Page 1 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).256-257 OF 2009

Veer Singh & Ors. .. Appellant(s)

versus

State of U.P. .. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

C. NAGAPPAN, J.

1. These two appeals are preferred against the common

judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in

Criminal Appeal No.749 of 1996 and Criminal Appeal

No.761 of 1996 dated 1.10.2007.

Page 2 2. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 749 of 1996 are

accused Nos. 1 to 4 and the appellant in Criminal

Appeal No.761 of 1996 is the accused No.5, in the

Sessions Case No.72 of 1985, on the file of Third

Additional Sessions Judge, Muzafarnagar, and they were

tried along with three other accused for the alleged

offences under Sections 147,148, 307 read with Section

302 read with Section 149 and Section 452 of Indian

Penal Code. Sessions Court found accused Nos. 6 to 8

not guilty of the charges and acquitted them and at the

same time convicted accused Nos.1 to 5 for the charge

under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and

sentenced them to death, subject to confirmation by

the High Court; convicted them for the offences under

Section 307 read with Section 149 of IPC and sentenced

them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of

5 years; convicted them for the offence under Section

452 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of 4 years, and had also

convicted Veer Singh, A-1, Takal Singh A-2 and Balkar

Page 3 3

Singh A-5, for the offence under Section 148 IPC and

sentenced them to undergo RI for a period of 2 years

and had convicted Amrik Singh, A-3 and Kamir Singh,

A-4, for the offence under Section 147 IPC and

sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of one year.

3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence accused No.1

to 5 preferred appeals being Criminal Appeal No.749 of

1996 and Criminal Appeal No. 761of 1996 and a

Reference regarding death penalty was also made to

the High Court. Besides the State also preferred an

appeal being Appeal No.1341 of 1996, challenging the

acquittal of accused Nos.6 to 8. The Appeals and

Reference were heard together and the High Court by

its common judgment dated 4.12.1997 allowed the

Criminal Appeals filed by accused Nos.1 to 5 and

rejected the Reference and acquitted them of all the

Page 4 charges. It also dismissed the Criminal Appeal

preferred by the State.

4. Challenging the said judgment the State of U.P.

preferred Civil Appeal Nos.727 – 729 of 1998 and this

Court allowed the appeals and remitted the matter to

the High Court for fresh hearing. Thereafter, the High

Court by common judgment dated 1.10.2007

commuted death sentence recorded against the --

accused Nos.1 to 5 to one of life imprisonment and

upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the

Sessions Court against them for all the charges by

dismissing the appeals in Criminal Appeal No.749 of

1996 and Criminal Appeal No.761 of 1996. It also

dismissed the State appeal preferred challenging the

acquittal of accused Nos. 6 to 8. Aggrieved by the

conviction and sentence accused Nos. 1 to 5 have

preferred the present appeals.

Page 5 5

5. The prosecution case as it discerned from the records is

briefly, as follows :

Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh were residents of village

Dongpura, whereas Gurdip Singh was resident of adjacent village

Varnau. On 13/14.7.1984, at about midnight Gurdip Singh heard

firing and cries from the houses of Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh

and armed with his licensed gun he along with Jassa Singh and

Hazoor Singh moved towards the house of Shisha Singh. In the

moonlight and the light of the torch he saw Kartar Singh and his

son Mahender Singh standing on the roof top of the house of

Shisha Singh holding gun and country made -pistol and Kartar

Singh was shouting aloud to his sons Mahendra Singh, Lakkha

Singh, Ginder Singh and Sinder Singh to eliminate the whole

family of Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh and that none should

escape away. They fired several gun shots and Gurdip Singh

withdrew himself back and at that time Harbans Kaur wife of

Shisha Singh escaped from the house with injuries and came and

told him that Kartar Singh and his four sons accompanied by all

the four sons of Sampuran Singh and Balkar Singh had killed all

the family members of Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh and sought

Page 6 help from him. Harbans Kaur was taken to a safer place and

thereafter Gurdip Singh along with Jaswant Singh went to the

Jhinjhana Police Station and gave an oral complaint which was

reduced to writing by PW14 Head-Mouri and First Information

Report came to be registered at about 4.15 a.m. on 14.7.1984.

The police party rushed to the place of occurrence and S.J. Mohd.

Akhtar, S.O., Jhinjhana Police Station, took up the investigation

and sent the injured to the hospital. He seized material objects

from the place of occurrence and conducted inquest on the dead

bodies and -prepared inquest reports and sent the bodies for

post-mortem examination.

6. PW 6 Dr. N.K. Sharma examined Harbans Kaur at 6.30

a.m. on 14.7.1984 in the Civil Hospital Shamli and found

following injuries:

“i)Lacerated wound measuring 11 cms x 1.5 cms x

bone deep slanting on the left side of head 6.5 cms

above from the left ear. Wound had been bleeding.

ii)Lacerated wound measuring 1.2 cms x 0.5 cm x

bone deep on the left ear, bleeding.

Page 7 7

iii)Bluish mark in red colour in the area of 7 cms x 1

cms on the left cheek in between the injury No.2 and 4

iv)Lacerated would measuring 3 cms x 0.7 cms x

across through the right cheek. Lacerated wound

measuring 3 cms x 0.3 cms x bone deep on the portion

of jaw opposite to it.

v)Red bluish marks in the area of 28 cms x 1.5 cms

on the third upper portion of back on both side of the

backbone.

vi)Many lacerated wounds in the area of 37 cms x 28

cms of chest and abdomen on the frontal portion, out of

these the large wound was measured as 3 cms -

x 0.7 cm x depth was not measured and the smallest

wound was measuring 0.2 cms x o.2 cm x muscle deep.

Some article like hard pellet felt in the injury.

Blackening was present nearby the injury.

vii)Lacerated wound measuring 1 cm x 0.7 cm x

muscle deep, nearby to it, skin has peeled towards the

inner side of the left thigh.

viii) Abrasion in the area of 5 cms x 1.5 cm on the

frontal portion and left side of the left knee.”

Page 8 The Doctor opined that injury No.1 could have been caused by

sharp-edged weapon while injury no.6 could have been caused by

a fire arm.

7. Dr. N.K. Taneja (PW 1), Dr. R.K. Vats (PW 2), Dr. B.K.

Mishra (PW 3), Dr. Suresh Chand (PW 10), Dr. R.S.

Kasana (PW 11) and Dr. D.C. Mohar(PW 12) conducted

autopsy on thebodies of 12 victims. They opined that

the death occurred to all the victims due to shock of

hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. Exh. 1

to 6 and 9 to 14 are the post-mortem certificates issued

by the Doctors.

8. During the investigation the Investigating Officer

arrested the accused and on the information furnished

by them made recoveries of the weapons and other

material objects under Mahazar (Fard). After completing

investigation he filed charge-sheet against all the

accused totaling 13. One of the accused died and the

Page 9 9

Sessions Court framed charges against the accused

persons and during the trial the prosecution examined

18 witnesses and marked 93 Exhibits. During trial four

accused absconded. The Sessions Court examined

accused Nos.1 to 8 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All of

them denied the testimony of the prosecution witnesses

and stated that they have been falsely implicated due

to enmity. The Sessions Court convicted accused Nos. 1

to 5 for the charges as indicated above and acquitted

accused Nos. 6 to 8. On appeal the High Court

acquitted all the accused and on further appeal by the

State this Court remitted the matter back to the High

Court for reconsideration. Thereafter the High Court

has passed the impugned judgment. Aggrieved by the

conviction and sentence of the High Court accused

Nos.1 to 5 have preferred these appeals.

9. Mr. R.S.Sodhi, learned senior counsel for the appellants

submitted that Harbans Kaur is the sole eye-witness to

Page 10 the occurrence and in her earlier statement before the

Magistrate within a few hours of the occurrence, she

has told that Surender Singh has fired gun shots at her

and Surender, Mahender, Jinder who are sons of Kartar

Singh were involved and thereafter in her statement

given before the I.O. in addition to the above said

accused persons she named the appellants/accused

Nos.1 to 5 amongst the assailants and, therefore, her

testimony is not reliable, and lot of material

improvements were introduced and there is no motive

attributable to the present appellants and it’s a

midnight occurrence and in the absence of effective

source of light it is doubtful as to whether the witness

could have recognized the assailants and the appellants

have been falsely implicated in the case.

10. Per contra Mr. Ratnakar Das, Senior Advocate appearing

for the respondent contended that Harbans Kaur was

seriously injured in the occurrence and only one

question was asked by the Magistrate as to who caused

Page 11 11

injury to her and in her reply -she named Surender

Singh and the other sons of Kartar Singh and it related

to a part of occurrence so far as the injured is

concerned and did not in any way relate to rest of the

occurrence and after gaining full consciousness in her

statement given before the Investigation Officer she

has narrated the entire occurrence and the names of all

the accused, and in the FIR which came into being

immediately after the occurrence based on the

complaint given by Sardar Gurdip Singh, the names of

all the accused persons are found mentioned and there

was also motive for the occurrence.

11. Harbans Kaur is the wife of Shisha Singh and the

dwelling house of Mohar Singh was adjacent to her

house. PW 4 Harbans Kaur in her testimony has stated

that on the fateful night she along with her sons

Joginder Singh and Jassa Singh and her daughter Rano,

Joginder’s wife Bhajan Kaur and her three children

Bagga Singh, Phulvender and Gurmit Singh were

Page 12 sleeping in her house and her husband was sleeping in

the tubewell and a lantern was burning in the house

and on hearing the barking of dogs they woke-up and

saw group of people at the -gate including Kartar Singh

and his four sons namely Mahendra Singh, Lakkha

Singh, Ginder Singh and Sindar Singh and they were

carrying gun, country made pistol, axe and spade. She

also noticed among them the four sons of Sampuran

Singh namely appellants Veer Singh, Tahal Singh,

Amreek Singh and Kamir Singh along with Balkar

Singh armed with weapons and lathi in the assembly,

and out of fear she and her family members went into

a room and bolted the door from inside. Kartar Singh

and Mahender Singh climbed up the roof and started

demolishing the roof and threw burning wood from the

roof. Kartar Singh was shouting aloud to his sons to

finish off all the members of family of Shisha Singh and

Mohar Singh and not to allow anybody to escape alive.

It is her further testimony that when she and the other

family members tried to escape, accused Kartar Singh,

Page 13 13

Mahender Singh, Balkar Singh and Amreek Singh let

loose killing spree and initially killed her daughter Rano,

her daughter-in-law Bhajan Kaur, her sons Kulvendra

and Gurpreet Singh and they fired gun-shots on her

which struck on her chest and accused Sinder attacked

her with an axe on her hand and mouth and her sons

Jassa Singh and Joginder Singh were killed outside their

-house when they tried to run away. She heard cries

emanating from the house of Mohar Singh and five

persons of their family were also killed and she ran to

the field of paddy hiding herself where she met Gurdip

Singh, Hazoor Singh and Jaswant Singh and narrated

the occurrence to them and sought their help to lodge

the complaint and Gurdip Singh along with Jaswant

Singh proceeded to the Police Station. She has further

testified that she asked Hazoor Singh to go to the

tubewell and inform her husband about the occurrence.

Hazoor Singh came back and told her that Shisha Singh

and Mohar Singh were also hacked to death.

Page 14 12. From the above testimony it becomes evident that PW

4 Harbans Kaur has witnessed the occurrence and also

sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the

occurrence in the morning itself Harbans Kaur was

admitted in the hospital for treatment and information

was sent to Magistrate for recording her dying

declaration. In the hospital she was examined by PW 6

Dr. N.K. Sharma and he noticed 8 injuries on her body

and he has expressed opinion that the lacerated

wounds could have -been caused by sharp-edged

weapons and injury No.6 could have been caused by

firearm. The injuries sustained by her were serious in

nature. The SDM Shamli reached the hospital at 12.45

p.m. and recorded her statement in question-answer

form and only one question was asked as to how she

sustained the injuries and she told that she was shot by

Surender Singh in the presence of other sons of Kartar

Singh. In other words the reply pertained only to that

part of the occurrence in which she was injured and not

the entire occurrence. In fact PW 4 Harbans Kaur in her

Page 15 15

testimony before the Court has clearly stated as to why

she has given a limited answer to the Magistrate.

Further it is not a dying declaration since she survived

and it is only a statement under Section 164 of the

Cr.P.C. which can be used under Section 157 of the

Evidence Act for the purpose of corroboration and under

Section 155 of the Act for the purpose of contradiction.

This statement did not relate to the entire occurrence.

It must be borne in mind that she had witnessed the

brutal murder of all her family members by the

appellants and other accused during the occurrence

and when she was in a state of shock in the hospital she

had given answer to the -question put by the

Magistrate. After regaining her health when she was

examined by the Investigation Officer, she has stated

the entire occurrence naming the assailants and the

attack made by them with weapons.

Page 16 13. There is intrinsic evidence available on record which

lends credence to her testimony. The occurrence took

place in the midnight and the complaint was lodged in

Jhinjhana Police Station at 4.15 a.m. on 14.7.1984

without any loss of time. The complainant Gurdip Singh

was also murdered before the trial. In the complaint

Gurdip Singh has stated that during midnight on the

occurrence day he heard loud noise and screaming

from the house of Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh. He

took up his licensed gun and moved towards the house

of Shisha Singh with Jassa Singh and Hajoor Singh and

saw in the moon lit night and also in the light shed by

the torch, Kartar Singh and his son Mahender Singh

standing on the roof of Shisha Singh’s house and Kartar

Singh loudly directed his sons to wipe off all the family

members of Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh and when

he and his fellows challenged, all of a sudden the

assailants opened -fire on them and he stepped back

and it was at that time injured Harbans Kaur who

escaped from the occurrence place met him and told

Page 17 17

him that Kartar Singh and his sons along with other

accused have killed all the members of her family and

also the family of Mohar Singh, and pleaded for help

and to inform the police. After providing her safety he

went to the Police Station and gave oral complaint

which was reduced to writing and he appended his

signature on it.

14. The Head-Mouri of the Police Station Shri Inder Pal

Sharma, PW14 has recorded the oral complaint of

Gurdip Singh and registered the FIR, Exh.Ka-18. The

extract of G.D. is Exh.Ka-19. The names of assailants

including the names of the present appellants are found

mentioned in the complaint lodged by Gurdip Singh. It

is also relevant to point out that no enmity is

attributed to Gurdip Singh against the assailants and

there is no reason for him to falsely implicate the

appellants in the case.

Page 18 15. Hazoor Singh has been examined as PW 5 and in his

examination-in-chief he has stated that on the

occurrence night he heard the noise of firing coupled

with screaming cries from the house of Shisha Singh

and Mohar Singh and he went to the house of Jassa

Singh and both of them went to the house of Gurdip

Singh who accompanied them by taking gun and torch

and when they went near the house of Shisha Singh

they saw several men and he could not identify any of

them and Harbans Kaur met them there and told them

that Kartar Singh and other assailants have attacked

them. At this point of time he was declared hostile by

the prosecution and in the cross-examination he stated

that Gurdip Singh had lodged the complaint about the

occurrence in the Police Station and when Harbans Kaur

narrated the occurrence, he was also present at the

place and on the request of Harbans Kaur he went to

the tubewell and found Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh

lying dead and he informed Harbans Kaur about the

same and she became unconscious. It is settled law

Page 19 19

that the testimony of the hostile witness need not be

discarded in toto and that portion of testimony in the

chief-examination which supports the prosecution case

can be taken for consideration. In the present case, in

the examination-in-chief itself PW 5 Hazoor Singh has

admitted about his going to -the place of occurrence

along with Gurdip Singh and Jaswant Singh on hearing

the noise of firing and cries emanating from the house

of Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh and the narration of

the occurrence by Harbans Kaur to them which led to

lodging of the complaint. The above testimony of PW 5

lends credence to the testimony of PW 4.

16. The Investigation Officer PW 18 S.J. Mohd. Akhtar,

after taking up the investigation went to the occurrence

place and seized blood-stained materials and also went

to the roof of the house of Shisha Singh and took brick

from the damaged roof and also ashes from the room,

which have been marked as Exh. Ka 40 and 41,

Page 20 respectively. This also lends credence to the testimony

of PW 4 Harbans Kaur that the assailants damaged the

roof and threw burning wood inside the room during the

occurrence.

17. Legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and

quality of evidence rather than on quantity multiplicity

or plurality of witnesses. It is not the number of

witnesses but -quality of their evidence which is

important as there is no requirement under the Law of

Evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to

be examined to prove/disprove a fact. Evidence must

be weighed and not counted. It is quality and not

quantity which determines the adequacy of evidence as

has been provided under Section 134 of the Evidence

Act. As a general rule the Court can and may act on the

testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly

reliable. (Vide: Vadivelu Thevar and Anr. vs. State of

Madras AIR 1957 SC 614; Kunju @ Balachandran vs.

State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2008 SC 1381; Bipin Kumar

Page 21 21

Mondal vs. State of West Bengal AIR 2010 SC 3638;

Mahesh and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

(2011) 9 SCC 626; Prithipal Singh and ors. vs. State

of Punjab and anr. (2012) 1 SCC 10; Kishan Chand

vs. State of Haryana JT 2013 (1) SC 222 and Gulam

Sarbar vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) - 2013

(12) SCALE 504).

18. In the present case we are left with the sole testimony

of injured eye-witness PW4 Harbans Kaur. She has lost

all the members of her family in the attack during the

occurrence. -There is no reason for her to falsely

implicate any of the accused in the case. On the

contrary she would only point out the correct assailants

who are responsible for killing her family members. We

are of the considered view that the testimony of PW4

Harbans Kaur is cogent, credible and trustworthy and

has a ring of truth and deserves acceptance. All the 12

victims of the occurrence died of homicidal violence is

established by the oral testimony of the doctors who

Page 22 conducted autopsies on their bodies and the certificates

issued by them to that effect.

19. There was also motive for the occurrence. It is the

testimony of the PW4 Harbans Kaur that her husband

lent a sum of Rs.8000/- to Mahender Singh son of

Kartar Singh 8 years prior to the occurrence and he was

avoiding to pay back which created bitterness. Besides

the above, it is also indicated in her testimony that

Mahender Singh suspected that family members of

Harbans Kaur had tipped the police about the activities

of Mahender Singh which led to his arrest twice by the

Jhinjhana and Kairana Police. It is her further testimony

that Mohar Singh has also lent some money to

Mahender Singh and this testimony -also finds support

from the evidence of PW 9 Mukhtiyar Singh son of

Mohar Singh to the effect that Lakka Singh had taken

Rs.1600/- from Mohar Singh about 5 years prior to

occurrence which he had declined to pay despite

Page 23 23

repeated demands. Both the above witnesses namely

PW4 Harbans Kaur and PW9 Mukhtiyar Singh have

testified that Mahendro sister of Mahender Singh had

developed illicit intimacy with Avtar Singh @ Pappu son

of Mohar Singh and had once outraged her modesty

which led to convening of a Panchayat and decision

thereof. Enraged by this Mahender Singh wanted to

take revenge and that has resulted in the occurrence.

In this context it is relevant to point out that the

appellants in their answers to the questions put to them

during proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C.in the trial

have alleged that they have been falsely implicated in

the case on account of enmity.

20. From the evidence on record we are inclined to hold

that appellants along with other accused armed with

weapons had committed trespass into the dwelling

houses of Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh during mid-

night with a view to commit murder of -the family

Page 24 members of Shisha Singh and Mohar Singh and carried

out the same. The High Court has rightly sustained the

conviction on the appellants and the sentence awarded

to them are also proper.

21. We find no merit in the appeals and the same are

dismissed.

……………..

………………………….J.

(Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya)

…………….……………………………J.

(C. Nagappan)

New Delhi;

December 10 , 2013.