IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGA RH

Whether only the

whether the full judgment is pronounced:

Vijay Kumar @ Neetu

State of Punjab

CORAM :

Argued by

Ramesh Chander Dimri J.

1.

brevity, “appellant”

11.07.2016

Sessions Case No.

Neetu”, arising out of an FIR No.

302, 307, 323, 324

Code’) registered at Police Station

appellant w

undergo rigorous imprisonmen

of Rs.25,000/

payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisionment

years; rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGA RH

CRA

Reserved on : 20.0

Pronounced on:

Uploaded on:

Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced or

whether the full judgment is pronounced:

Vijay Kumar @ Neetu

Versus

Punjab

CORAM : HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI

Argued by:-Mr.Gurinder Singh, Advocate

Ms.Kiran Verma, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel)

for the appellant.

Mr.Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab

*****

Ramesh Chander Dimri J. :

Through the present appeal, the appellant

brevity, “appellant”) challenges a judgment of conviction dated

6 and an order of sentence

Sessions Case No.175 of 2015 titled as “

, arising out of an FIR No.82 dated

302, 307, 323, 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘1860

registered at Police Station Longowal

was convicted under the said sections and was

rigorous imprisonment for life with a direction to pay a fine

,000/- under Section 302 of the

payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisionment

years; rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGA RH

CRA-D-969-DB-2016 (O&M)

Reserved on : 20.04.2026

Pronounced on: .05.2026

Uploaded on: .05.2026

operative part of the judgment is pronounced or

whether the full judgment is pronounced:- Full Judgment.

……Appellant

..…Respondent

ALKA SARIN

STICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI

Advocate and

Ms.Kiran Verma, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel)

Punjab.

Through the present appeal, the appellant/accused (for

judgment of conviction dated

order of sentence dated 12.07.2016 passed in

titled as “State Vs. Vijay Kumar alias

dated 01.08.2015 under Sections

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘1860

Longowal, through which, the

the said sections and was sentenced to

t for life with a direction to pay a fine

02 of the said Code and in default of

payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisionment for two

years; rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGA RH

operative part of the judgment is pronounced or

STICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI

/accused (for

judgment of conviction dated

passed in

alias

s

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘1860

through which, the

sentenced to

t for life with a direction to pay a fine

and in default of

two

years; rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -2-

Rs.2000/- under Section 324 of the said Code and in default of

payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two

months; and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of

Rs.1000/- under Section 323 of the said Code and in default of

payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one

month.

2. The prosecution case, as unfolded by the final report

under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity,

‘1973 Code’), is that PW1 Tarsem Chand is resident of ward No.9,

Patti Longowal. He deals in household works. He used to live with

his wife Pushpa Devi, his daughter-in-law Komal and grandson

Mansan Goyal. His son Som Kumar was married to the said Komal

daughter of Sh. Jagdish Rai resident of Sangrur 15 years ago. They

had above-stated son from the said marriage. In the year 2007, the

said Som Kumar went missing. His whereabouts were not known till

the date of the occurrence in question. Because of the said reason,

family members of his daughter-in-law Komal had started raising a

dispute with him either to give to her share in the property or to get

her remarried. With the consent of both the families, he got his

daughter-in-law Komal married to one Subhash Kumar son of Sh.

Jethu Ram resident of Cheema. The said Subhash Kumar started

living as son of PW1 Tarsem Chand in his house. They were

spending life peacefully. On 28.07.2015, a girl was born to the said

Komal. To look after her, PW1 Tarsem Chand and his family sent

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -3-

the said Komal to the matrimonial home of Kirna Devi daughter of

Tarsem Chand situated at Patti Longowal. On 01.08.2015 at about 2

p.m. Vijay Kumar (appellant), son of Sh. Jagdish Rai resident of

Sangrur, real brother of the said Komal came to the house of Tarsem

Chand on his motorcycle. The said Tarsem Chand started talking to

the appellant in his bedroom and sent his wife Pushpa Devi to kitchen

for preparing tea. In the meanwhile, the appellant demanded Rs.2

lakhs from Tarsem Chand then and there. However, he expressed his

inability. The appellant got enraged because of such refusal and

insisted that he will take the money from Pushpa Devi wife of

Tarsem Chand. The appellant then went to the said Pushpa Devi in

the kitchen and demanded Rs.2 lakhs from her but she also refused to

pay the same. Enraged, the appellant took out a sword like kirch from

his waistband (Dabb) and inflicted 7/8 blows thereof in the abdomen

of the said Pushpa Devi. Because of such blows, Pushpa Devi died at

the spot. Tarsem Chand raised alarm ‘killed-killed’. The appellant in

order to kill him also attacked him but Tarsem Chand caught hold of

his hand. The appellant scuffled with Tarsem Chand. In the

meanwhile, son-in-law Uggar Sain of Tarsem Chand who was

resident of Patti Longowal came there. With the help of said Uggar

Sain, Tarsem Chand overpowered the appellant. Immediately

thereafter, many people gathered in the house of Tarsem Chand.

People intimated about the occurrence to the police. Accordingly

SHO Palvinder Singh of Police Station Longowal reached there with

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -4-

his companion employees. Tarsem Chand got recorded his statement

Ex.PA to the said SHO. The appellant was also handed-over to the

police. On the basis of the said statement, the above-stated FIR was

registered. Investigation was set into motion. Photographer was

called to the spot. Photographs of the place of occurrence were

taken. On the asking of the police, fingerprint expert ASI Ranjit

Singh also reached the spot. The said SHO instructed him to take

fingerprints of the appellant and also from the said kirch. Rough site-

plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Inquest proceedings on

dead body of the said Pushpa Devi were conducted. Her dead body

was sent to Civil Hospital, Sangrur for postmortem examination.

Tarsem Chand was instructed to get him medico-legally examined

and obtain a report in that regard. Blood of Pushpa Devi spread on

floor of kitchen of the house was put in a plastic container and was

converted to a sealed parcel. The said sword like blood-stained kirch

was converted to a sealed parcel and was taken into police

possession. Separate parcels of kirch and collected blood were

prepared. Motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-19D-1034 of the

appellant which contained a bag containing sheath of kirch, a

currency note of Rs.100/- denomination contained in a purse and a

mobile phone were taken into police possession through a separate

recovery memo. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Case

property was deposited with the concerned MHC. Autopsy on dead

body of Pushpa Devi was got conducted from Civil Hospital,

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -5-

Sangrur. After postmortem, the dead body was handed-over to its

legal heirs. On reaching the Police Station, the appellant was

interrogated. During investigation, photographs of the place of

occurrence were taken into police possession. Recovered case

property was sent to FSL Mohali for examination. On completion of

investigation against the appellant, final report against him was

presented before the concerned Magistrate.

3. On receipt of the said report, the concerned Magistrate,

after complying with the provisions contained in Section 207 of the

1973 Code, vide its order dated 12.10.2015, committed the case to the

Court of Sessions. After such commitment, the Learned Sessions

Judge, Sangrur heard the prosecution and the appellant on the issue of

framing of charges against the appellant. After such hearing, it

charge-sheeted the appellant under Sections 302, 324 and 323 of the

1860 Code. However, he did not plead guilty to the charges and

claimed trial.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 11

witnesses including the complainant Tarsem Chand and PW2 Uggar

Sain in its evidence.

5. On completion of prosecution evidence, the Learned

Sessions Judge recorded statement of the appellant under Section 313

of the 1973 Code. In the said statement, he denied the entire

prosecution case and then stated that he has been falsely implicated in

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -6-

it. However, despite availing opportunity to lead evidence, the

appellant did not examine any witness in his defence.

6. On closure of evidence, the Learned Sessions Judge

heard the parties on merits of the case. After such hearing, the

impugned judgment and order were passed in the above-stated terms.

Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is in appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant and the learned

DAG, Punjab have been heard on merits of the appeal. With their

assistance, record has been perused.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant have argued that no

independent witness of the occurrence in question has been

examined. Depositions of PW1 Tarsem Chand and PW2 Uggar Sain

are false and doubtful. They are interested witnesses. Motorcycle

Ex. PC did not belong to the appellant. Bag, currency note and

mobile allegedly recovered from the spot did not belong to the

appellant. In fact the complainant didn't want to keep the sister

(Komal) of the appellant in her matrimonial home and for that reason

the appellant has been falsely implicated. They have accordingly

prayed for acceptance of the appeal. In support of their arguments,

they have relied upon “Ramji Surjya Vs. State of Maharashtra”,

AIR 1983 SC 810.

9. Per contra, Learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab

has argued that the depositions of PW1 Tarsem Chand and PW2

Uggar Sain, read with each other, establish commission of the

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -7-

offenses in question by the appellant beyond a shadow of reasonable

doubt. Although they were relatives of the said Pushpa Devi, yet, at

the time of occurrence in question, no one except Tarsem Chand and

the appellant was present with her. PW2 Uggar Sain also came when

the appellant had already committed murder of the said Pushpa Devi.

Public and police came into the house much later and therefore non

joining of any person from the public is not fatal to the prosecution

case. Investigation has corroborated the said two prosecution

witnesses on all material counts. He has, accordingly, prayed for

dismissal of the appeal.

10. Before proceeding further, the prosecution evidence

deserves to be summarized. It is as under:-

10.1 PW1 Tarsem Chand, in his examination-in-chief, in

respect of the occurrence in question, has inter alia deposed that on

01.08.2015 at about 2 p.m., the appellant, real brother of his

daughter-in-law Komal, came to him on his motorcycle. The said

witness took the appellant to his bedroom and started talking with

him. Pushpa Devi (wife of the said witness) had gone to kitchen to

prepare tea. The appellant Vijay Kumar demanded Rs.2 lakhs from

the said witness but he expressed his inability to pay the same. At

this, the appellant insisted that he will take the money from Pushpa

wife of the said witness and went to her in the kitchen. He demanded

the said amount form her but she also expressed her inability to pay

it. On the said reply of the said Pushpa, the appellant, all of a sudden,

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -8-

took out a kirpan like sharp edged weapon “Kirch” and gave 7/8

blows thereof in stomach of Pushpa. She succumbed at the spot to

the injuries caused to her. When the said witness tried to intervene

and raise alarm, the appellant scuffled with him. In the process of

said scuffle, PW2 Uggar Sain reached there. With his assistance, the

said witness overpowered the appellant. Thereafter, many persons

gathered at the spot. They reported the matter to the police. Police

party reached his residence. His statement was recorded. He handed-

over the appellant to the police. His statement Ex.PA contains his

signature. On that very date, he went to Civil Hospital, Sangrur and

the Doctor prepared MLR of his injuries. The appellant is present in

the Court. He identifies him. He also identifies the kirch Ex.MO/1

produced in the Court. It is the same weapon which was used by the

appellant for commission of the said crime.

10.2 PW2 Uggar Sain, in his examination-in-chief, has inter

alia deposed that on 01.08.2015, he was going to market of Longowal

to purchase household articles for preparing special diet after delivery

of the above-stated Komal. On the way, he noticed that there was a

crowd in front of the house of his in-law’s family. He accordingly

went inside the house and noticed that the appellant was armed with a

blood-stained kirch (small kirpan) and was scuffling with father-in-

law namely Tarsem Chand of the said witness. Public standing at

gate of house of his father-in-law was horrified. Dead body of

mother-in-law of the said witness was lying in the kitchen. The said

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -9-

witness then helped PW1 Tarsem Chand in blind-folding the

appellant and making him to sit there. In the meanwhile, police

arrived at the spot and took the appellant in custody. Police party

inspected the dead body and recorded statement of PW1 Tarsem

Chand. It also prepared inquest proceedings at the spot. Statement of

the said witness was also recorded. He identifies his signature on the

inquest proceedings at point ‘A’ thereof. Kirch Ex.MO/1 was taken

into police possession in his presence and was converted to a parcel.

He identifies his signature on the recovery memo Ex.PA. Motorcycle

of the appellant was also taken into police possession through a

separate recovery memo Ex.PC containing his signature. From a bag

Ex.MO/2 of the appellant, sheath Ex.MO/4 of kirpan and currency

note Ex.MO/5 of Rs.100/- denomination contained in a purse as well

as one Samsung mobile phone Ex.MO/3 were taken into police

possession through a separate recovery memo Ex.PD containing

signature of the said witness. Blood stained scratches from floor of

the kitchen were collected which were put in a separate plastic

container and were then converted to a sealed parcel. The said parcel

was then taken into police possession through a separate recovery

memo Ex.PE. The appellant is present in the Court and the said

witness identifies him. Police had recorded statement of the said

witness.

10.3 PW3 Dr.Karamdeep Singh Kahal, Medical Officer of

Civil Hospital Sangrur, in his examination-in-chief, has inter alia

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -10-

deposed that on 02.08.2015, he was posted as such in the said

hospital. On that date, on an application Mark-A moved by the

police, SMO of the said hospital deputed the said witness to conduct

postmortem examination on the dead body of the said Pushpa Devi.

The said witness conducted such examination and found 15 injuries

on her body as have been mentioned in his affidavit Ex.PG. After

conducting the said examination, he opined that Pushpa Devi died

because of shock and haemorrhage due to the said injuries which

were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in the

ordinary course of nature. The said witness also prepared the

postmortem examination report and pictorial diagram, carbon copies

whereof are Ex.PH and Ex.PH/1 respectively. Time elapsing

between injury and death was immediate whereas between death and

postmortem examination was within 24 hours. After conducting the

said examination, the said witness handed over duly stitched dead

body with its belongings and clothes etc. alongwith seal impression

‘KDK’, copy of the postmortem examination report and the police

papers duly initialled by him, to the police.

10.4 Dr.Baljeet Singh, Medical Officer of Civil Hospital,

Sangrur, in his examination-in-chief, has inter alia deposed that on

01.08.2015, he was posted as such in the said hospital. On that date,

he medico-legally examined PW1 Tarsem Chand who was brought to

the said hospital by the police at about 6 p.m. He detected 2 injuries

on person of PW1 Tarsem Chand as mentioned in his examination.

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -11-

Both injuries were kept under observation. Probable duration of

injuries was within 6 hours. Weapon used to cause injury No.1 was

sharp and to cause injury No.2 was blunt. MLR, copy of which is

Ex.PJ, bears his signature. He also prepared pictorial diagram carbon

copy of which is Ex.PJ/1. PW1 Tarsem Chand did not get himself

examined for X-ray about the said injuries. Both injuries were

simple in nature. The said examination was done on an application

Ex.PL and his report in that regard is Ex.PL/1.

10.5 PW5 Inspector Palvinder Singh, in his examination-in-

chief, has inter alia deposed that on 01.08.2015, when he was posted

as SHO of the said Police Station, a message was received that

murder of Pushpa Devi had been committed in the house of PW1

Tarsem Chand. On the basis of the said intimation, the said witness

and others reached the said house. Therein, PW1 Tarsem Chand and

PW2 Uggar Sain handed over the appellant to the police party. It was

brought to their notice that blood-stained Kirch was lying on the

table. The said witness inspected the spot and found dead body of

Pushpa Devi lying in the kitchen of the said house. He recorded

statement Ex.PA of PW1 Tarsem Chand and endorsed the same with

his endorsement Ex.PA/1. On the basis of the said statement,

endorsement Ex.PA/2 was recorded. Photographer reached the spot

on his call. On the direction of the said witness, photographs of the

place of occurrence were taken. The said witness prepared the rough

site-plan Ex.PM of the place of occurrence with the assistance of

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -12-

PW1 Tarsem Chand which is correct as per the spot. After

examining the dead body of Pushpa Devi, the said witness prepared

inquest report Ex.PN. Dead body was identified by PW2 Uggar Sain

and one Ved Parkash. Their statements were recorded. The dead

body was then taken to the hospital for postmortem examination.

PW1 Tarsem Chand was also instructed to accompany the police

personnel. Fingerprint expert SI Ranjit Singh also reached the spot in

the presence of the said witness. The said SI tried to take fingerprints

from the kirch but could not succeed. He gave a report in that regard.

The said kirch was taken into police possession through a separate

memo Ex.PB. Blood scratches from the floor of the kitchen were put

into a small container and were taken into police possession through a

recovery memo Ex.PE. PW2 Uggar Sain intimated the said witness

that a black hand-bag belonging to the appellant was also lying there.

He opened the same and found a sheath of kirch as well as a purse

having Rs.100/- note and a mobile make Samsung. The said articles

were taken into police possession through a recovery memo Ex.PD.

From the rear courtyard of the complainant motorcycle bearing

registration No.PB-19D-1034 on which the appellant had come to the

spot was taken into police possession through a recovery memo

Ex.PC. On reaching the Police Station, the said witness interrogated

the appellant. Grounds of arrest cum intimation memo Ex.PQ was

prepared. It was attested by PW2 Uggar Sain and ASI Harmeet

Singh. The appellant was lodged in police lock-up and case property

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -13-

was deposited with the concerned MHC in an intact condition. On

02.08.2015, after post-mortem examination of dead body of Pushpa

Devi, SI Pritam Singh produced clothes and articles of the dead body

of Pushpa Devi in a sealed parcel with copy of post-mortem report.

The same were taken into police possession. Dead body of Pushpa

Devi was handed-over to her relatives. Photographs Ex.MO/7 to

Ex.MO/16 of the place of occurrence were taken. The appellant is

present in the Court. The said witness identifies him. He also

identifies case property Ex.MO/1 to Ex.MO/6.

10.6 PW6 Head Constable Gurinder Singh, in his

examination-in-chief, has tendered his duly sworn in affidavit Ex.PS.

In the said affidavit, he has inter alia deposed that he is posted as

Head Munsi of the said Police Station and charge of the malkhana

remains with him. On 01.08.2015, case property etc. recovered in the

present case were deposited with the said witness. On 12.08.2015, he

took out a parcel containing plastic container of blood, a parcel

containing kirch like sword alongwith sample seal from malkhana of

the said Police Station. The same were handed-over to Constable

Chamkaur Singh in an intact condition for deposit thereof to FSL,

Mohali. The said case property was deposited by Constable

Chamkaur Singh in the said FSL on 13.08.2015. Till the said case

property remained in possession of the said witness, it was never

tampered with.

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -14-

10.7 PW7 Dharminder Singh, in his examination-in-chief, has

inter alia deposed that on 02.08.2015, he was called by the police to

Randhawa Patti Longowal and at the instance of PW1 Tarsem Chand,

he prepared scaled site-plan Ex.PT of the place of occurrence with

correct marginal notes. He has seen the site-plan in the Court. It

bears his signature.

10.8 PW8 SI Satnam Singh, in his examination-in-chief, has

inter alia deposed that on 02.08.2015, he was posted as SHO of

Police Station Longowal. On that date, he called Draftsman

Dharminder Singh and at the pointing out of PW1 Tarsem Chand, a

scaled site-plan Ex.PT was prepared by Draftsman Dharminder Singh

which was handed-over to the said witness. Photographer Bhupinder

Singh handed over photographs Ex.MO/7 to Ex.MO/16 to the said

witness. The same were taken into police possession vide recovery

memo Ex.PV attested by Bhupinder Singh and other witness/es. The

said witness recorded statements of the witness/es. On completion of

the investigation, he prepared report under Section 173 of the 1973

Code which bears his signature.

10.9 PW9 Ravinder Sharma, Junior Assistant in the office of

DTO, Barnala, in his examination-in-chief, has inter alia deposed that

he has brought the summoned record in respect of the above-stated

motorcycle which stood transferred in the name of one Janak Raj son

of Nahar Chand, resident of Kaleka, District Barnala, on 24.12.2009

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -15-

and till examination of the said witness, the said vehicle was in the

name of the said Janak Raj.

10.10 PW10 Bhupinder Sharma, in his examination-in-chief,

has inter alia deposed that he is running a photographer shop in the

name of Mintu Studio at Longowal. On 10.09.2015, he was called

by the police in the house situated near Doctor Dhaula. The said

witness clicked the photographs at the spot. Subsequently, the said

photographs were produced before the Investigating Officer which

were taken into police possession through a recovery memo Ex.PV.

Photographs are Ex.MO/2 to Ex.MO/16. The same depict the true

place of occurrence clicked by the said witness and are free from

retouching.

10.11 PW11 Constable Chamkaur Singh, in his examination-in-

chief, has filed his affidavit Ex.PW mentioning that on 12.08.2015,

Constable Gurinder Singh took out the case property from malkhana

of the said Police Station through ticket no.108 of that date and

handed-over the same to the said witness in an intact condition for

delivery thereof to FSL, Mohali. In terms of the directions given by

Head Constable Gurinder Singh, the said witness reached the office

of DPO Sangrur and got the said articles forwarded. The said witness

deposited the said case property in FSL, Mohali. On return to the

Police Station, he deposited the receipt with MHC of the said Police

Station. Till the said case property remained in his possession, it was

not tampered with.

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -16-

11. As observed earlier, through the impugned judgment and

order, the appellant has been convicted/ sentenced under Sections

302, 324 and 323 of the 1860 Code. Therefore, first of all charge

under Section 302 of the said Code is being dealt with. The said

section punishes murder. Section 299 of the said Code defines

culpable homicide whereas Section 300 thereof defines murder. To

prove a charge under the said section, the prosecution is required to

establish ingredients contained in the said two sections. In terms of

Section 300 of the said Code, act/conduct of an accused should not

come within the exceptions provided under it. In other words, if it

comes within such exceptions, the act committed cannot be treated as

murder. Therefore, to prove an offence of murder, the prosecution in

the present case was required to establish any one of the four

conditions of the said section. Mental attitudes mentioned in Section

300 of the said Code were explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in its decision “Rajwant Singh & another Vs. State of Kerela”,

AIR 1966 SC 1874 while referring to its celebrated decision in

“Virsa Singh Vs. State of Punjab”, (1953) SCR 1495. Relevant

observations made in respect thereof are reproduced as under:

“8. The argument requires close examination. Two offences

involve the killing of a person. They are the offence of

culpable homicide and the more henious offence of murder.

What distinguishes these two offences is the presence of a

special mens rea which consists of four mental attitudes in the

presence of any of which the lesser offence becomes greater.

These four mental attitudes are stated in Section 300 IPC as

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -17-

distinguishing murder from culpable homicide. Unless the

offence can be said to involve at least one such mental

attitude it cannot be murder. ……………………………………...

9. The first clause says that culpable homicide is murder if the

act by which death is caused is done with the intention of

causing death. An intention to kill a person brings the matter

so clearly within the general principle of mens rea as to cause

no difficulty. Once the intention to kill is proved, the offence

is murder unless one of the exceptions applies, in which case

the offence is reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to

murder. ………………………………………………………………

10. The second clause deals with acts done with the intention

of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be

likely to cause the death of the person to whom harm is

caused. The mental attitude here is two-fold. There is first the

intention to cause bodily harm and next there is the subjective

knowledge that death will be the likely consequence of the

intended injury. English Common Law made no clear

distinction between intention and recklessness but in our law

the foresight of the death must be present. The mental attitude

is thus made of two elements- (a) causing an intentional

injury and (b) which injury the offender has the foresight to

know would cause death. ………………………………………….

11. The third clause discards the test of subjective knowledge.

It deals with acts done with the intention of causing bodily

injury to a person and the bodily injury intended to be

inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause

death. In this clause the result of the intentionally caused

injury must be viewed objectively. If the injury that the

offender intends causing and does cause is sufficient to cause

death in the ordinary way of nature the offence is murder

whether the offender intended causing death or not and

whether the offender had a subjective knowledge of the

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -18-

consequences or not. As was laid down in Virsa Singh v.

State Of Punjab [1953] SCR 1495 for the application of this

clause it must be first established that an injury is caused,

next it must be established objectively what the nature of that

injury in the ordinary course of nature is. If the injury is

found to be sufficient to cause death one test is satisfied. Then

it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that

very injury and not some other injury and that it was not

accidental or unintentional. If this is also held against the

offender the offence of murder is established.”

12. In “ Jai Prakash Vs. State (Delhi Administration)”,

(1991) 2 SCC 32, in respect of third attitude presdcribed in Section

300 of the 1860 Code, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as

under:

“13.xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

……… In Clause Thirdly the words "intended to be inflicted"

are singnificant.; As noted already, when a person commits

an act, he is presumed to expect the natural consequences.

But from the mere fact that the injury caused is sufficient in

the ordinary course of nature to cause death it does not

necessarily follow that the offender intended to cause the

injury of that nature. However, the presumption arises that he

intended to cause that particular injury. In such a situation

the Court has to ascertain whether the facts and

circumstances in the case are such as to rebut the

presumption and such facts and circumstances cannot be laid

down in an abstract rule and they will vary from case to case.

However, as pointed out in Virsa Singh's case the weapon

used, the degree of force released in wielding it, the

antecedent relation of the parties, the manner in which the

attack was made that is to say sudden or premeditated,

whether the injury was inflicted during a struggle or

grappling, the number of injuries inflicted and their nature

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -19-

and the part of the body where the injury was inflicted are

some of the relevant factors. These and other factors which

may arise in a case have to be considered ……………………...

14.xxxx xxxx xxxx

15. ……..When an accused inflicts a blow with a deadly

weapon the presumption is that he intended to inflict that

injury…….. Of course much depends on the facts and

circumstances of each case.”

13. The said observations hold the field till date and have

been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its subsequent

decisions time and again.

14. In respect of the charge under Section 302 of the 1860

Code, primarily, the prosecution has examined PW-1 Tarsem Chand

and PW-2 Uggar Sain, may be that the other witnesses examined by it

have deposed about investigation etc. done in the matter. Above

summarized deposition of PW1 Tarsem Chand establishes that on the

date and at the time of the occurrence in question, he was present in

his house with his wife Pushpa Devi. It also establishes that on such

date and time, the appellant came to his house on his motorcycle from

rear gate of such house and first of all had a conversation with the

said witness in his bed room. His deposition is categoric that in such

conversation, the appellant demanded Rs.2 lakhs from the said

witness but he expressed his inability to pay the same because of

which, the appellant insisted to demand the said money from wife

Pushpa Devi of the said witness and accordingly, went to kitchen of

the said house where she was preparing tea. His deposition also

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -20-

establishes that the place where Pushpa Devi was preparing tea was

clearly visible from the corridor where the said witness had come

from his bed room. He is categoric that the appellant inflicted 7/8

blows of kirpan like weapon-kirch in abdominal area of Pushpa Devi

because of which she died at the spot. His deposition further

establishes that before inflicting the said injuries on her, the appellant

demanded Rs.2 lakhs from her but she also expressed her inability

and then the appellant inflicted the said injuries on her. Cross-

examination conducted on the said witness shows that his credit in

respect of such deposition could not be impeached. In such

examination, he has categorically deposed that on the said date and

time, the appellant had come to his house from back-side gate thereof

which stood bolted but was opened by his wife Pushpa Devi when the

appellant arrived there and knocked the gate. The said fact was

deposed by him in such examination only on the asking of the

learned defence counsel. Therefore, his omission to mention the said

fact in the statement Ex.PA is inconsequential in the present case. He

also is categoric in his such examination that his wife Pushpa Devi

brought the appellant to the bed room whereafter he and the appellant

were sitting in the said room and his wife had brought water for them.

He is further categoric in such examination that he and the appellant

talked for about 10-15 minutes. True it is that he has also deposed in

his examination that he had lent money to the appellant on two earlier

occasions and he appellant did not return the said money but he did

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -21-

not state the said fact to the police. At the same time, question in

respect thereof was put to him in cross-examination. Otherwise,

considering the nature of the occurrence in question and the

circumstances under which it was committed, he may have forgotten

to disclose the said fact to the police as his wife had died.

Nevertheless, his such omission has no material bearing on fate of the

case in question. His deposition also establishes that the place where

the deceased Pushpa Devi was preparing tea was visible from the

place where they were sitting in the bed room through window of the

kitchen and the said bed room was adjoining the kitchen. His cross-

examination also establishes that police reached the spot in the

manner deposed by him in his examination-in-chief. There is nothing

in his cross-examination to doubt him about the facts deposed by him

in examination-in-chief. So far as PW2 Uggar Sain is concerned, his

above summarized examination-in-chief establishes that on seeing the

crowd in front of house of PW1 Tarsem Chand, he went to the said

house and saw that the appellant was holding the above-stated kirpan

like weapon-kirch and was scuffling with PW1 Tarsem Chand. It also

establishes arrival of the police at the spot and recovery of the articles

deposed by him by the police from the place of occurrence in his

presence. In his cross-examination, he is categoric that he entered the

said house from main gate thereof and they apprehended the

appellant, took him outside and then made him to sit in the vehicle.

He has clearly deposed about recording of the statement of his father-

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -22-

in-law PW1 Tarsem Chand. On a question put to him about location

of the said kirch, he has replied that it was lying on the table when the

police arrived at the spot. Therefore, cross-examinations conducted

on the said two prosecution witnesses did not at all impeach their

credit. Their depositions, if read in entirety, establish that on the

above-stated date, time and place, the appellant caused above-stated

7/8 injuries in abdomen of wife Pushpa Devi of Tarsem Chand.

15. To prove its case, the prosecution, as stated above, has

also examined PW3 Dr.Karamdeep Singh Kahal, a Medical Officer

from Civil Hospital Sangrur. His above summarized deposition

establishes that on 02.08.2015, he had conducted postmortem

examination on dead body of the said Pushpa Devi. His affidavit

Ex.PG establishes that the said Pushpa Devi had following 15 injuries

on her person:

“1. Incised wound of 2x1 cm obliquely placed on the lat.

Aspect of right side of chest in the lateral part along the

mid axillary line, approx. 7 cm below axilla clotted blood

present. On exploration of abdomen there was large

amount of clotted blood in the peritoneal cavity and

pleural cavity on the right side. On exploration of the

chest, there was injury to the right side of the lung,

clotted blood present ni the pleural cavity, there was

injury to subcutaneous tissue and muscles.

2. An incised wound of 2x1 cm obliquely placed over the

right side of abdomen 15 cm Lat. To umbilicus and 2 cm

below subcostal margin, clotted blood present. On

exploration of the abdomen, there was injury to the

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -23-

subcutaneous tissues, muscles and peritoneal cavity,

mixed with peritoneal fluid, there was injury with liver

(right lobe).

3. Incised would of 2x1 cm vertically placed 5 cm left to

umbilicus in line umbilicus. Clotted blood present.

4. Incised wound 2x1 cm horizontally placed 4 cm medial

to left Ant. Sup. Iliac spine and 5 cm above it. Clotted

blood present.

5. Incised wound of 2x1 cm horizontally placed 4 cm Lat.

to left Ant. Sup. Iliac spine and 5 cm above Ant. Sup. Iliac

spine, clotted blood present.

6. Incised wound of 2x1 cm obliquely placed 10 cm above

Lt. Ant. Sup. Iliac spine and 5 cm lateral to it. Clotted

blood present.

7. Incised wound of 2x1 cm horizontally placed 11 cm

above Lt Ant. Sup. Iliac spine and 5 cm Lat. to it. Clotted

blood present.

8. Incised wound of 2x1 cm approx. 15 cm above left Ant.

Sup. Iliac spine Horizontally placed clotted blood

present.

9. Incised wound of 2x1 cm vertically placed 7 cm from

midline to Lt. side, subcostal margin, clotted blood

present.

10. Incised would of 2x1 cm horizontally placed 10 cm

from midline to Lt. side. Clotted blood present.

11. Incised wound horizontally placed 10 cm from

midline to Lt. side. Clotted blood present.

12. Incised wound obliquely placed 12 cm below Lt.

nipple. (size 2x1 cm) clotted blood present.

13. Incised wound of 2x1 cm obliquely placed in ant.

Auxiliary line on left side 20 cm from midline. Clotted

blood present.

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -24-

14. A bruise of approx. 12 cm x 5 cm over right inguinal

area. On exploration, there was clotted blood in the

subcutanceous tissues on exploration of the abdomen,

there was injury to the subcutancous tissues and

peritoneum. Lot of blood (clotted) in the peritoned cavity

mixed with semidigested food. On further exploration

there was injury to the ant and post. Wrap of stomach.

15. Clotted blood was present in the nostril. On an

exploration, there was injury to the underlying soft

tissue.”

16. Postmortem report Ex.PH and pictorial diagram Ex.PH/1

show location of the injuries caused to the said Pushpa Devi. The said

injuries are stated to have been caused by the above-stated kirpan like

kirch in her abdominal area. Deposition of PW4 Dr.Kahal also

establishes that the deceased died because of the said injuries which

were ante-mortem and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary

course of nature. Depositions of PW5 Inspector Palvinder Singh and

other witness/es establish the investigation carried out by the police

for getting autopsy on the dead body of the said Pushpa Devi done.

Cross-examination conducted on the prosecution witness/es does not

at all show that the injuries to Pushpa Devi were caused in any other

manner by anyone else. Rather the depositions of the above-stated

two material witnesses establish that only the appellant caused such

injuries to her in the above-stated manner which led to her immediate

death and further that such injuries were caused to her with an intent

to cause her death. The said injuries have also been proved to be

ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -25-

nature. The said facts clearly establish mental attitude/s is provided

in Section 300 of the said Code. No exception provided under Section

300 of the 1860 Code has been pleaded, proved and established by

the appellant. The plea of false implication taken by appellant,

therefore, is not at all borne out of the record. There is no evidence in

that regard. After all, the appellant was brother of daughter-in-law of

Tarsem Chand. The said relationship establishes their proximity to

each other and vulnerability in the same. In that view of the matter,

PW1 Tarsem Chand would have thought thousands times before

falsely implicating the appellant for commission of murder of his

wife. If someone else would have caused the said injuries, PW1

Tarsem Chand would have been the last person to falsely implicate

the appellant for causing such injuries by sparing the actual

perpetrator. The appellant was apprehended from the spot and was

handed-over to the police therefrom. No other person except PW1

Tarsem Chand and Pushpa Devi were present in the house when the

appellant caused the said injuries. In view thereof, plea of false

implication taken by the appellant is nothing but a ploy to falsely

defend himself. Such plea, therefore, cannot be accepted. Through

the impugned judgment, the appellant has firstly been convicted by

the Learned Sessions Judge for a charge under Section 302 of the

1860 Code. The finding/s given by it to render such conviction is/are

in consonance with the observations made in the present judgment

and therefore deserve to be confirmed.

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -26-

17. Through the said judgment, the appellant has also been

convicted under Sections 323 and 324 of the 1860 Code. An offence

of hurt is defined under Section 319 thereof. Section 321 of the said

Code talks of voluntarily causing hurt, whereas, Section 323 thereof

punishes an act of voluntarily causing hurt. Section 324 of the said

Code punishes voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons. The

above summarized deposition of PW1 Tarsem Chand establishes

categorically that when he intervened in the matter and raised an

alarm, the appellant scuffled with him and during the said scuffle,

PW2 Uggar Sain reached the spot. Deposition of PW2 Uggar Sain

also establishes that when he entered the house in question, the

appellant was armed with a blood-stained kirch and was scuffling

with his father-in-law Tarsem Chand. Despite put to lengthy cross-

examinations, defence could not cull out anything from them so as to

discredit them in respect of their depositions in examination-in-chief.

Deposition of PW5 Inspector Palvinder Singh establishes that after

the occurrence in question, PW1 Tarsem Chand was taken to Civil

Hospital, Sangrur and was got medico-legally examined there on

01.08.2015. Deposition of PW4 Dr.Baljeet Singh has established

such examination of the said witness in the said hospital and

detection of one incised wound on frontal aspect of middle phalynx

of middle finger of his left hand and one lacerated wound on frontal

aspect of his middle finger of such hand. The said witness has

proved medico-legal examination report Ex.PJ of PW1 Tarsem

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -27-

Chand. A perusal of the said document shows that PW1 Tarsem

Chand was examined by the said witness in the said hospital on

01.08.2015. Pictorial diagram Ex.PJ/1 establishes location of the

injuries detected on the person of PW1 Tarsem Chand. There is no

evidence on record to hold or prove that from the place of occurrence,

PW1 Tarsem Chand was taken to any other place or that he went

somewhere else in the interregnum. Deposition of PW5 Inspector

Palvinder Singh and PW8 SI Satnam Singh, rather, establish that

from the place of occurrence, PW1 Tarsem Chand was directly taken

to Civil Hospital Sangrur and was medico-legally examined there by

PW4 Dr.Baljeet Singh. The said witnesses, therefore, establish that

the injuries referred to in MLR Ex.PJ were caused by the appellant in

the above-stated manner on the above-stated date and time. There is

no other evidence on record to conclude or hold that the same were

not caused by the appellant or were caused by someone else. Once it

is so, it comes out that the prosecution has also proved charges under

Sections 323 and 324 of the 1860 Code against the appellant beyond

a shadow of reasonable doubt.

18. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to notice the

star argument of learned counsel for the appellant that depositions of

the material prosecution witnesses i.e. PW1 Tarsem Chand, PW2

Uggar Sain and PW5 Palvinder Singh are materially discrepant. No

doubt the said argument appears to be attractive in the first go.

However, if one goes deep into it, it comes out that it deserves

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -28-

rejection. In fact, in respect of material aspects of the prosecution

case that the appellant caused above-mentioned injuries to Pushpa

Devi and PW1 Tarsem Chand, there are no discrepancies at all in the

depositions of the said three prosecution witnesses. No doubt if one

peruses deposition of PW5 Inspector Palvinder Singh minutely, it is

found that he has inter-alia deposed that he did not record the DDR

about receipt of information in the present case; that when he reached

the spot some persons were inside the house; that he does not know

as to what demand was raised by the appellant; that there was no

endorsement in the ruqa to transmit copy of FIR but copy of the FIR

was brought; that endorsement Ex.PA/1 contains overwriting about

time and designation; that he did not notice blood on clothes of PW1

Tarsem Chand and the appellant; that he did not touch weapon of

offence and waited for the expert to collect fingerprints therefrom;

that name of owner of the recovered motorcycle was not known till

investigation remained with him; that blood lying on the floor was

semi-liquid and on body of Pushpa Devi had clotted; that he did not

conduct investigation in respect of mobile or SIM lying in the bag;

and that he did not record any separate DDR for interrogating the

appellant. At the same time, his such depositions are not at all in

material contradiction to the set-forth and proved material

prosecution case. His such depositions, therefore, cannot at all be

treated materially discrepant in the present case going to the root

thereof so as to create a doubt in the same. PW1 Tarsem Chand is

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -29-

categoric that gate of the house was bolted but was opened by Pushpa

Devi when the appellant knocked the same. Prosecution case since

beginning is that public had entered the house of PW1 Tarsem Chand

before arrival of the police. Therefore deposition of PW1 Tarsem

Chand and PW2 Uggar Sain that public had come inside the house

after arrival of the police appears to be by inadvertence and cannot be

treated as a material discrepancy. PW5 Inspector Palvinder Singh

himself admits that daughter-in-law Komal of PW1 Tarsem Chand

and her husband were not present at the time of occurrence and in

fact they did not come to the house in question on the date in

question. In view of his such deposition, no question of he recording

their statements could have arisen in the matter in question.

Therefore, the said depositions of PW5 Palvinder Singh are

inconsequential and have no strength to create a doubt in the above-

stated prosecution case and evidence. Furthermore, at the most, the

said depositions will bring the investigation conducted by the said

witness to the level of a defective investigation. It may also be said

that he failed to conduct proper investigation. At the same time, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court, in respect of consequences of such an

investigation, in “Dhanraj Singh @ Shera Vs. State” 2004 SCC

(Criminal) 851 observed as under:-

“5. In the case of a defective investigation the Court has to be

circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be

right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the

defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -30-

the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly

defective. (See

Karnel Singh vs State of M.P.:1995CriLJ

4173).

6. In Paras Yadav and Ors. v. State of Bihar:

1999CriLJ1122 it was held that if the lapse or omission is

committed by the investigating agency or because of

negligence the prosecution evidence is required to be

examined dehors such omissions to find out whether the said

evidence is reliable or not. The contaminated conduct of

officials should not stand on the way of evaluating the

evidence by the courts; otherwise the designed mischief

would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the

complainant party.

7. As was observed in Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar

and Ors. : 1998CriLJ2515 if primacy is given to such

designed or negligent investigation, to the omission or lapses

by perfunctory investigation or omissions, the faith and

confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the Law

enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice. The

view as again re-iterated in Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh

and Ors., : 2003CriLJ1282. As noted in Amar Singh's case

(supra) it would have been certainly better if the fire arms

were sent to the forensic test laboratory for comparison. But

the report of the ballistic expert would be in the nature of an

expert opinion without any conclusiveness attached to it.

When the direct testimony of the eye-witnesses corroborated

by the medical evidence fully establishes the prosecution

version failure or omission or negligence on part of the IO

cannot affect credibility of the prosecution version.

8. The stand of the appellants relate essentially to

acceptability of evidence. Even if the investigation is

defective, in view of the legal principles set out above, that

pales into insignificance when ocular testimony is found

credible and cogent. ……………………………………………...”

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -31-

19. The alleged defective investigation, if any, further, cannot

be treated to have prejudiced right to fair defence of the appellant and

therefore, is inconsequential in the present case. Dehors the said

investigation, the prosecution and its witnesses have proved the said

offences against the appellant to the hilt.

20. True it is that the learned counsel for the appellant have

also vehemently contended that no independent witness was

examined by the prosecution in the present case and therefore, the

appellant deserves to be acquitted on the said ground and further that

PW1 Tarsem Chand and PW2 Uggar Sain are interested witnesses,

they being relatives of the said Pushpa Devi. At the same time, as is

evident from the contents of Ex.PA leading to the FIR in question and

deposition of PW1 Tarsem Chand, when the occurrence in question

took place there was no one else than the appellant, PW1 Tarsem

Chand and the said Pushpa Devi present in the house in question. All

including the police are stated to have reached the spot after the

occurrence had taken place and the said Pushpa Devi had died at the

spot. Even daughter-in-law Komal of PW1 Tarsem Chand as well as

step-son Subhash Kumar were not present in the house at such time.

In view thereof, it comes out that when the murder of Pushpa Devi

was committed, it was not witnessed by anyone else than PW1

Tarsem Chand and when the above-mentioned injuries were caused

to PW1 Tarsem Chand, the occurrence in question was not witnessed

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -32-

by anyone else than PW1 Tarsem Chand and PW3 Uggar Sain. In the

absence of anyone else witnessing the commission of the said

offences, it was impossible for the prosecution to produce any other

witness of the same. If it would have done so, the same would have

falsified its case and version. Therefore, once no one else witnessed

the occurrence in question, plea of non-examination of any other

person in support of the prosecution case has no legs to stand not to

talk of weakening it and its evidence. It is also equally true that PW1

Tarsem Chand and PW2 Uggar Sain were close relatives of Pushpa

Devi. However, the above-referred to facts/evidence establish that

they were the only witnesses of the occurrence in question. In view

thereof, they cannot at all be treated as interested witnesses. They in

fact were the true witnesses of the occurrence and have deposed

about the facts constituting the same. In respect of testimony of a

related or interested witness, a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in “Dalip Singh Vs. State of Punjab”, AIR 1953 SC

364, observed as under:-

“We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High

Court that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses requires

corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is

based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the

fate of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no

such rule. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely

related to the deceased we are unable to concur. This is a

fallacy common to many criminal cases and one which

another Bench of this court endeavoured to dispel in

Rameshwar v. The State of Rajasthan. We find, however,

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -33-

that it unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments of

the courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel.

A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he

or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and

that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as

enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely.

Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the

real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is

true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause' for

enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person

against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty,

but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere

fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure

guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any

sweeping generalisation. Each case must be judged on its

own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is

so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of

prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be

limited to and be governed by its own facts.

This is not to say that in a given case a Judge for reasons

special to that case and to that witness cannot say that he is

not prepared to believe the witness because of his general

unreliability, or for other reasons, unless he is corroborated.

Of course, that can be done. But the basis for such a

conclusion must rest on facts special to the particular

instance and cannot be grounded on a supposedly general

rule of prudence enjoined by law as in the case of

accomplices.”

21. Again in “Masalti Vs. State of U.P.”, AIR 1955 SC

202, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in respect of argument raised about

a partisan or interested witness, observed as under:-

“Mr. Sawhney has then argued that where witnesses giving

evidence in a murder trial like the present are shown to

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -34-

belong to the faction of victims, their evidence should not be

accepted, because they are prone to involve falsely members

of the rival faction out of enmity and partisan feeling. There

is no doubt that when a criminal Court has to appreciate

evidence given by witnesses who are partisan or interested, it

has to be very careful in weighing such evidence. 51 S.C.-IO

Whether or not there are discrepancies in the evidence;

whether or not the evidence strikes the Court as genuine;

whether or not the story disclosed by the evidence is

probable, are all matters which must be taken into account.

But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that

evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the

ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses.

Often enough, where factions prevail in villages and murders

are committed as a result of enmity between such factions,

criminal Courts have to deal with evidence of a partisan type.

The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground

that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice.

No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much

evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be

cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such

evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be

accepted as correct.”

22. To the same effect are the decisions in “State of Punjab

Vs. Jagir Singh”, (1973) SCC (Crl.) 886; and Lehna Vs. State of

Haryana, (2002) SCC (Crl.) 526. In “State of Rajasthan Vs.

Kalki”, (1981) SCC (Crl.) 593, a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, while differentiating between an interested witness

and a related witness, observed as under:-

“5. As mentioned above the High Court has declined to rely

on the evidence of P.W.1 on two grounds: (1) she was a

"highly interested" witness because she "is the wife of the

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -35-

deceased", and (2) there were discrepancies in her evidence.

With respect, in our opinion, both the grounds are invalid.

For, in the circumstances of the case, she was the only and

most natural witness; she was the only person present in the

hut with the deceased at the time of the occurrence, and the

only person who saw the occurrence. True, it is she is the wife

of the deceased; but she cannot be called an 'interested'

witness. She is related to the deceased. 'Related' is not

equivalent to 'interested'. A witness may be called 'interested'

only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a

litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an

accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and

is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case

cannot be said to be 'interested'. In the instant case P.W.1

had no interest in protecting the real culprit, and falsely

implicating the respondents.”

23. The said observations hold the field till date and have

been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its later decisions

time and again.

24. If the said observations are applied to the present case, it

comes out presence of PW1 Tarsem Chand and PW2 Uggar Sain

where occurrence in question took place is natural. In surrounding

circumstances and probability of the present case, on scrutinizing

their depositions, it is found that the same are true, credible, cogent

and worth credence. There is nothing on record to hold their

depositions as interested. Plea raised by the learned counsel for the

appellant that depositions of the said two witnesses should be

discarded as they are related witnesses, therefore, has no substance

and therefore, cannot be accepted. Motorcycle, bag, currency note,

CRA-D-969-2016 (O&M) -36-

purse and mobile have been deposed to be belonging to the appellant

and have duly been proved to have been recovered from the place of

occurrence. Therefore argument on behalf of the appellant in respect

thereof has also no substance. The decision relied upon by the

learned counsel for the appellant is of no help in the present case.

Further, in that decision there was a delay in lodging the FIR and it

was an appeal against acquittal. Deposition of wife of the deceased in

the said matter was not found truthful. Such are not the circumstances

in the present case.

25. A perusal of the impugned judgment of convicti on

establishes that it is as per evidence on record as well as the law

applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. It has dealt

with the evidence in minute details. Reasoning given and findings

rendered in it are as per evidence. Sentence imposed on the appellant

is also as per Section 302 of the 1860 Code. Therefore the impugned

judgment of conviction and order of sentence do not call for

interference under Section 386(b) of the 1973 Code. The same are

accordingly confirmed. The present appeal is therefore dismissed.

26. No other argument was addressed.

27. Pending applications, if any, are disposed off.

(ALKA SARIN) (RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI)

JUDGE JUDGE

May 29, 2026

sailesh

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes

Whether Reportable : Yes