional Sessions Judge disbelieved the approver and also

held that his statement was not corroborated in material particulars.

H~' heid that motive was not established nor was the dying declaration

proved. The Hi&h Court, however, found that the approver, who was

admittedly a friend of the accused, was a reliable witness and his state­

ment did not suffer from any defoct whatsoever. The High Court fur­

ther held that the approver's statement was corroborated in material

particulars by other evidence connectinlil the accused with tho crime.

Since the accused has come in appeal against the judgment of the ·

High Court as a matter of right, wo have heard his learned counsel at

length and also examined the evidence with care. We are unable to

hold that the !Jigh Court committed any error or injustice in interfer­

ing with the acquittal in this case.

The most important material aspect in the case is with regart:l to

the accused accompanying the deceased in the train on July 30, 1968.

This

is not only disclosed by the statement of the approver but .

i~

corroborated by evidence aliunde. The very fact that she was found

away from her home at a distant place by a wayside railway

track:

i~

consistent with her travelling in the train on the fattful day. The

defence of the accused that ho leff for Delhi on July 29, 1968 and "my_

-4 58 SUPKEME COURT REPORTS (1975] 3 S"C.R.

w1k luilowed me w1tt1 large gold and silver ornaments on her p.~rson

anu sne· was robboo and blled on the way" is most unnatural and 1m­

prooao1e ano cau sare1y be cnaractenseo as raise. 1ne accusect was

dnx1ous w bnn£ J.us wire home from her father's house. He war. re­

turnmg to a dmant place by train after enjoying his leave and them was

no eartnty reason to leave the young wi1e b..:rnnd to travel alone in the

uam w1t11 ·gold and silver ornaments'' with attendant risks. lhen

agam there is tne evidence of Miss V. K. Sharma (PW 2) to the dJ:ect

·nat she "also understood from her (deceased's) talks that she was. pro­

cecdmg to Sirsa with her husband". She is an absolutely independent

witness and there is no reason to disbelieve her statement. Shi~ has

no ammus against the accused nor can it be accepted that she had been

tutored by the police to give evidence in this case against the accused.

The fact that this information was not recorded in the note Ext. PA/2

would not affoct the veracity of the witness since her comprehension of

t~ie rleceased's talk wa.s not otherwise challenged. Nothing has been

pointed out to show that this witness either had not menti()ned about

this fact to the Investigatin& Officer earlier or had stated something

inconsistent with the same. Then we have the evidence of Raghbir

Singh <PW 29). Ticket C-Ollector, Bhiwani. It appears from his evi­

dence that the accused was detained on July 31, 1968. by him at the

Station when he returned from the Booking Office after purchasing

3± tickets which according to the aix:used were necessary for rnme

passengers travellin,g in the train. From his evidence it also appears

that the accused hali return-journey Railway Warrant. Besides, when

money was de.manded from the accused for travelling without tickets

of those 3! versons from Sasni to Bhiwani, he gave a writing, Ext. PL

dated 31-7-68

to him. This witness.is also an independent witness and has no enmity against the. accused. We have no reason to think that­

he will falsely implicate the accused after being tutored by the police,

as suggested. Further we have the evidence of Yuklhishter Kumar

<PW 26) who states about the approver, Satinder Kumar an;l Bharrn

Parkash Singh <;orninJ!: to him at Sirsa on Julv 31 at about 10.30 A.M.

without the accused. He also stated that the accused came there at

about 1.30 P.M. the same day. IDs evidence, which is not even

cha1Jenged. establishes the story about the three persons arriving at

Sirsa wit.bout the accu~x! who had already missed the train at Bhiwani.

The evidence of Shakti Parshal'.! Ghosh (PW 17), A.S.M., Sasni

Railway Station. proves that the accused booked his cycle No. RK-

162872 Make Road King from Sasni to Sirsa on July 30, 1968, as per

the forwarding note. Ext. PW 16 /A (original Ext. 17 /A) which fact

is J]so proved by PW 16, Surinder Kumar, A.S.M. PW 17 categorically

states tr.at the accused came to him for booking the cycle and filled

in the forwarriing note. It is pointed out that PW 17 did not see the

accusPd at the Railway Station at the arrival of the train as he went

to the brake-van direct. It was not at all natural for the witness to

follow ~he movement~ of. the accused after he had b'1oked the cvcle.

There is. therefore. 11othinit unusual in his not noticing the accuiseci

later on the arriv.al of the train.

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

,

B

c

I)

.RWINDER v. !iAllYANA (Goswami, J.) 459

We also find from the approver's evidence that the accused went

to the Doctor of the Air Force on August 4 to show the bums on

his hands. This fact

is deposed to by PW

50, Sergeant R. N. Singh,

who worked as a Medical _Assistant in the Unit of the First Aid Post

at the Air Force Unit Accordin2 to him the accused came to him

on August 4. 1968, at about 7 00 AM. an'cl reported that both his

hands had acid burns. He also proved the endorsement to that effect

in the re_gister (Ext. PT) maintained in the First Aid Post. This fact

is not denied by the accused and according to hjm, he had these burns

as he. being a storeman. had to deal with batteries an'cl some acid fell

om his hands. and that is why he went to PW 50 for treat111ent. In

his statement in the court recorded on April 25, 1969, after admitting

the above facts the accused also asserted that "there are no marks of

acid burns on

my hands

now". In cross-examination of Dr. Manocha

(PW 1) it was elicited that "the sqlphuric acid burns if superficial

and not infected

an'd

treated immediately in due course may not leave

a mark. otherwise it should leave a mark". In view of this medical

evidence there

is no significance attached to the accused not having marks of the iniuries on his hands after about nine months. The in­

juries due to a

few accidental drops may even be superficial. It

is

significant that PW 50 was not even cross-ex:amined with regard to the

burns being caused by acid from batteries. The accuse(l's explanation

that the acid !rom the battery caused these burns on his hands is

absolutely an after-thought. ·

An aoprover is a most unworthy friend, if at all, and he, having

bargained for his immunity, must prove his worthiness for credibility

in court. This test_ is fulfilled, firstly, if the story he relates involves

him in the crime and appears intrinsically to be a natural and probable

c~talogue of events that had taken place. The story if given of minute

details according with reality is likely to save it from being rejected

brevi

m'11JU. Seconlly, once that hurdle is crossed, the story given

by a:1 approver so far as the accused on trial is concerned, must impli-

1' -cate h'm in such a manner as to give rise to a conclusion of guilt beyond

reasonable doubt.

In a rare case taking into consideration all the

factors, circumstances and situations governing a particular case,

conviction based on the uncorroborated evidence of an approver con­fulently held to be true and reliable by the court may be permissible.

Ordinarily, however. an approver"s statement has to be corroborated

G

H

in material particulars

bridginl!: closely the distance between the crime

and the criminal. . (',ertain clinchin2 features of involvement disclosed

by an approver appertaining directly to an accused,

if reliable, by the

touchstone

ot other independent erodible eVidence, would give the

needeld assurance for acceptance of his testimony on which a con­

viction may

be based.

The approver here

w~s a constant companion of thi= accused. He

was arrested along with the accused on August 13. He was in police

custody till August '27 when he was sent to the jail ther~aftcr. Hi~

wrote throu11h the Jail Superintendent to the Magistrate on August 29

I

Sm'B.EME COURT REPORTS [1975] 3 :S.C.R.

expressin2 willi.n&ness to give evidence as "sultani gawa" originally · ·A

(King's witness). He was then granted conditional pardolli on

September 6 and was examined therefater as a prosecution witness.

Every apprm;er comes to give evidence in some such manner seeking to

purchase

his immunity and that is why to start with he is an unrdiable

person

and the rule

of caution calling for material corroboration is

constilntly kept in mind by the court by time-worn judicial practke. B·

Ignoring for a moment that PW 5 is an approver, there is nothing

in his evidence to show that his statement otherwise is unreliable, un­

natural or improbable. There i! nothing to show that he had on any

earlier occasion made any contradictory statement on any material point.

It is true that an approvt~r is a person of low morals for the reason that

he being a co-participator in the crime has let down his compaiiion. As

pointed out above it is for this reason that a rule of caution has 1vown

whereby the court has to see if his evidence is corroborated in material

particulars connectine; the ac_cuscd with the crime. . . '

Jud~ed by the principles mention above, the evidence of the a.ppr.?"

ver, as already set out, while rev_ealing; the story stanrls amply corrobor~

ted by the facts deposed to by the above independent witnesses in cer­

. tain material and clinchin2 aspects connecting the accused with tho c:rime.

To mention a fel'i', the fact that the accused was accompanied~y

the deceased wife is moved by the statement of PW 2, Miss Sharma.

That the accused got down at Bhiwani Railway Station, missed"(he.

train and. therefore, had to arrive Sirsa later in the afternoon i~ ~vrrO.,,

borated bv PW 26. That the accused came bv train on July 30, 1968

and not on July 29, 1968, is also established by the evidence of PWs

16 and 17. The accused booked his cycle at Sasni Railway Station on

July 30, 1968 (vide PWs 16 and 17) and took delivery of the 'same at

Sirsa Railway Station of August 1 (vide PW 20). Then again the ac-.

cused reported to PW 50 about his acid burqs on both the ,bands on·

August 4, 1968. These are some material aspects in the case having

great relevance to th(• crime committed by the accused and am dis­

cl~cd bv independent an~ reliable witnesses. It ,.,as not possible

for the approver if he had not actually accompanied the accused to

make such a detailed statement as he has done, some material paiiS

of which find sUPPort from the evidence of the aforesaid witqesses. We

arc, therefore, clearly of opinion that the approver's evidence fa not

only reliable but the same stankls corroborated in several material parts.

c

D

E

F

by other reliable cvidc:nce from an independent source. We are also G

prepared to

believe that the motive for the crime

was the illegitimate ·

intimacy with Balbir Kaur.

....

It wa~ then submitted by the apuellant that in a seParate trial Bhanu ·­

Parkash Singh Will! acquitted by the High Court. He also produced -

the judgment of that case which was pronounced on the same day as

in the present case. The learned counsel for the appellant, however H

frankly stated that

the High Court acquitted the accused. Bhanu .

Parkash

Sin~. since the aporover's cviaence Wru! not found to be

corroborated i11 caterfat partieutars. That ..cquittat, therefore, cannot

RAVINDER v. HARYANA (Goswami, J.) 461

A at all influence the decision against the present accused when the

approver's evidence

is amply corroborated in material particulars ag~inst him.

B

The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision o'f

this Court in Lalta and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (

1

)

to support

his submission that on the principle of issue-estoppel conviction

of the

appellant cannot

be sustained because

of the ~cquitt~l of Bhanu

P'arkash Singh, a co-accused, although in a .separate tnal. The .crux

of the principle of issue-estoppel may be stated in the words of Dixon,

J. in The King vs. Wilkes, (

2

) as follows :

c

. "Whilst there is not a great deal of authority upon the

subject, it appears to

me that there is nothing wrong in the

view that

there is an issue estoppel, if it appears by record

of itselt or as explained by proper evidence, that the same

D

point was determined in favour of a prisoner in a pr~vi.ous

criminal trial which is brought in issue on a second cnmmal

trial of the same prisoner . . . . . . . . There must ~e ~ prior

proceeding determined against the Crown necessanly mv(}\V-

ing an issue which again arises in a subsequent proceeding

by the Crown against the same prisoner".

In order to invoke the rule of issue-estoppel not only the parties in

the

two trials must be the same but also the

fact:in-issue proved or not

in the earlier trial must be identical with what

is sought

to b: reagitated

in the subsequent trial.

In the present case the parties are

tne State and the accused,

E Ravinder Sinih. In the other case relied upon, the. parties were the

State and the accused Bhanu Parkash Singh. Besides. as even admit-

. ted by counsel, the approver was not held to be unreliable in that case.

while deciding the case of Bhanu Parkash Singh. There is no incon·

si~tency b2tween the finding that the approver's statement there was not

materially corroborated by other evidence against Bhanu P.irkash Singh

and the contrary finding in the affirmative in the present case against

F. Ravinder Singh. As has been observed by thi_s P,urt in Manipur Ad­

ministration vs. Thokchom, Bira Singh,(

3

) "issue-estoppd does not pre­

vent the trial of an offence as does autre fois acquit but only precludes

evidence being led to prove a fact in issue as regards which evidenc\:

has ~eady been led and a specific finding recorded at an .earlier crimi­

nal tnal before a court of competent jurisdiction". There is, therefore.

G

· no substance in the submission of the learned cou.nsel o:i the basis of

· issue-estoppel in this case. · ·

The Trial Court's reasons for disbelieving the approver did no.tfirtd.·•· .

favour with the High Court and rightly so. If the incident de~ib.ed. ,

by ~e ap?rover had .ta~en. place, as stated. there is nothing improbable

or 1mposs1ble about 1t, 1f, 1udged by the standard of a .cool person. the

crime could not have been perpetrated in the manner disdosed. It is

H evident there was some hatching for the crime and that the opporturtity

(1) [1969] 2 S.C.R. 526. (2) 77 C.L.R. 511 at 51(

(3) [1964p S.C.R.';123 at'.133

15-423SCI\75

462

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1975] 3 S.C.R.

to perpetrate it was availed of in the manner done, cannot be dismissed

as a fib. The Trial Court disbelieved the evidence of Sampat (P\V 8)

with regard to the dying_ declaration of Bimla implicating her husband.

The Trial Court also observed that "there is no doubt in my mind that

the story of dying declaration is not genuine". Even so the Trial

Court

relying upon the statement of Sampat (PW 8) with regard to the

dying declaration observed that

"the stat':ment of tl]e approver, in my

opinion, does not seem to be true". Once the evidence of Sampat has

been rejected by the court it should not be made a basis for judging the

veracity of other evidence by the yardstick of that unreliable evidence.

The Trial Court fell into that error. Again the reason given by the

Tri3.l Court for the rejection of the evidence of the Ticket Collectvr is

also tenuous. There is no reason why the Ticket Collector would spin

a story of his own if not giwn by the accused, particularly so whc,

even according to the. Trial Court, it does not fit in with the number

of tickets actually needed for the. journey. This absence of auy attempt

at padding of the evidence goes rather to establish the truth of the

testimony of the Ticket Collector. The Ticket Collector nniy estab-

lished the presence of the accused P.t Bhiwani Railway Mation 1:om-

ing by the connecting train for Sirsa-Bhatinda. Because of these

patent infirmities in the approach of the case and appreciation oi the

eviclcnce, the High Court was right in interfering with the order of

acquittal passed by the .Trial Court.

It is true that in an appeal against acquittal the High Court will b~

slow in interfering with the findings of the Trial Court which has the

opportunity to watch the witnesses while giving evidence before it.

That may be largely true where the Trial Court records remarks about

the demeanour of the witnesses. Where, however, the prima facie

appreciation of the recorded evidence is opposed to even a reasonable

appraisement

of the same bearing in mind the relevant point or points

sought to be established by the evidence, there will

b~ no option to the

High Court in the interest of justice to step in to do justice in the case.

This is exactly what the High Court has clone in the appeal.

A

B

c

D

E

We have considered the case from both the stand-points-whether F

the High Court was right in interfering with the acquittal and also

whether we would be justified to take the same view as the High Court

after examination of tlle evidence afresh. In <:dctition to what we have

found above if the accused came in tlle train with his wife on the date

in question, about which we have not the slightest d0ubt, his subse-

quent conduct is a true tell-tale of his guilty mind. We are absolutely I

satisfied that the accused has been rightly convicted by the High Court. G

Tn the result the appeal fails and is dismissr<i.

V.M.K. Appeal dismissed.