* Author
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 707 : 2024 INSC 312
Kirpal Singh
v.
State of Punjab
(Criminal Appeal No. 1052 of 2009)
18 April 2024
[B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The appellant was convicted u/s. 302, s.307 IPC and sentenced to
undergo life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for 5 years
respectively. Both sentences were to run concurrently. An appeal
preferred by the appellant before the High Court was dismissed.
Headnotes
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 and s. 307 – Prosecution case was
that victim went to sleep in chaubara of the house which
was not having any shutter, whereas PW-5 (first informant)
along with the other family members slept in a room on the
ground floor – PW-5 heard a knock on the door in which she
was sleeping – She opened door and she saw the accused
appellant standing there armed with a knife – Appellant inflicted
an injury with the weapon on the abdomen of PW-5 – Another
assailant who was accompanying appellant caught hold of
her arm – On raising alarm, both assailants ran away – Then,
PW-5 went upstairs and found her husband-victim severly
injured – Victim died on the way to hospital – Trial Court
framed charges against the appellant – Another accused KS
was also summoned to face trial – The Trial Court acquitted
KS, however, the appellant was convicted u/ss. 302 and 307
IPC – High Court dismissed the appeal against the conviction
– Correctness:
Held: The motive for the incident, as projected in the evidence of
PW-5, was accused bearing jealousy on account of flourishing
business of victim-deceased – Other than this bald averment,
there is no corroborative material to lend credence to this theory
– If the prosecution case is to be accepted, the moment victimdeceased had been belabourned, the purpose of the accused
was served and then there was no reason why accused would
expose himself to the other family members – Furthermore, as per
708 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the prosecution case, two accused were involved in the incident
– And when they have gone down to eliminate the other family
members, there was no reason for the person accompanying the
accused-appellant to be unarmed – This creates a doubt on the
truthfulness of the prosecution story – Also, PW-5 had alleged
that the investigation being conducted was partisan and tained,
pursuant to that she had filed petitions (including to chief minister
and the High Court) – However, in her cross-examination she
virtually resiled from the averments made therein – Neither in the
FIR nor in the application (Exhibit-DA) signed by the first informantPW-5 and addressed to the Chief Minister, the name of the second
accused KS is mentioned as one of the assailants – Both accused
persons are relatives of deceased and PW-5 – In that event, if
the first informant had identified the offenders at the time of the
incident, there was no reason as to why she would leave out the
name of KS while giving the statement to the police officer, who
recorded FIR (Exhibit PG/2) – This creates a doubt on credibility
of PW-5 – Further, a serious doubt is created on the credibility
of the deposition made by the first informant-PW-5, that she and
her husband were being taken to two hospitals – This completely
destroys her credibility as there cannot be two views on the aspect
that if a case of homicidal death is reported at a Government
hospital the doctors would immediately inform the police and there
is no chance that the dead body would be allowed to be carried
away by the family members – Further, many contradictions have
been elicited in the cross examination of PW-6-son of deceased
with reference to his previous versions, as recorded by different
investigating officers – Both the witnesses PW-5 and PW-6 are
wholly unreliable – That apart, two investigating officers who
conducted thorough investigation and found the entire case set
up by the first informant-PW-5 to be false – Consequently, the
appellant deserves to be acquitted by giving him the benefit of
doubt – Therefore, the judgment of the trial Court and the High
Court are set aside. [Paras 16, 18, 21, 25, 27, 28, 32]
Case Law Cited
Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras [1957] 1 SCR 981 :
AIR 1957 SC 614 – relied on.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 709
Kirpal Singh v. State of Punjab
List of Keywords
Murder; Attempt to murder; Motive; Corroborative material; Witness;
Wholly unreliable witness; Deposition; Credibility of deposition;
Contradictions in cross-examination; Inherent improbabilities;
Benefit of doubt; Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1052
of 2009
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2008 of the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRLA No. 662 of 2003
Appearances for Parties
Vineet Jhanji, Ranbir Singh Kundu, Imran Moulaey, Ravinder Pal
Singh, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Advs. for the Appellant.
Siddhant Sharma, Adv. for the Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Mehta, J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant
for assailing the judgment dated 28th February, 2008 passed by
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal
Appeal No. 662-DB of 2003, whereby the appeal preferred by the
appellant was dismissed, thereby affirming the judgment and order
dated 26th July, 2003 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge (Adhoc), Hoshiarpur, vide which the appellant was convicted
and sentenced as below:-
(i) Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter being
referred to as ‘IPC’) - Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine
of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further
rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
(ii) Under Section 307 IPC – Rigorous imprisonment for a period
of five years and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of
fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of
15 days.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
710 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Brief facts: -
2. Sharan Kaur, the first informant(PW-5), wife of Balwinder Singh
(deceased) used to reside along with her family members in the
house which was situated on the backside of the grocery and
halwai shops owned by her husband Balwinder Singh (deceased)
at bus stop, Khudda. In the intervening night of 12th/13th November,
1997, Balwinder Singh (deceased) went to sleep in chaubara of
the house which was not having any shutter, whereas Sharan
Kaur (PW-5) along with the other family members slept in a room
on the ground floor. It is alleged that Sharan Kaur (PW-5) heard a
knock on the door of the room in which she was sleeping at about
2.30 a.m. She thought that it was her husband who had knocked
the door and thus she opened the door. In the illumination of light
placed in the courtyard, she saw the accused appellant-Kirpal Singh
standing there armed with a knife like chura. The appellant inflicted
an injury with the weapon on the abdomen of Sharan Kaur (PW-5).
Another assailant who was accompanying appellant Kirpal Singh
caught hold of her arm. She raised an alarm shouting ‘killed killed’
(‘maar ditta maar ditta’), on which her sons Goldy and Sonu woke
up. None of these three persons could identify the other assailant.
Both the assailants fled away by opening the main gate, in between
the two shops. Sharan Kaur (PW-5) went upstairs to have a look
at her husband and found him lying severely injured on the cot
with blood oozing out of his mouth and head. Blood pooled on the
ground below. He was unable to speak. She called her two sons and
sent them to call her brother-in-law Gurnam Singh with a vehicle.
Sharan Kaur (PW-5) and Balwinder Singh were taken to the Civil
Hospital, Tanda but on the way to the hospital, Balwinder Singh
expired. First aid was provided to Sharan Kaur (PW-5), thereafter,
she as well as the dead body of Balwinder Singh (deceased) was
brought back to their home in the same vehicle and by that time
the police had arrived. The prosecution alleges that the motive
behind the occurrence was that the appellant and his associate
were bearing jealousy on account of the roaring business being
done at the halwai shop of Balwinder Singh (deceased), which
was doing much better as compared to the halwai shop run by the
accused appellant. Swaran Dass(PW-9), SHO, Police Station Dasuya
recorded the statement of Sharan Kaur (PW-5) wherein, the above
allegations were incorporated and based thereupon, FIR No.126 of
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 711
Kirpal Singh v. State of Punjab
1997 dated 13th November, 1997 came to be registered at Police
Station, Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur for the offences punishable
under Sections 302, 307 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. The said
FIR was marked as Exhibit-PG/2, during the course of trial. The
Investigating Officer prepared inquest report on the dead body of
Balwinder Singh(deceased) and forwarded the dead body to the
Civil Hospital, Dasuya for post mortem examination; rough site plan
of the crime scene was prepared; bloodstained earth was collected
from the spot and was sealed into a parcel. A spade lying at the
crime scene was seized, the blade whereof was bloodstained. A
ladder was also seized from the crime scene.
3. The dead body of Balwinder Singh was subjected to autopsy at
the hands of Dr. Naresh Kumar (PW-4), Medical Officer, Civil
Hospital, Dasuya on 13th November, 1997, who examined the
same and took note of the following injuries on the body of the
deceased:-
"i. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm bone deep on left side of
forehead. Placed transversely 2 cm above and lateral
to outer end of left eyebrow medical to this wound
these was red coloured contusion with depressed
surface 3 x 4 cm in size 1.5 cm above and parallel
to left eye brow.
On dissection there was subaponeurotic hematoma
in both front regions. The frontal bone was found
fractured into multiple pieces were impacted into
the underlying brain tissue, semi clotted blood was
present between membrane between and brain tissue
and within the brain tissue.
ii. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm bone deep on left
side of head posterior to left pinna. It was transversally
placed 2.5 cm below the upper end of left pinna.
iii. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm on upper part of
left pinna splitting the pinna into two parts. It was
transversally placed in lines with injury No.2.”
4. The injuries were stated to be caused by blunt weapon and the cause
of death was opined to be the head injury, which was sufficient to
cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
712 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
5. Dr. Didar Singh (PW-1), Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Dasuya
conducted medical examination of Sharan Kaur (PW-5), the first
informant, and took note of an incised wound admeasuring 2½ x ½
cm elipitcal in shape present on the left side of the abdomen 2 cms
above the umblicus and 6 cms lateral to the mid line. However, the
wound was not probed for finding of the depth and the case was
referred to the Surgical Specialist for opinion and treatment.
6. The case took a different turn, when the first informant Sharan Kaur
(PW-5) started raising allegations against the Investigating Officer
of conducting partisan and tainted investigation in order to favour
the police.
7. Sharan Kaur (PW-5) filed two petitions in the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana seeking transfer of investigation to the CBI or some
other independent agency. In both these petitions, her allegation was
that the second accused named Kulwinder Singh had been left out
of the case for oblique reasons.
8. Be that as it may, two different police officials, conducted the
investigation and filed closure reports alleging that the first informantSharan Kaur(PW-5) had falsely implicated the accused. However, the
Magistrate did not agree with the opinion. The accused appellantKirpal Singh @ Lucky was arrested on 21st November, 1997 and
charge sheet was filed against him for the offences punishable under
Section 302 IPC and Section 307 IPC. Since both the offences were
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed
to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge(Adhoc), Hoshiarpur
(hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’) for trial.
9. Learned trial Court framed charges against the accused appellant,
who abjured his guilt and claimed trial. An application came to be
filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter being referred to as ‘CrPC’) which was
allowed and the accused Kulwinder Singh was summoned to face
trial along with the charge sheeted accused, i.e., the appellant herein.
Fresh charge for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307
read with Section 34 IPC were framed against both the accused
to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution
examined ten witnesses to support its case.
10. The incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution
evidence were put to the accused while recording their statements
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 713
Kirpal Singh v. State of Punjab
under Section 313 CrPC. The accused denied those allegations and
claimed to be innocent. Total four (04) witnesses were examined
in defence. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, and upon
appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court
vide judgment dated 26th July, 2003 proceeded to convict the accused
appellant-Kirpal Singh and sentenced him as noted hereinabove.
However, by the very same judgment, the co-accused Kulwinder
Singh was acquitted of the charges. The accused appellant-Kirpal
Singh preferred Criminal Appeal No.662-DB of 2003 challenging
his conviction and sentence, whereas the State preferred Criminal
Appeal No.535-DBA of 2004 and the complainant preferred Criminal
Revision No.2259-DB of 2003 challenging the acquittal of Kulwinder
Singh before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
11. The learned Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
proceeded to dismiss both the appeals, one filed by the State, and
the other by the accused-appellant as well as the revision filed by
the complainant by a common judgment and order dated 28.02.2008,
which is assailed in this appeal filed at the instance of the accused
appellant-Kirpal Singh.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant: -
12. Shri Vineet Jhanji, learned counsel appearing for the accused
appellant vehemently contended that the findings recorded in the
impugned judgment are perverse and self-contradictory and hence,
the same are liable to be set aside. He advanced the following
pertinent submissions seeking acquittal of accused appellant:
(i) The evidence of Sharan Kaur (PW-5), the first informant, being
the wife of the deceased and Daljit Singh @ Goldy(PW-6), son
of the deceased, is highly self-contradictory, vacillating and
unconvincing.
(ii) That the prosecution witnesses have tried to improve upon the
story put forth in the FIR at every stage of the proceedings and
hence, their evidence deserves to be discarded. The trial Court
as well as the High Court have found that the witnesses, Sharan
Kaur (PW-5) and Daljit Singh @ Goldy(PW-6) are not wholly
reliable witnesses and their allegations qua the co-accusedKulwinder Singh have been found to be unacceptable, thereby
714 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
recording his acquittal. Thus, the accused-appellant (Kirpal
Singh) also deserves the same treatment.
(iii) That the motive attributed to the accused appellant by Sharan
Kaur (PW-5) is absolutely cooked up and unbelievable. Her
bald allegation that the accused bore jealousy on account of
the booming halwai business of Balwinder Singh (deceased),
is just a figment of imagination and has not been corroborated
by any independent source. Rather the prosecution did not
even lead any evidence to show that the accused appellant is
involved in halwai business.
(iv) The accused appellant was admittedly closely related to the
deceased, but this fact was concealed in the FIR as well as in
the testimony of the material prosecution witnesses.
(v) That the story put forth by Sharan Kaur (PW-5) in her evidence
is totally unworthy of reliance because even as per her own
assertion, the accused appellant was bearing a grudge against
the deceased. In that event, once the accused had succeeded in
belaboring and killing Balwinder Singh (deceased), by entering
into the chaubara in a clandestine manner using a ladder, there
was no reason as to why the accused would come down the
stairs, knock the door and alarm the other family members so
as to expose himself.
(vi) That the conduct of the first informant-Sharan Kaur(PW-5)
and her family members in bringing back body of Balwinder
Singh to their house even after the doctor at Civil Hospital,
Tanda had declared him to be dead, brings the credibility of
these witnesses under a grave shadow of doubt. He urged that
admittedly, while coming back from Tanda, the Police Station
at Dasuya falls on the way and thus, if at all, there was any
truth in this version, the witnesses would have stopped at the
police station to report the matter. Furthermore, the doctor at
Civil Hospital would definitely have taken steps to report the
matter to the police since it was a clear case of homicide.
(vii) That the defence witnesses have categorically stated that
after thorough investigation, the allegations set out by the
first informant-Sharan Kaur(PW-5) were found to be false and
hence, closure reports were submitted by the police in the
concerned Court.
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 715
Kirpal Singh v. State of Punjab
(viii) That it is an admitted case as elicited in the testimony of Daljit
Singh @ Goldy (PW-6), son of Balwinder Singh(deceased)
and first informant-Sharan Kaur(PW-5), that four servants were
sleeping with Balwinder Singh(deceased) in the chaubara of
the house but they were not examined in evidence. Likewise,
Gurmit Singh, the other son of deceased and the first informant,
was also not examined by the prosecution for the reasons best
known to them and hence, it is a fit case warranting/drawing
of adverse inference against the prosecution.
On these grounds, learned counsel implored the Court to accept the
appeal and acquit the accused appellant.
Submissions on behalf of the State: -
13. Per contra, Mr. Siddhant Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the
State, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced
by the counsel for the appellant. He conceded that the story of the
prosecution qua involvement of accused-Kulwinder Singh has not
found favour with the trial Court and the High Court but as per him,
that by itself cannot be a valid reason so as to discard the entire
prosecution case, qua the accused appellant as well who was named
in the FIR and in the testimony of the material prosecution witness.
He fervently contended that trivial contradictions in the evidence
of the prosecution witnesses lend assurance that they are truthful
witnesses and are not created witnesses. He submitted that the
principle ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ does not apply to the
Indian criminal jurisprudence system and thus, merely because one
of the two accused named by the prosecution witnesses has been
acquitted by the trial Court, the accused appellant cannot get the
advantage thereof.
14. He further submitted that the trial Court as well as the High Court,
after appreciation and re-appreciation of the evidence have separated
the chaff from the grain and have held the accused appellant guilty
of the charges and thus, this Court should be loath to interfere in
such concurrent findings of facts recorded by the trial Court and the
High Court. On these submissions, learned counsel appearing for the
State, urged that the appeal lacks merit and is fit to be dismissed.
15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced at the bar and have carefully perused the judgments
716 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
rendered by the High Court and the trial Court and analysed the
evidence available on record.
Consideration of evidence and submissions: -
16. The prosecution case as unfolded, in the evidence of the first
informant, Sharan Kaur (PW-5) (the star prosecution witness who
herself received an injury in the same incident), is that she along
with her two sons Daljit Singh @ Goldy (PW-6) and Gurmit Singh
was sleeping in the room on the ground floor of the house, whereas,
her husband[Balwinder Singh(deceased)] was sleeping in chaubara,
which has no gate. The prosecution tried to canvass that the accused
put up a ladder on the wall of the house, climbed into the chaubara
with the aid thereof and hit Balwinder Singh(deceased) with a spade,
which resulted into grave injuries. The motive for the incident, as
is projected in the evidence of Sharan Kaur (PW.5), was that the
accused was bearing a jealousy on account of flourishing halwai
business of her husband whereas, the business of the accused
was not thriving. However, we may state that other than this bald
averment made by Sharan Kaur (PW-5) attributing motive for the
incident to the accused, no corroborative material was collected by
the Investigating Officers to lend credence to this theory of motive.
The statement of Sharan Kaur (PW-5) on this aspect is also very
vague. There is nothing in her deposition, which can satisfy the
Court that merely on account of this so called jealousy, the accused
would go to the painstaking length of putting up a ladder against
the wall of the house, where Balwinder Singh (deceased) used to
reside with his family and then climb up and murder him, that too in
the presence of his family members.
17. If the prosecution case is to be accepted, it is apparent that the
accused had painstakingly, planned out the murder of Balwinder
Singh (deceased), inasmuch as they put up a ladder against the outer
wall of the house, climbed into the house by using the said ladder
and attacked the deceased by spade. Thus, the moment Balwinder
Singh (deceased) had been belaboured, the purpose of the accused
was served and hence, there was no rhyme or reason as to why the
accused would take the risk of being exposed to the other family
members. This precisely is the story portrayed in the evidence of
Sharan Kaur (PW-5) who stated that while she was sleeping in the
room on the ground floor with her two sons, she heard some noise
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 717
Kirpal Singh v. State of Punjab
and opened the door of the flight of stairs connecting the chaubara
and saw the accused appellant-Kirpal Singh and his companion
standing therein. The accused appellant-Kirpal Singh who was
armed with a knife, stabbed her on the abdomen whereas the other
accused appellant caught her by the arm. As per the prosecution, the
accused appellant had assaulted Balwinder Singh (deceased) with
a spade which was abandoned at the spot and then the accused
came down with a knife.
18. The story so set up by the prosecution, does not inspire confidence
for more than one reasons. As discussed above, once the accused
had achieved the objective of eliminating Balwinder Singh(deceased)
without being discovered, they had all the opportunity in the world to
escape from the spot by using the very same ladder, which had been
used to climb up the chaubara. Thus, there was no reason for the
accused to risk discovery by coming down and alarming the family
members. Furthermore, as per the prosecution case, two accused
were involved in the incident. If at all the prosecution case is to be
believed, the accused after killing Balwinder Singh(deceased), must
have gone down to eliminate the other family members and in that
background, there was no reason as to why the person accompanying
the accused appellant was unarmed. This again creates a doubt
on the truthfulness of the prosecution story. The first informantSharan Kaur (PW-5) made a big issue regarding the conduct of the
investigating agency alleging that the investigation being conducted
was partisan and tainted. She filed petitions before different forums
including the Chief Minister and the High Court. She was confronted
with these applications extensively in her cross examination and she
virtually resiled from the averments made therein. For illustration, we
would like to reproduce some excerpts from the cross examination
of Sharan Kaur (PW-5):-
“...We approached the Hon’ble High Court as my statement
was not being correctly recorded by the Police. On the
directions of the Hon’ble High Court my statement was
recorded by the Crime Branch.”
xxx xxx
“...I have seen the carbon copy of the application Addressed
to CM Punjab Chandigarh. It bears my signature and is
Ex.DB. My father used to get my signature on the Blank
718 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
papers so I can not say whether the application of Ex.DA
was moved by me on 15.12.97 after the completion of
investigation by DSP Ajaib Singh. The witness is not ready
to answer the question whether the application EX.DA
bear the name of accused Kulwinder Singh @ Neeta. In
the application the name of Kulwinder Singh @ Neeta is
not written but some unidentified person has been written.
The witness has explained that she used to disclose the
name of Kulwinder Singh @ Neeta but the police was not
recording his name and the application Ex.DA might have
been drafted by his counsel at his own. The witness is not
ready to answer the question that the copy of the FIR was
attached with the writ petition/Crl. Misc application or that
the name of Kulwinder Singh @ Neeta was not mentioned
in the said petition or that in the petition also the name
of unidentified person was mentioned. The witness is
also not ready to answer the question whether there was
some ommision in the petition and that an application was
moved for the correction of those ommissions. The witness
is also not ready to answer the question that by way of
amendment the name of Kulwinder Singh @ Neeta was
not incorporated in the amended application. The witness
is not ready to answer the question whether the petition
was withdrawn on 6.8.98.”
19. In her examination in chief, the first informant-Sharan Kaur(PW-5)
categorically stated that her statement was recorded at the Civil
Hospital, Dasuya on 13th November, 1997 at about 7:30 a.m. It was
read over and explained to her, and she signed it admitting it to be
correct.
20. If that be so, the subsequent conduct of Sharan Kaur (PW-5) in
raising a hue and cry that investigation being conducted was tainted
and the police had intentionally favoured the co-accused Kulwinder
Singh by leaving out his name from the array of offenders creates
a great doubt on her credibility.
21. Neither in the FIR (Exhibit-PG/2) nor in the application (Exhibit-DA)
signed by the first informant-Sharan Kaur(PW-5) and addressed
to the Chief Minister, Punjab, the name of the second accused
Kulwinder Singh is mentioned as one of the assailants. There is no
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 719
Kirpal Singh v. State of Punjab
dispute that the acquitted accused Kulwinder Singh and appellant
Kirpal Singh, are closely related to the family of the deceased and
the first informant. In that event, if the first informant had identified
the offenders at the time of the incident, there was no reason as to
why she would leave out the name of Kulwinder Singh while giving
the statement to the police officer, who recorded FIR (Exhibit-PG/2).
The witness was extensively confronted with the other applications/
petitions filed by her questioning the bonafides of investigation being
carried out by the Investigating Agencies being Exhibit-DB, ExhibitDG, etc., and she refused to stand by the versions set out in these
applications/petitions filed by herself. Not only this, a statement
(Exhibit-DL) of the first informant was recorded by DSP, Rajender
Singh, wherein it is stated that some unknown person entered into
their house and caused injuries to the witness and her husband, who
expired in the incident. Though, the first informant denied having
given this statement but this fact definitely creates a doubt on the
truthfulness of her story. A serious doubt is created on the credibility
of the deposition made by the first informant, when we consider the
fact that she claimed in her examination in chief that a van was
brought by her son wherein, she and her husband were taken to
the Civil Hospital, Tanda, where the medical officers opined that her
husband had expired and she was medically examined. However,
they did not believe in this opinion and took the victim to Bhogpur
where again the doctors reiterated that her husband had expired.
Only after this confirmation, the dead body of Balwinder Singh was
brought back to the house where police was already present. This
version, as set out in the testimony of the first informant, Sharan
Kaur(PW-5), completely destroys her credibility. There cannot be two
views on the aspect that if a case of homicidal death is reported at
a Government hospital the doctors would immediately inform the
police and there is no chance that the dead body would be allowed
to be carried away by the family members.
22. It may be stated that the medical records of the Civil Hospitals at
Tanda and Bhogpur were not collected by the investigating agency
nor were the same brought on record by the prosecution in its
evidence. Dr. Didar Singh (PW-1) Medical Officer, Civil Hospital,
Dasuya examined the first informant-Sharan Kaur (PW-5) on 13th
January, 1997 at about 07:05 a.m. In his cross examination, the
doctor (PW-1) made the following admissions:-
720 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
“...As per the record brought by me she has not given any
history of assault. It is correct that as stated by Sharan
Kaur that she has not been examined medico legally by
any other doctor. No opinion regarding the weapon used
was sought from me till today nor has any surgical opinion
been received by me till today. As per my record she
was admitted in hospital immediately after the medical
examination.”
23. This version of Dr. Didar Singh, (PW-1) completely destroys the story
put forth by Sharan Kaur (PW-5) that she and her family members
had taken the victim to the Government hospitals referred to above
or that the body was brought back to their home after such medical
examination was conducted. Apparently, the dead body was just
lying in the house till the police arrived who took both the victims
to the hospital.
24. This fact is firmly cemented when we consider the deposition of Dr.
Didar Singh (PW-1), who has stated that Sharan Kaur (PW-5) told him
that she had not been examined medico legally by any other doctor
and that she had been admitted in the hospital immediately after
the medical examination. These inherent infirmities in the testimony
of Sharan Kaur (PW-5) completely destroys her evidentiary worth
and we have no hesitation in holding that she is a totally unreliable
partisan witness.
25. Daljit Singh (PW-6), being the son of the deceased Balwinder Singh
and the first informant-Sharan Kaur (PW-5), stated that he woke up
on hearing the cries of his mother and saw that Kulwinder Singh
had caught hold of his mother from her arm and both the assailants
ran away on seeing him. He and his elder brother Gurmit Singh
tried to pursue the offenders. Thereafter they climbed up the stairs
and saw that their father was lying in a pool of blood. This witness
(PW-6) also stated that he along with his mother took his father in
a van to the Civil Hospital, Tanda where he was declared dead,
however they did not believe the opinion so given and hence, they
proceeded to Bhogpur and consulted Dr. Arora, who also confirmed
the fact regarding the death of Balwinder Singh. Then they proceeded
back to their house, where the police had reached before their
arrival. This witness (PW-6) was also confronted with his previous
statement (Exhibit-DB) wherein, the name of Kulwinder Singh was
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 721
Kirpal Singh v. State of Punjab
not mentioned. Many contradictions have been elicited in the cross
examination of this witness(PW-6) with reference to his previous
versions, as recorded by different investigating officers. In his cross
examination, the witness(PW-6) even admitted that he did not
remember the name of her mother’s brother, who met them on that
day. He further stated that he and his mother took Balwinder Singh
(deceased) to Civil Hospital, Dasuya. The Police Station, Dasuya
falls in the way to the Civil Hospital, Dasuya but they did not go to
the police station for lodging the report. This fact again indicates
that the conduct of PW-5 and PW-6 was totally unnatural. Gurmeet
Singh, elder brother of Daljit Singh(PW-6), was not examined by the
prosecution. We find that Daljit Singh (PW-6) did not even utter a
word that appellant was having a weapon with him when he saw him
fleeing away from the crime scene. These inherent improbabilities
and loopholes in the evidence completely destroy the fabric of the
prosecution case which is full of holes and holes which are impossible
to be stitched together.
26. This Court in the celebrated case of Vadivelu Thevar v. State of
Madras1
, has observed as follows:-
“11.…Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and wellestablished rule of law that the court is concerned with the
quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary
for, proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral
testimony in this context may be classified into three
categories, namely:
(1) wholly reliable.
(2) Wholly unreliable.
(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
12. In the first category of proof, the court should have
no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way - it
may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single
witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion
of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the
second category, the court, equally has no difficulty in
1 [1957] 1 SCR 981 : AIR 1957 SC 614
722 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases,
that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for
corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony,
direct or circumstantial...”.
27. On going through the evidence of Sharan Kaur (PW-5) and Daljit
Singh (PW-6), with reference to other evidence available on record,
we are of the firm opinion that both these witnesses fall in the second
category, i.e., wholly unreliable. No other tangible evidence was led
by the prosecution to connect the accused appellant with the crime.
28. As we have noted above, the prosecution’s story of motive is very
weak and rather far fetched so as to place implicit reliance thereupon.
Two investigating officers conducted thorough investigation and found
the entire case set up by the first informant-Sharan Kaur(PW-5) to
be false. The conduct of the first informant is unworthy of reliance,
when we consider the fact that she tried to implicate Kulwinder Singh
by filing various petitions while the investigation was still ongoing
and even in her testimony during the trial. However, even in the FIR
(Exhibit-PG/2), which was admittedly registered on the basis of her
own statement, the first informant-Sharan Kaur(PW-5) did not name
the said Kulwinder Singh, as co-assailant with the accused appellant
herein. Even in the petition i.e. Crl. Misc. Petition No. 2053-M-1998
filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the name of the
said Kulwinder Singh was not mentioned.
29. The spade allegedly used to assault the deceased was found lying
at the crime scene. On going through the entire set of prosecution
witnesses, we find that no weapon of crime was recovered at the
instance of the accused appellant and thus, there is no corroborative
evidence so as to lend credence to the wavering and unreliable
testimony of Sharan Kaur (PW-5) and Daljit Singh (PW-6).
30. Lajpal Singh(DW-3), DIG (Operation), Punjab was examined by the
defence, who in his cross examination stated that in his investigation,
he found the accused to be innocent.
31. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the entirety of the material
available on record, we are of the firm view that evidence of Sharan
Kaur (PW-5) and Daljit Singh (PW-6) is wholly unreliable, does not
inspire confidence in the Court so as to affirm the conviction of the
appellant. It may be reiterated that no corroborative evidence was
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 723
Kirpal Singh v. State of Punjab
led by the prosecution so as to lend credence to the testimony of
these two witnesses.
32. Consequently, the appellant deserves to be acquitted by giving him
the benefit of doubt. Resultantly, the judgments of the trial Court
and the High Court dated 26th July, 2003 and 28th February, 2008
respectively are hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is
acquitted of the charges. The sentence awarded to the appellant
was directed to be suspended by this Court on 12th August, 2011,
during the pendency of this appeal and he is on bail. He need not
surrender and the bail bonds are discharged.
33. The appeal is accordingly, allowed.
34. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan Result of the case:
Appeal allowed.
