IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sukhbir Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab
Dated: 27/1/2011
WITH SLP(CRL) No. 5580 of 2008
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1198 OF 2007
Citation: 2011 CR. L. J. 2336 SC
O R D E R
1. This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 1198 of 2007
and Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5580 of 2008. The facts have been
taken from Criminal Appeal No. 1198 of 2007.
2. At about 9 p.m. on the 26th December 1991 Naranjan Singh PW-2
son of Jaswant Singh deceased a resident of village Vinjwan was in his
house along with his father when there was a knock at the door.
Naranjan Singh and his father, who happened to be the Sarpanch of the
village, thereupon opened the door. Two Sikh youth, who were
subsequently identified as the appellants herein, Sukhbir Singh and
Dilbagh Singh, were standing outside carrying AK-47 rifles.
They told
Jaswant Singh that he was raising an unnecessary dispute with regard
to the school land, part of which under the possession of Mohanjit Singh,
Amir Singh and Bhupender Singh sons of Harbans Singh (all accused).
Jaswant Singh answered that he alone was not the deciding factor and
Crl. Appeal No.1198/2007
2
the other members of
the Panchayat and the Lambardar be also called. Jaswant Singh was
then taken towards the house of Mohinder Singh Lambardar, by the two
appellants followed by Naranjan Singh. Mohinder Singh too was called
out of his house and the entire group then went on to the house of
Hardev Singh, Member Panchayat. Hardev Singh too was called out and
the appellants told them that the dispute should be settled then and
there. They also took Jaswant Singh, Lambardar Mohinder Singh and
Member, Panchayat Hardev Singh towards the side of the school outside
the village again followed by Naranjan Singh. The three were thereafter
told to sit on the ground whereupon one of the appellants went to call
Harbans Singh appellant. He returned about 5/6 minutes later
accompanied by Harbans Singh and directed Jaswant Singh to stand up
and after telling him that he alone was not permitting Harbans Singh
and his family to live peacefully and that he was attempting to construct
a school building over his land, they fired a burst each from their rifles
killing Jaswant Singh on the spot. Naranjan Singh then ran away but
returned after some time and seeing his father's dead body, left for the
police station. He, however, came across a police party at about 4.45
a.m. on the canal bridge near village Taragarh and made a statement to
Inspector Jarnail Singh PW-8 and on its basis an FIR was registered at
Police Station, Sadar Batala. The Special Report was delivered to the
Magistrate in Batala itself at 6.30 a.m. In the FIR, Naranjan Singh
Crl. Appeal No.1198/2007
3
stated that two Sikh
youth who had killed his father were militants 25-30 years of age, of
medium build, wearing kurta pajamas and that he could identify them, if
confronted. He further stated that he suspected that Harbans Singh and
his sons Mohanjit Singh, Amir Singh and Bhupender Singh had entered
into a conspiracy along with the appellants to commit the murder.
Harbans Singh and his three sons were arrested soon after the incident
but Sukhbir Singh and Dilbagh Singh were arrested on the 21st May
1992 by Sub-Inspector Pyara Singh. On the completion of the
investigation, all the accused were brought to trial for offences
punishable under section 302 read with Section 149 and 120-B of the
IPC.
3. The prosecution in support of its case placed reliance on the
evidence of Sukhdip Singh PW-1, the doctor who had carried out the
post-mortem on the dead body, Naranjan Singh PW-2, Mohinder Singh
Lambardar PW-3 who too supported the prosecution story and further
stated that he had seen Harbans Singh and his sons talking to one of the
appellants, and PW-8 Sub-Inspector Jarnail Singh who had recorded the
statement of Naranjan Singh near the canal minor bridge and which had
led to the registration of the formal FIR.
4. The trial court relying on the aforesaid evidence convicted all the
accused for offences punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC and
Crl. Appeal No.1198/2007
4
sentenced them to RI of
7 years and to fine, Sukhbir Singh and Dilbagh Singh appellants under
Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment along
with fine and Harbans Singh, Mohanjit Singh, Amir Singh and
Bhupender Singh under Section 302/149 of the IPC also to serve a life
sentence. The matter was thereafter taken in appeal to the High Court
and during the pendency of the appeal Harbans Singh passed away. The
appeal against him has dismissed as having abated. The High Court
observed that there was no delay in the lodging of the FIR in which the
names of Harbans Singh, Mohanjit Singh, Amir Singh and Bhupender
Singh alias Shastri had been mentioned, and although the two main
accused (the appellants herein) had not been named, but they fitted the
description given in the FIR and that further support with regard to the
occurrence was to be found from the statements of Naranjan Singh and
Mohinder Singh PWs. as to the manner in which the entire incident
happened which clearly revealed that the two sets of accused had
entered into a conspiracy to eliminate Jaswant Singh as he was an
impediment in the efforts of Harbans Singh and others to take over the
school land. The High Court observed that the two primary assailants
Sukhbir Singh and Dilbagh Singh had opened fire on Jaswant Singh only
after getting a green signal from Harbans Singh and his sons. The Court
also observed that the identification of the appellants in Court for the
first time fully satisfied the test of proper identification notwithstanding
Crl. Appeal No.1198/2007
5
the fact that they had
been arrested long after the incident on the 21st May 1992 by Sub-
Inspector Pyara Singh who had not been produced as a witness. The
High Court also observed that as PW-3 Mohinder Singh was an
independent witness, there was no reason whatsoever to disbelieve his
testimony. Two appeals have been filed against the judgment of the High
Court. Criminal Appeal No. 1198 of 2007 by Sukhbir Singh and Dilbagh
Singh and Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 558 of 2008 by Amir Singh,
Mohanjit Singh and Bhupender Singh. We grant leave in this Special
Leave Petition as well. As already indicated above, the facts have been
taken from Criminal Appeal No. 1198 of 2007.
5. Mr. Patwalia, the learned senior counsel for the appellants has
raised one primary argument during the course of hearing of the appeals.
He has pointed out that there was absolutely no evidence with regard to
the identification of the appellants and their identification for the first
time in Court during the course of the trial would not be sufficient to
record a conviction in the absence of any other evidence. In this
connection, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Dana Yadav vs.
State of Bihar 2002 (7) SCC 295 and Ramesh vs. State of Karnataka
2009(15) SCC 35. Mr. Kuldip Singh, the learned counsel has, however,
placed reliance on Malkhansingh & Ors. vs. State of M.P. 2003(5) SCC
746 to contend that there was no inflexible rule that an identification
made in Court for first time could not be taken as a good piece of
Crl. Appeal No.1198/2007
6
evidence and as in the
present matter the description of the appellants had been given in the
FIR that itself was a corroborative circumstance to the prosecution story.
Mr. Patwalia has also urged that once it was held that the appellants, the
main accused were not involved in the incident as their identification was
suspect, the involvement of the others with the aid of Section 120-B or
149 of the IPC too could not be spelt out.
6. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties. It will be seen that the incident happened at
about 9 p.m. on the 26th December 1991. In the FIR recorded about 8
hours later, the appellants had been described as two Sikh youth 25/30
years of age wearing kurta pajamas. The appellants were arrested on the
21st May 1992 by Sub-Inspector Pyara Singh, (who was not examined as
a witness) and they were identified for the first time in Court by Naranjan
Singh on the 21st September 1993. We are of the opinion that the
physical description of the appellants given in the FIR would fit millions
of youth in Punjab, and could not by itself pin the murder on them. The
prosecution has also not come out with the steps in the investigation
which had led to their identification as the primary assailants. It was, in
this background, obligatory on the part of the prosecution to have
produced Sub-Inspector Pyara Singh who could have testified to the
steps in the investigation made by him which had enabled him to identify
the appellants as the killers. This was not done. In this view of the
Crl. Appeal No.1198/2007
7
matter, the judgments
cited by Mr. Patwalia fully apply to the facts of the case. There is
absolutely no evidence other than in the identification in court made by
Naranjan Singh long after the incident. It is true that there is no
inflexible rule that an identification made for the first time in Court has
to be always ruled out of consideration but the broad principle is that in
the background there is no other evidence against an accused on
identification in Court made long after the event is clearly not acceptable.
The judgment cited by Mr. Kuldip Singh of Malkhansingh's case (supra)
is on the facts of that particular case, as a prosecutrix, who was the
victim of a gang rape, had identified some of the accused for the first
time in Court on which this Court opined that the identification was
acceptable as a good piece of evidence.
7. We now consider the case of the appellants in the connected
matter. The suggestion made by the prosecution is that Sukhbir Singh
and Dilbagh Singh had been engaged by the other appellants to settle
scores with Jaswant Singh as he was apparently an obstacle in their way
with respect to the school land. We have, in this connection, gone
through the evidence of Naranjan Singh PW-2 and Mohinder Singh PW-3,
in the background of these facts. We are of the opinion that the
involvement of Sukhbir Singh and Dilbagh Singh has to be ruled out as
they were not properly identified and the charge qua them under Section
302 read with Section 120-B of the IPC must fail. It is the prosecution
Crl. Appeal No.1198/2007
8
story that a dispute
regarding the school land existed between Jaswant Singh and Naranjan
Singh on the one side and Harbans Singh and his sons Amir Singh,
Mohanjit Singh and Bhupender Singh appellants on the other. It is also
clear that in this dispute PW-3 Mohinder Singh, the Lambardar was
siding with Jaswant Singh. We have gone through the evidence of PW-2
and PW-3 very carefully. We see very substantial improvements in the
statements made by PW-2 in Court vis-a-vis his statement made to the
Police. Confronted with these statements, he could not give any cogent
explanation for making them. It is also clear that except for his ipse-dixit
with regard to the dispute, there is no other evidence that any dispute
did exist. It has come in the evidence that no threat had ever been
received by Jaswant Singh from militants prior to the incident. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that the statement of this witness cannot be
relied upon. The statement of PW-3 is equally uncertain. PW-3 made
very substantial improvements in his evidence as well. The story that
after seeing the murder, he had not made any attempt to meet Naranjan
Singh, and his plea that after the incident he had returned home and
had gone to sleep is difficult to swallow as it would be contrary to normal
human behaviour. He also stated that a grant of Rs.1,00,000/- had
been received for the school about 12 days prior to the incident and that
the Qanungo had demarcated the school land which was legitimately in
possession of Harbans Singh. No cogent evidence to this effect has been
Crl. Appeal No.1198/2007
9
produced by the
prosecution. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the evidence of this
witness cannot also be believed.
8. We therefore have no option but to allow Criminal Appeal No. 1198
of 2007 as well as Criminal Appeal No........../2011 arising out of SLP
(Crl.) No. 5580 of 2008 filed by Amir Singh and others. The judgment of
the trial court dated 7th August 1997 and that of the High Court dated
12th January 2007 are set aside.
.................................J.
(HARJIT SINGH BEDI)
..................................J.
(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)
JANUARY 27, 2011
NEW DELHI.
Print Page
Sukhbir Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab
Dated: 27/1/2011
WITH SLP(CRL) No. 5580 of 2008
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1198 OF 2007
Citation: 2011 CR. L. J. 2336 SC
O R D E R
1. This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 1198 of 2007
and Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5580 of 2008. The facts have been
taken from Criminal Appeal No. 1198 of 2007.
2. At about 9 p.m. on the 26th December 1991 Naranjan Singh PW-2
son of Jaswant Singh deceased a resident of village Vinjwan was in his
house along with his father when there was a knock at the door.
Naranjan Singh and his father, who happened to be the Sarpanch of the
village, thereupon opened the door. Two Sikh youth, who were
subsequently identified as the appellants herein, Sukhbir Singh and
Dilbagh Singh, were standing outside carrying AK-47 rifles.
They told
Jaswant Singh that he was raising an unnecessary dispute with regard
to the school land, part of which under the possession of Mohanjit Singh,
Amir Singh and Bhupender Singh sons of Harbans Singh (all accused).
Jaswant Singh answered that he alone was not the deciding factor and
Crl. Appeal No.1198/2007
2
the other members of
the Panchayat and the Lambardar be also called. Jaswant Singh was
then taken towards the house of Mohinder Singh Lambardar, by the two
appellants followed by Naranjan Singh. Mohinder Singh too was called
out of his house and the entire group then went on to the house of
Hardev Singh, Member Panchayat. Hardev Singh too was called out and
the appellants told them that the dispute should be settled then and
there. They also took Jaswant Singh, Lambardar Mohinder Singh and
Member, Panchayat Hardev Singh towards the side of the school outside
the village again followed by Naranjan Singh. The three were thereafter
told to sit on the ground whereupon one of the appellants went to call
Harbans Singh appellant. He returned about 5/6 minutes later
accompanied by Harbans Singh and directed Jaswant Singh to stand up
and after telling him that he alone was not permitting Harbans Singh
and his family to live peacefully and that he was attempting to construct
a school building over his land, they fired a burst each from their rifles
killing Jaswant Singh on the spot. Naranjan Singh then ran away but
returned after some time and seeing his father's dead body, left for the
police station. He, however, came across a police party at about 4.45
a.m. on the canal bridge near village Taragarh and made a statement to
Inspector Jarnail Singh PW-8 and on its basis an FIR was registered at
Police Station, Sadar Batala. The Special Report was delivered to the
Magistrate in Batala itself at 6.30 a.m. In the FIR, Naranjan Singh
Crl. Appeal No.1198/2007
3
stated that two Sikh
youth who had killed his father were militants 25-30 years of age, of
medium build, wearing kurta pajamas and that he could identify them, if
confronted. He further stated that he suspected that Harbans Singh and
his sons Mohanjit Singh, Amir Singh and Bhupender Singh had entered
into a conspiracy along with the appellants to commit the murder.
Harbans Singh and his three sons were arrested soon after the incident
but Sukhbir Singh and Dilbagh Singh were arrested on the 21st May
1992 by Sub-Inspector Pyara Singh. On the completion of the
investigation, all the accused were brought to trial for offences
punishable under section 302 read with Section 149 and 120-B of the
IPC.
3. The prosecution in support of its case placed reliance on the
evidence of Sukhdip Singh PW-1, the doctor who had carried out the
post-mortem on the dead body, Naranjan Singh PW-2, Mohinder Singh
Lambardar PW-3 who too supported the prosecution story and further
stated that he had seen Harbans Singh and his sons talking to one of the
appellants, and PW-8 Sub-Inspector Jarnail Singh who had recorded the
statement of Naranjan Singh near the canal minor bridge and which had
led to the registration of the formal FIR.
4. The trial court relying on the aforesaid evidence convicted all the
accused for offences punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC and
Crl. Appeal No.1198/2007
4
sentenced them to RI of
7 years and to fine, Sukhbir Singh and Dilbagh Singh appellants under
Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment along
with fine and Harbans Singh, Mohanjit Singh, Amir Singh and
Bhupender Singh under Section 302/149 of the IPC also to serve a life
sentence. The matter was thereafter taken in appeal to the High Court
and during the pendency of the appeal Harbans Singh passed away. The
appeal against him has dismissed as having abated. The High Court
observed that there was no delay in the lodging of the FIR in which the
names of Harbans Singh, Mohanjit Singh, Amir Singh and Bhupender
Singh alias Shastri had been mentioned, and although the two main
accused (the appellants herein) had not been named, but they fitted the
description given in the FIR and that further support with regard to the
occurrence was to be found from the statements of Naranjan Singh and
Mohinder Singh PWs. as to the manner in which the entire incident
happened which clearly revealed that the two sets of accused had
entered into a conspiracy to eliminate Jaswant Singh as he was an
impediment in the efforts of Harbans Singh and others to take over the
school land. The High Court observed that the two primary assailants
Sukhbir Singh and Dilbagh Singh had opened fire on Jaswant Singh only
after getting a green signal from Harbans Singh and his sons. The Court
also observed that the identification of the appellants in Court for the
first time fully satisfied the test of proper identification notwithstanding
Crl. Appeal No.1198/2007
5
the fact that they had
been arrested long after the incident on the 21st May 1992 by Sub-
Inspector Pyara Singh who had not been produced as a witness. The
High Court also observed that as PW-3 Mohinder Singh was an
independent witness, there was no reason whatsoever to disbelieve his
testimony. Two appeals have been filed against the judgment of the High
Court. Criminal Appeal No. 1198 of 2007 by Sukhbir Singh and Dilbagh
Singh and Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 558 of 2008 by Amir Singh,
Mohanjit Singh and Bhupender Singh. We grant leave in this Special
Leave Petition as well. As already indicated above, the facts have been
taken from Criminal Appeal No. 1198 of 2007.
5. Mr. Patwalia, the learned senior counsel for the appellants has
raised one primary argument during the course of hearing of the appeals.
He has pointed out that there was absolutely no evidence with regard to
the identification of the appellants and their identification for the first
time in Court during the course of the trial would not be sufficient to
record a conviction in the absence of any other evidence. In this
connection, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Dana Yadav vs.
State of Bihar 2002 (7) SCC 295 and Ramesh vs. State of Karnataka
2009(15) SCC 35. Mr. Kuldip Singh, the learned counsel has, however,
placed reliance on Malkhansingh & Ors. vs. State of M.P. 2003(5) SCC
746 to contend that there was no inflexible rule that an identification
made in Court for first time could not be taken as a good piece of
Crl. Appeal No.1198/2007
6
evidence and as in the
present matter the description of the appellants had been given in the
FIR that itself was a corroborative circumstance to the prosecution story.
Mr. Patwalia has also urged that once it was held that the appellants, the
main accused were not involved in the incident as their identification was
suspect, the involvement of the others with the aid of Section 120-B or
149 of the IPC too could not be spelt out.
6. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties. It will be seen that the incident happened at
about 9 p.m. on the 26th December 1991. In the FIR recorded about 8
hours later, the appellants had been described as two Sikh youth 25/30
years of age wearing kurta pajamas. The appellants were arrested on the
21st May 1992 by Sub-Inspector Pyara Singh, (who was not examined as
a witness) and they were identified for the first time in Court by Naranjan
Singh on the 21st September 1993. We are of the opinion that the
physical description of the appellants given in the FIR would fit millions
of youth in Punjab, and could not by itself pin the murder on them. The
prosecution has also not come out with the steps in the investigation
which had led to their identification as the primary assailants. It was, in
this background, obligatory on the part of the prosecution to have
produced Sub-Inspector Pyara Singh who could have testified to the
steps in the investigation made by him which had enabled him to identify
the appellants as the killers. This was not done. In this view of the
Crl. Appeal No.1198/2007
7
matter, the judgments
cited by Mr. Patwalia fully apply to the facts of the case. There is
absolutely no evidence other than in the identification in court made by
Naranjan Singh long after the incident. It is true that there is no
inflexible rule that an identification made for the first time in Court has
to be always ruled out of consideration but the broad principle is that in
the background there is no other evidence against an accused on
identification in Court made long after the event is clearly not acceptable.
The judgment cited by Mr. Kuldip Singh of Malkhansingh's case (supra)
is on the facts of that particular case, as a prosecutrix, who was the
victim of a gang rape, had identified some of the accused for the first
time in Court on which this Court opined that the identification was
acceptable as a good piece of evidence.
7. We now consider the case of the appellants in the connected
matter. The suggestion made by the prosecution is that Sukhbir Singh
and Dilbagh Singh had been engaged by the other appellants to settle
scores with Jaswant Singh as he was apparently an obstacle in their way
with respect to the school land. We have, in this connection, gone
through the evidence of Naranjan Singh PW-2 and Mohinder Singh PW-3,
in the background of these facts. We are of the opinion that the
involvement of Sukhbir Singh and Dilbagh Singh has to be ruled out as
they were not properly identified and the charge qua them under Section
302 read with Section 120-B of the IPC must fail. It is the prosecution
Crl. Appeal No.1198/2007
8
story that a dispute
regarding the school land existed between Jaswant Singh and Naranjan
Singh on the one side and Harbans Singh and his sons Amir Singh,
Mohanjit Singh and Bhupender Singh appellants on the other. It is also
clear that in this dispute PW-3 Mohinder Singh, the Lambardar was
siding with Jaswant Singh. We have gone through the evidence of PW-2
and PW-3 very carefully. We see very substantial improvements in the
statements made by PW-2 in Court vis-a-vis his statement made to the
Police. Confronted with these statements, he could not give any cogent
explanation for making them. It is also clear that except for his ipse-dixit
with regard to the dispute, there is no other evidence that any dispute
did exist. It has come in the evidence that no threat had ever been
received by Jaswant Singh from militants prior to the incident. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that the statement of this witness cannot be
relied upon. The statement of PW-3 is equally uncertain. PW-3 made
very substantial improvements in his evidence as well. The story that
after seeing the murder, he had not made any attempt to meet Naranjan
Singh, and his plea that after the incident he had returned home and
had gone to sleep is difficult to swallow as it would be contrary to normal
human behaviour. He also stated that a grant of Rs.1,00,000/- had
been received for the school about 12 days prior to the incident and that
the Qanungo had demarcated the school land which was legitimately in
possession of Harbans Singh. No cogent evidence to this effect has been
Crl. Appeal No.1198/2007
9
produced by the
prosecution. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the evidence of this
witness cannot also be believed.
8. We therefore have no option but to allow Criminal Appeal No. 1198
of 2007 as well as Criminal Appeal No........../2011 arising out of SLP
(Crl.) No. 5580 of 2008 filed by Amir Singh and others. The judgment of
the trial court dated 7th August 1997 and that of the High Court dated
12th January 2007 are set aside.
.................................J.
(HARJIT SINGH BEDI)
..................................J.
(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)
JANUARY 27, 2011
NEW DELHI.
No comments:
Post a Comment