http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6

PETITIONER:

SATBIR AND THE STATE OF HARYANA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

SURAT SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/02/1997

BENCH:

M.K. MUKHERJEE, B. N. KIRPAL

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 780-788 OF 1982

J U D G M E N T

M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.

These appeals stem from an incident that took place in

the morning of June 20, 1984 in village Misri, under the

jurisdiction of Police Station Bondkalan, on the district of

Bhiwani, in which three residents of the village, namely

Prabhu, his son Bir Singh & Mir Singh and Suraj Bhan, one of

their distant relations, were killed. Over the incident a

case was registered by the police on a report lodged by

Satbir Singh, a resident of the same village, and on

completion of investigation police submitted charge-sheet

against thirteen persons. As one of them was a `child' his

case was separated for trial by the Children's Court and the

other twelve were arraigned before the Sessions Judge,

Bhiwani pursuant to an order of commitment made under

Section 209 Cr. P.C. Against nine of them, namely, Surat

Singh, Dalwant Singh, Dola Ram, Subh Ram, Udey Ram, Suresh

Kumar, Chhajju Ram, Smt. Chameli and Smt. Giarsi, charges

under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC were framed. Against

Surat Singh and two others, namely, Ran Singh and Bishambhar

a charge of criminal conspiracy to commit the three murders

was framed. The remaining accused, namely, Dr. Satyavart

Arya, the then doctor in charge of the local primary health

centre, was asked to answer charges under Sections 193, 218

and 466 IPC, which were based on the allegations that to

make out a defence of alibi in favour of Surat Singh he made

false documents to show that he (Surat Singh) was a patient

in the health centre between the period from June 19 to June

21, 1984. The trial ended with an order of conviction and

sentence recorded against them in respect of all the charge

framed. While six of the nine accused persons convicted

under Sections 302/149 IPC were sentenced to suffer

imprisonment for life, the other three, namely, Surat Singh,

Balwant Singh and Dola Ram were sentenced to death. For the

other convictions different terms of imprisonment and fine

were imposed upon them.

2. Aggrieved thereby they preferred appeals in the High

Court which were heard alongwith the reference made by the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6

trial Judge under Section 366 Cr. P.C. for confirmation of

the sentence of death. By a common judgment the High Court

allowed all the appeals, set aside the order of conviction

and sentence recorded against the twelve accused persons and

rejected the reference. The above judgment of the High Court

is under challenge in these appeals: one of which has been

filed by Satbir, who lodged the F.I.R., and the others by

the State of Haryana. During the pendency of these appeals

Dr. Satyavart Arya died and therefore the appeals as against

him abate. All the appeals have been heard together and this

judgment will dispose of them.

3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that land

bearing Killa No.31/17 in village Misri belonged to Partap,

son of Prabhu (the deceased). After death of Pratap, his

widow Surjit sold it to accused Surat Singh, Balwant Singh

and Dola Ram, who are all sons of accused Chhajju Ram. The

possession, however, remained with Prabhu and he used to

cultivate it. In the early morning of he fateful day Prabhu

along with Bir Singh and Suraj Bhan went to plough the

aforesaid land; and at or about 8 A.M. Raj Kumari (PW 10),

grand-daughter of Prabhu, came to the field with meals for

them. Soon after her arrival, Surat Singh armed with a

jelli, Balwant Singh with a farsa, Dola Ram with a Kulhari

and Krishan, Subh Ram, Udey Ram, Suresh Kumar and Chhajju

Ram with lathis came to the field along with accused Smt.

Chameli and Smt. Giarsi. While Chameli was carrying a bag

containing red chilli powder and stones Biarsi was having

some stones in her hands. Reaching there Surat Singh raised

a Jalkara that they would exterminate Prabhu and his

companions as they were ploughing the land purchased by

them. To this Prabhu retorted that it was his ancestral land

and he was in its possession for long. Hearing this Smt.

Chameli took out stones and chilli powder from her bag and

started throwing the same towards the three deceased. Smt.

Giarsi also threw stones which she was carrying in her

hands. All the other accused persons then started beating

the three deceased with their respective weapons as a result

of which they fell down. Finding Satbir (P.W.7) and Harbilas

(P.W.9) of their village, who had by then reached there

while in search of the missing buffalo of the latter, and

Raj Kumari (P.W.10) present there, the above accused persons

asked them to leave the place; and out of fear they took

shelter behind a cluster of bushes nearby wherefrom they saw

that they were still beating the three deceased. Soon

thereafter the appellants fled away along with their

weapons. After they had gone, the above three witnesses

returned to the place of occurrence and found that all the

three victims had succumbed to their injuries. Harbilas

(P.W.9) then went to their village abadi and informed the

Chowkidar who came to the spot. After deputing the Chowkidar

to guard the dead bodies, Satbir proceeded to the Police

Station to lodge a report. On the way he met ASI Dalip Singh

(P.W. 24) at the bus stand and reported the incident. Dalip

Singh recorded his statement (Ext. PX) and, after forwarding

the same to the Police Station for registering a case, took

up investigation. Dalip Singh went to the place of

occurrence accompanied by Satbir and prepared inquest

reports in respect of the three dead bodies which were lying

there. He then sent the dead bodies for post mortem

examination. From the spot he seized some blood stained

earth and chillies and made them into separate sealed

parcels.

4. The autopsy on the dead body of Suraj Bhan was

performed by Dr. R.P. Sharma (P.W.3) who found seven

injuries on his person, out of which three were incised

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6

wounds and other four lacerated. Dr. R.A. Mittal (P.W. 4)

performed autopsy on the body of Bir Singh and found eight

lacerated wounds, besides some contusions and abrasions.

Autopsy on the dead body of Prabhu was performed by Dr.

Suraj Bansal (P.W. 5) and he found two incised wounds, some

lacerated wounds and some abrasions and bruises. The doctors

opined that the injuries they found on the dead bodies were

sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

In course of investigation the police arrested the accused

persons and pursuant to the statements made by them

recovered some of the weapons allegedly used in the assault.

5. The other part of the prosecution case is that on the

day prior to the incident accused Surat Singh, Ram Singh and

Bishambhar were seen together and heard to talk about

exterminating Prabhu.

6. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges

levelled against them and contended that they had been

falsely implicated out of enmity. Accused Surat Singh and

his brothers asserted that the land in question was in their

possession on the date of the incident.

7. In support of their respective cases the prosecution

examined twenty four witnesses and the defence one.

8. The learned Courts below considered the medical

evidence and concluded that the prosecution succeeded in

proving that Prabhu, Bir Singh and Suraj Bhan were murdered.

Since the above concurrent finding, being based on proper

appreciation of evidence is not to be disturbed, the only

question that falls for our consideration (consequent upon

the death of accused Satyavart) is whether the High Court's

findings that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove

the involvement of the accused persons in the murders and

that the evidence regarding conspiracy was unreliable, are

proper or not.

9. Ordinarily this Court does not interfere with an order

of acquittal recorded by the High Court; but if the High

Court arrives at its findings over looking important facts

and relying upon few circumstances which do not in any way

impair the probative value of the evidence adduced during

trial, this Court would be failing in its duty to do

complete justice if it does not interfere with such order of

acquittal. Having carefully gone through the impugned

judgment in the light of the evidence on record we find that

this case, so far as it relates to the acquittal of some of

the accused persons of the charges of rioting and murder,

calls for such interference. As regards the charge of

conspiracy however we are in complete agreement with the

High Court that the evidence adduced by the prosecution in

proof thereof does not inspire confidence.

10. To prove the charges of rioting and murder the

prosecution rested its case primarily upon the evidence of

the three eye witnesses, namely, Satbir (P.W.7), Harbilas

(P.W.9) and Raj Kumari (P.W.10). All three of them gave an

ocular version of the incident detailed earlier, including

the roles of the nine accused played in the murders. In

dealing with the testimony of Raj Kumari (P.W.10), who at

the material time was aged about ten years, the High Court

observed that it was hazardous to place reliance on the same

for it was not expected of her to go to the field at 8 A.M.

with the meals of Prabhu and Bir Singh. In making the above

comment the High Court relied upon the evidence of the

doctors who found semi digested food in their stomachs.

According to the High Court, since they had, before leaving

their house, taken their meals, it was doubtful that P.W.10

would again take meals for them at 8 A.M. for she admitted,

the meals were to be eaten by them at noon. We have not been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6

able to appreciate the above steps of reasoning of the High

Court. It is common knowledge that villagers go to cultivate

their lands in the early morning and therefore there was

nothing unusual in P.W. 10's carrying the meals at or about

8 A.M. for their consumption sometimes later. We cannot also

lose sight of the fact that it was the peak of the summer

then and therefore it was not unlikely that to avoid the

heat the family members of Prabhu and Bir Singh had sent the

young girl in the morning so that she could return home

early. On mere surmise and conjecture therefore the High

Court was not justified in discarding her evidence. The

other comment the High Court made about her testimony was

that as she was not a resident of the village Misri and

occasionally came there she was not expected to be

acquainted with the villagers. This comment is based on the

fact that she failed to recognise three of the accused

persons, namely, Subh Ram, Udey Ram and Suresh Kumar in the

test identification parade that was held by a Magistrate

(D.W.1). This comment of the High Court is also not a proper

one for, out of the above three Udey Ram and Suresh Kumar

were accused of conspiracy and not of rioting and murder, to

which only she was a witness; and when she had failed to

identify one of the nine accused the benefit can go only to

the person not identified, namely Subh Ram, and not others.

Having gone through her evidence we find no reason to

disbelieve her more so when we find that nothing was

elicited in cross examination to discredit.

11. So far as the other two eye-witnesses are concerned,

namely P.W.7 and P.W.9, both of them stated that they had

reached the place of occurrence on their way to village

Sonf-Kasni to search the buffalo of the latter which was

missing from the morning. The High Court observed that

it was by sheer chance that the buffalo of Harbilas got

astray and he along with Satbir happened to reach the place

of occurrence when the accused persons are said to have

arrived and perpetrated the crime. According to the High

Court one does not come across such coincidence in the

ordinary course of life and, therefore, it was difficult to

believe their claim about their presence at the time of the

incident. The only other ground which prompted the High

Court to disbelieve these two witnesses was that Satbir was

related to the deceased and Harbilas belonged to the party

of the deceased. On perusal of their evidence and

correlating the same with that of P.W.10 we find that the

High Court was not at all justified in doubting their

presence at the time of the incident. It was elicited in

their cross examination that while in search of the buffalo

they got information that it had gone towards village Sonf-

Kasni. It was further elicited that the place where the

incident took place was on the route to village Sonf-Kasni.

There was nothing unusual therefore in their being present

at the material time, more so, when there is nothing on

record to disbelieve their statement that the buffalo of one

of them, namely, P.W.9 was missing since the morning. Even

if we were to accept the observation of the High Court that

P.W.7 and P.W.9 were chance witnesses still then we would

not have been justified in rejecting their evidence

altogether on that score alone, for the evidence of a chance

witness is not necessarily incredible or unbelievable but it

only requires cautious and close scrutiny. The High Court

was also wrong in discarding the testimony of P.W.7 as he

was a relation of deceased Suraj Bhan, for we find that the

relationship is of the fifth degree and in a small village

like the one to which P.W.7 and deceased Suraj Bhan belonged

such relationship ought not to have been made a ground to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6

brand him as an interested witness. This apart, this Court

has repeatedly pointed out that more relationship doe snot

make the evidence of a witness suspect and unworthy of

credit. Equally untenable is the High Court's reasoning that

Harbilas belonged to the party of the deceased as we find no

evidence from which such a conclusion could have been drawn.

However the most eloquent proof of their presence at the

material time has been furnished by P.W.10 who stated about

their presence and further stated that all of them left the

site of incident on being threatened by the assailants and

took shelter behind a bush, wherefrom they saw the further

assault.

12. The High Court disbelieved the ocular evidence also on

the ground that medical evidence contradicted it so far as

assault on Bir Singh was concerned, in that, whereas the eye

witnesses claimed that balwant Singh assaulted Bir Singh

with a pharsa a sharp edged weapon the injuries that the

doctor found on his body could be caused by blunt weapons

only. In the facts of the instant case this finding of the

High Court is, in our view, wholly untenable. The High Court

ought to have appreciated that in an incident where a number

of persons assaulted three persons at one and the same time

with different weapons, some contradictions as to who

assaulted who and with what weapon, were not unlikely and

such contradictions could not be made a ground to reject the

evidence of eye-witnesses, if it was otherwise reliable. If

in the instant case no incised wound, which is caused by a

sharp edged weapon, was found on the body of any of the

victims it might have made the prosecution case suspect but,

as earlier noticed, the other two victims had incised wounds

on their persons.

13. In disbelieving the prosecution case the High Court

next observed that there was an unusual and unexplained

delay of four and half hours in lodging the F.I.R. We are

constrained to say that this finding is without any basis

whatsoever. Evidence on record proves that after the

incident was over at or about 8 A.M. P.W.7 stayed back to

guard the dead bodies while P.W.9 along with P.W.10 went to

the village abadi, which was at a distance of 1. 1/2 kms.,

to inform the Chowkidar. After the Chowkidar came P.W.7 left

for the Police Station and on the way he met P.W.14 at the

bus stand, which was also at a distance of 1. 1/2 kms. from

the place of incident, and gave the report at 12.30 P.M.

From the above sequence of events it is obvious that before

the information was lodged with the police, Harbilas, the

Chowkidar and Satbir covered a distance of about 1.1/2 kms.

each i.e. a total distance of about 4.1/2 kms. Judged in

that context it must be said that there was no delay

whatsoever in lodging the F.I.R. On the contrary, the fact

that the F.I.R. with the entire substratum of the

prosecution case incorporated therein, was lodged with

promptitude goes a long way to corroborate the testimony of

Satbir. The High Court also commented upon non-examination

of the Chowkidar but, when P.W.7 gave information to the

police at the earliest opportunity his non-examination was

not of much moment.

14. The High Court lastly observed that the prosecution

failed to prove the motive it alleged for the crimes and for

that purpose the High Court referred to the claim of the

respective parties regarding the land. Since the evidence of

the three eye-witnesses along with the F.I.R. and the

medical evidence proves the rioting and murders the question

of motive pales into insignificances. We need not,

therefore, dilate on the question whether the finding of the

High Court in this regard is proper or not. For the self

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6

same reasons we need not discuss the other circumstantial

evidence led by the prosecution in support of its case.

15. Coming now to the individual roles of the accused

persons in the rioting and murders we find that P.Ws. 7 and

9 named all the nine accused persons as the miscreants.

P.W.10 also named all of them but had earlier failed to

identify accused Subh Ram in the T.I. Prade. Such failure

however does not affect the prosecution case in any way in

view of the evidence of the other two eye witnesses. Though

there is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of the eye

witnesses particularly P.Ws.7 and 9 regarding individual

roles of the accused persons in the above offences, we feel

the accused Udey Ram and Suresh Kumar are entitled to the

benefit of reasonable doubt as then names do not find place

in the F.I.R. Accused Smt. Chameli and Smt. Giarsi are also

entitled to a similar benefit for it cannot be said with

certainty that, though present, they shared the common

object of committing the murders. So far as the other five

accused namely, Surat Singh, Balwant Singh, Dola Ram, Subh

Ram and Chhajju are concerned, the evidence clearly

establishes that they committed rioting and in course

thereof committed the three murders. The trial Court was

therefore fully justified in convicting them under Sections

148 and 302/149 IPC.

16. On the conclusions as above, we uphold the acquittal of

Surat Singh, Bishambhar and Ran Singh of the charge under

Section 120 B IPC and of Smt. Chameli, Smt. Giarsi, Udey Ram

and Suresh Kumar of the charges under Sections 148 and

302/149 IPC, but set aside the acquittal of Surat Singh,

Balwant Singh, Dola Ram, Subh Ram and Chhajju under Sections

148 and 302/149 IPC and convict them of the above offences.

Considering the fact that since the offences were committed

more than 10 years have elapsed we do not feel inclined to

restore the sentence of death imposed upon Surat Singh,

Balwant Singh and Dola Ram by the trial Court. we therefore

sentence all the above five accused persons to suffer

imprisonment for life each for their conviction under

Section 302/149 IPC. For their conviction under Section 148

IPC we however do not pass any separate sentence. Of the

above eleven accused persons, who are all on bail, Surat

Singh, Balwant Singh, Dola Ram, Subh Ram and Chhajju shall

now surrender to their bail bonds to serve out he sentence

now imposed on them and the remaining six shall stand

discharged from their respective bail bonds.