Two appellants convicted for murder by the High Court after enhancement from the trial court's culpable-homicide conviction. The Supreme Court found the two sets of prosecution eyewitness evidence mutually contradictory and unreliable, and acquitted the appellants.
Judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside; Harchand Singh and Jaswant Singh acquitted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
583
A
HARCHAND SINGH & ANR.
,,
STATE OF HARYANA
August 31, 1973
[ff. R. KHANNA AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.]
B
Indian Penal Code-Accused convicted under s. 304 II read wit/1 s. 34 hy the trial court-On crns.t llpoeal. Hif!h __ Court suhstitu:ed conviction u fs. 304 fo convic1io11 uls 302 R.W.S. 34,-Whether-- oonviction possible, when prosecut/011 products a .ret of evidence which contradict and strikes at the other.
Six persons were tried in the Court of Addi. Sessions Judge in connectioO with the death of the victim. The trial Court acquitted 3 but convicted 2 under Sec. 304 Part II read with '· 34 l.P.C. and the other one w., convicted under c s. 323 I. P .C. and they were sen'.enoed accordingly.
Two cros.~ appeals were, thereafter, fi.ledne by the convicts challenging cheir conviction and the other by the Sta e p· aving that the convictions of 1he 3 accused be under s. 302 read with s. 34, I. P. C. The High Court acquit'ed one of them but C"lnvicted the other two under s. 302 read wih S. 34 I. P. C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for lire and hence the appeal before thi• Court.
0
The prosecution, in support of its case, examined two sets of eye witnt>ssts. The evidence of one set consisted of the testimony of three eye witnes!!es. The trial court, dfd not place any reliance upon their testimony rior upon the dying declaration. The other eye witness upon whose testimony the prosecution and the trial court placed reliance was PW. 14, who professed to be \Vorking With the deceased at the time of occurrence.
Allowing the appea1,
E
F
HELD : The function of the Court in a Criminal Trial ls to find whether the person arraigned before it is guil·y of th ... Offence wi+h which h~ is charged. For this purpose. th .. Court scans the material on recorcfl to find whether there ia anv reliable and trusfworthv evidf"nce UT\On tbf' bac::i.;: of which it is posible to convict the accused and to bold tha· he is guiltv of th .. offence with which he is chaTged. If in a case, the proserution leads tw11 sts of evidence. ri.ch one of ·which contradict and strikes at th .. other and shows it to be nnreliab1e. the conviction cannot be sustained. [587E1
Jladivalu Tllel'a1 v. The State of Madras, f1957] S.C.R. 981, referred to and ditinished.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1970.
From the Judgment and order dated the 23rd April, 1969 of the G Puniab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 320 and 672 ot 1967.
Nuruddin Ahmed and D. Goburdhan, for the appellants.
H. S. Marwah and R. N. Sachthey. for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered bv H
KHANNA, J. Harchand Singh, Jaswant SiMh, Jaswinder Singh, Sadhu Singh, Gaiian Singh and Labh Singh were tried in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in connection with an occurrence
( 1974] 1 S.C.R.
1 SUPllEME COUIT llEPORTS
S84
| which resultedinthe deathof.Ajaib._Singh:_Thetrailcourtacquitted SadhuSingh,Gajjan Singh andLibhSiiigb.HarcbandandJas.want Singhwere ronvictedbythe trail·courtundersection304part11- readwithsection'34Indian PenalOldeandeachofthemwassen- tencedtoundergorigorousimprisonmentfor aperiodofseven years. Jaswinder Singh was convictedundersWion323IndianPenalCode aDdsentencedto·undergo rigorous imprisonment for aperiod ·oJ ooeyear. Two cross appeals were thereafter filedinthePunjab& Haryana High Court.Oneoftheappe3.IswasbyHarchandSingh, Jaswant Singh and Jaswinder Singh. challenging their conviction•.The other appealwasby·the State_al_Punjabwherein.itwasprayed that the convictionofHarchand Singh, Jaswant Singh and Jaswinder Singh shouldbeunder section 302readwith section ·34Indian·Penal Code.TheHighCourtacquittedJaswinderSingh.-Theappealbythe State against Harchand SinghandJaswant Singh was acceptedand thosetwo=usedwere convicted under section 302 read withsec- tion 34 Indian Penal Code and eachofthemwassentencedtounder· go imprisonment for life.RuchandSinghandJ as want Singh there· after cameupinappeal tothisCourtbyspecial leave. |
|---|
| · · The prosecution case is that GuiabKaurwidowofJwala Singh made__a.willof·land measuring about fifty bighas in favourofAjaib Singh deceased and his brother Tej Singh. Guiab Singh died about two |
| _years_before the present occurrence. Afterherdeath, the landofGuiab Kaur_wasunderthe·cultivating possessionofA jaib Singh and Teja Singh. Theaccused_are collateralsofJwala Singh, husbandofGuiab Kaur and felt aggrieved becauseoftheexecutionofthe willbyGuiab KaurinfavourofAjaib Singh and Teja Singh.OnJune12, 1966at |
| aboutIOor11 a.m.,itis . stated, Ajaib Singh wenttowork his wellknownas"nawaKhu"inthe areaofvillageJaipura.111c |
| six· accused, who were presentattheir well closetothe well of Ajaih Singh, then came . there. Sadhu Singh and Harchand Singhatthat |
| time were armed with barchhas.Jaswinder Sirigh, Gajjan Singh and Labh Singhhadgandasas,J_aswantSinghhadtakwa.Onarrival |
| there, the accused stated that they would not allow A jaib Singhto t!'1te water:frothe'Yll.pieacc~sedalso stared inflicting inju- |
riesuponA1ail>Smgh with their respective weapons. The occurrence, · Itis stated, was witnessedbyAjaib Singh's two sons AmarjitSingh and Mal Singh as well asbyhis brotherTejaSingh. Amarjit Sngh. Mal Singh and Teja Singh were statedtobepresentina nearby field |
| ·atthat time.Theyrushedtothe spot whereAjail>Singh was being |
| assaulted. The accused thenran. away.Ajail>Singh wasputon. a |
| ·cartwas taken firsttoDurahaand thereaftertoPaya!.AsthedoctOr was not available either in the Duraha HospitalorPaya! hospital Ajail>SinghwastakeninataxitoKhanna. 'The party arrived ai |
| Khanna hospitalatabout 6.30 p.m. Dr. Shamsher Singhincharg~ |
clthe hospital then sent an intimationtopoliee station Khanna stat· ' |
| in that Aiaib Singhs condition was serious andhisstatement might |
be recorded. ASI Harbhajan Singh then wenttothe hospital and |
recorded statementPKofAiail>Singhat.7.30·p.m..Inthe said |
statement,Aiail>Singh gave the versionoftheoccurien~as given |
above. A.jail>Singh diedinthe hospital soon thereafterat8.45p-.m. |
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
II
HAR.CHAND v. HARYANA (Khanna, I.)
585
Intimation about the recording of the ~ying declaration of Ajaib Singh was sent to police station Payal. A case was thereupon r< gistered at that police station and a formal first information report was prepared on the basis of the dying declaration of Ajaib Singh.
Sub Inspector Hoshiar Singh took over the investigation of this case. He arrested the accused on June 16, 1966 when they were B found to be hiding at Duraha power-house. The different accused were thereafter interrogated. Harchand Singh then got recovered a blood-stained bruchha. Jaswant Singh got recovered a blood-stained takwa, while J as winder Singh got recovered a blood-stained gandasa.
Post mortem examination on the bocly of Ajaib Singh deceased c was performed by Dr. Gurcharan Singh Randhrawa on June 13, 1966 at 1 p.m.
At the trial the accused the i>rosecution allegations and stated that they had been falsely involved in the case. The trial oourt did not place any reliance upon the testimony of Amarjit Singh (PW2), Mal Singh (PW 3), and Teja Singh (PW4) who were examined as eye witnesses of the occurrence and who had supported the proseell · D lion. case as given above. The trial court did not also place any reliance upon the dying declaration of Ajaib Singh. Reliance was, however, placed by the trial court upon the evidence of Ram Asra (PW 14) who profess<;<! to be working with the deceased at the time Qf occurrence. Ram Asra's statement, it would appear from the re· cord, was recorded by the police on June 13, 1966 during the investiE gation of the case. According to Ram Asra, only three of the accused, namely, Harchand Singh, Jaswant Singh and Jaswinder Singh were present at the time of the occurrence, while the other three accused were not present. It was further stated by Ram Asra that injuries to Ajaib Singh deceased had been caused by Harchand Singh with a drat (sickle) and by J as want Singh with a kirpan. Relying upon the evidence of Ram Asra, the trial court convicted Harchand Singh and F Jaswant Singh for offence under section 304 part II read with section 34 Indian Penal Code. Jaswinder Singh, who was sttated to be emptyhanded, was convicted under section 323 Indian Penal Code.
When the matter was taken up in appeal to the High Court, the learned Judges took the view that the trial court was not justified in throwing over-board the testimony of Amarjit. Singh, Mal Singh and G Teja Singh. The High Glurt after taldng into consideration the evi· dence of those three withnesses as well the evidence of Ram Asra PW came to the conclusion that the complicity of Harchand Singh and Jaswant Singh was established beyond any reasonable doubt. So far as J aswinder Singh was concerned. the High Court held that no case has been proved against them. The High Court was further of the opinion that the case against Harchand Singh and Jaswant ff Singh fell under section 302 read with section 34 and not under section 304 part lI read with section 34 Indian Penal Code. Harchand Singh and Jaswant Singh were accordingly convicted and sentenced as above.
[ 1.974] 1 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
586
We have heard Mr. Nuruddin on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Marwah on behalf of the State and are of the opinion that the conviction of the appeliants cannot be sustained. ·
It cannot be disputed that a murderous assault was made on Ajaib Singh on the day of occurrence as a result of which he died. The evidence of Dr. Shamsher Singh, who examined Ajaib Singh when he was taken to Khanna hospital as well as the evidence of Dr. Gurcharan Singh Randhawa who performed post mortem examination oe the dead body, shows that as many as eighteen injuries were inflicted upon Ajaib Singh deceased. Out of them, seven had been caused by shaq:H:dged weapons. Death, in the opinion of Dr. Randhawa, was .due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the cumulative effect of the injuries. According to the case of the prosecution, the two appellants joined in the assault on the deceased as a result of which the latter died. The prosecution in support of its case examined two sets of eye witnesses. The evidence of one set consists of the testimony .of Amarjit Singh, Mal Singh and Teja Singh. So far as these witnesses are concerned, the trial court came to the conclusion that they were not present near the scene of occurrence and had not witnessed the occurrence. The trial court in support of this conclusion gave reasons which appear to be cogent and weighty and find uo partiular gro1Jn4 to take a different view. The evidence of Ram Asra, who aceording to the prosecution case was with Ajaib Singh deceased at the time of the occurrence, shows that Amarjit Singh, Mal Singh and. Teja Singh were not present at the time of occurrence. If Amarjit Singh, Mal Singh and Teja Singh had been present at or about the place of occurrence and had actually seen the occurrence, it is difficult to believe that Ram Asra would have remained unaware of their presence. According to Amarjit Singh, Mal Singh and Teja Singh, they saw the occurrence while they were coming from their house. They were at a distance of about 60 karams from the place of occurrence when they heard alarm being raised and on coming nearer they saw the six accused inflicting injuries upon Ajaib Singh deceased. As against, that, the version of Ajaib Singh deceased in the dying declaration was that the above mentioned three witnesses were working in the field nearby when he was assaulted by the accused. Arnarjit Silljth, Mal Singh and Teja Singh claimed that they were proceeding from their house to the well with Tokras and Kahis for the purpose of consolidating the new channel with earth filling. If 'that was the purpose for which they were going to the well, they would have gone there before and in any case not after Ajaib Singh deceased so that they might prepare the channel before Aiaib Singh started operation of the persian wheel at the well. We thus find that not only · the explanation given by Amarjit Singh, Mal Singh and Teja Singh regarding their arrival at that time is not convincing, there is material discreoancy in the version of Aiaib Singh deceased in his dving declaration and the testimony of Amariit Singh, Mal Singh and Teja Sindl PWs regarding the presence of these witnesses at or about the place of occurrence. On the t.oo of all this we find that the evidnce of Ram Asra, upon which reliance has been placed bv the prosecution shows that Arnariit Singh, Mal Singh and Teja Singh were not there and had not witnessed the occurrence.
A
B
c
E
;ll
HAllCHAND v. HAllYANA (Khanna, J.)
587
\
The other eye witness, upon whose testimony reliance has been placed by the prosecution is Ram Asra (PW 14). So far as this witness is concerned, we find that his presence at the scene of occurrence was not mentioned by Ajaib Singh decleased in the dying declara tion which was recorded by ASI Harbhajan Singh at Khanna ll hospital. According to Ram Asra, he was working with the deceased at the well when the' three accused came there and assaulted the deceased. If Ram Asra was, in fact, present and working with Ajaib Singh deceased at the time of the occurrence, it is not clear as to why the deceased should fail to mention that fact in the dying declaration. The evidence of Amarjit Singh, Mal Singh and Teja Singh upon which c also the prosecution placed reliance goes to show that Ram Asra had not witnessed the occurrence. The name of Ram Asra in the very nature of things not mentioned in the first information report, because the said report was based upon the dying declaration of Ajaib Singh. It would thus appear that the eye witness upon whose testimony the prosecution wants to sustain the conviction of the appellants is shown 0 to be an unreliable witness by the other evidence produced by the prosecution. The present is a case wherein one set of prosecution evidence condemns the other set of evidence produced by the prosecution. In the above state of affairs, we find it difficult to secure a firm ground upon which to base the conviction of -the accused appellants.
ll
E The function of the court in a criminal trial is to find whether the persor: arraigned before it as the accused is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. For this purpose the court scans the material on record to find whether there is any reliable and trustworthy evidenc< upon the basis of which it is ]X)Ssible to found the conviction of the accused and to hold that he is guilty of the offence with which he F is charged. If in a case the prosecution leads two sets of evidence, each one of which contradict and strikes at the other and shows it to be unreliable, the result would necessarily be that the court would be left with no reliable and trustworthy eviden~e upon which the conviction of the accused might be based. Inevitably, the accused would have the benefit of such a situation.
E
G
Mr. Marwah has cited before us the case of Vadivalu Thevar v. The State of Madras(') wherein it was laid down that the court can base the conviction of the accused on a charge of murder upon the testimony of a single ,witness if the same was found to be convincing and reliable. There can, in our opinion, be no dispute with the above II proposition, but that proposition can be of no avail in the present case. As already mentioned earlier, the prosecution evidence itself (I) [1957] S.C.R. 981.
[ 1974 J 1 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
588
A
creates doubt about the veracity of the testimony of Ram Asra, upou which testimony reliance is now sought to be placed by Mr. Marwah. Had the testimony of Ram Asra been of a convincing character and the prosecution evidence had not itself created doubt regarding the correctness of his testimony, this Court might have sustained the conviction of appellants upon the testimony of Ram Asra. As the things are, prosecution itself has led evidence to show that the testimony of Ram Asra is not reliable.
B
We. therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the judgmef!l of the High Court and acquit the appellants.
s.c.
Appeal allo••'ed.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether conviction can be sustained when the prosecution leads two sets of evidence each contradicting and discrediting the other.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vadivalu Thevar v. The State of MadrasDistinguished¶62
[1957] S.C.R. 981 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Harchand Singh
Jaswant Singh
State of Haryana
H.R. Khanna
A. Alagiriswami
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
