Back
1997(6) Supreme 214
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.K. Mukherjee & K. Venkataswami, JJ.
Dalip Singh -Appellant
versus
State of Punjab -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 188 of 1985
Decided on 8-7-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : R.C. Kohli. Advocate.
For the Respondent : R.S. Sodhi, Advocate.
Held : Having given our anxious consideration to the evidence adduced by the parties, we do not see any reason to differ from the views expressed by the Special Court. The presence of the two eye witnesses (P.Ws. 6 and 7) at the spot at the material time cannot be doubted in view of the injuries found on their persons. Besides, the defence also admitted their presence there. From their evidence we find that inspite of a searching cross-examination the defence could not elicit any answer to discredit or contradict them. On the contrary, their testimonies as to the manner in which the assault took place stands corroborated by the medical evidence. The defence version of the incident regarding the actual assault, as given out by Kala Singh (D.W.3), cannot be accepted because he did not testify as to how P.Ws. 6 and 7 sustained the injuries nor does his version of the incident fits in even with the nature and number of injuries sustained by accused Rachhpal Singh. The other reason which inhibits us from accepting the defence version of the assault is that it is a belated one, in that, neither any suggestion was put to P.Ws. 6 and 7 in cross examination nor did any of the accused, including, the appellant, make any statement relating thereto when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. As regards the origin of the trouble, we also feel inclined to reject the defence version. If construction of the channel by Kala Singh and his two companions was the cause of the incident, it was expected, in the fitness of things, that the complainant party would attack him (D.W.3) and the other two masons, for it is they who refused to accept their demand to keep an outlet for their field. To put it differently, in the context of the dispute that led to the assault - as testified by D.W.3 - the complainant party would have no axe to grind against accused Rachhpal Singh, who was in no way concerned or connected with the alleged construction work. Since no credence can be given to the testimony of D.W.3 the related evidence of the other three witnesses, namely D.Ws. 4, 6 and 7 does not further the cause of the defence nor weaken the prosecution. (Para 14)
(ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 173(2)-Result of investigation cannot be made basis of a Court s verdict regarding guilt or innocence of an accused-Court is required to base its conclusion solely on evidence adduced during trial-Vijender s etc. : Relied on.
Held : Coming now to the defence witnesses, we find that Swaran Singh (D.W.1) and K.S. Kailey (D.W.5), Deputy Superintendent of Police and Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police respectively of Ferozepur were examined to testify that they had perused the case diary prepared by the Investigating Officer and interrogated some of the accused and other persons. On their such exercise they found that three of the accused, namely Dalip Singh (appellant), Shabeg Singh and Arjan Singh were innocent. In our considered view, the Designated Court ought not to have permitted the defence to adduce the above evidence as it is not legally admissible. We may further add that if the result of investigation was to be made the basis of a Court s verdict regarding guilt or innocence of an accused, there would be no need of a trial in a police case for, relying on the report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. a Court would be entitled to decide the fate of the person arraigned. (Para 8)
JUDGMENT
Mukherjee, J.-Dalip Singh, the appellant before us, and five others, namely Arjan Singh, Shabeg Singh, Manjit Singh, Rachhpal Singh and Gurdev Singh were tried by the Special Court, Ferozepur for rioting, murder and other related offences. The trial ended in conviction of the appellant under Sections 148 and 302 IPC and of the others under Sections 148, 323 and 324 IPC. Aggrieved thereby, only the appellant has moved this Court by filing this statutory appeal.
2. (a) The case of the prosecution is that in the morning of February 13, 1984 Shabeg Singh (P.W.6), Bagicha Singh (P.W.7) and Mohinder Singh (the deceased) went to their field to see the water outlet when the six accused arrived there armed with various weapons. Dalip Singh gave out that they would not permit the flow of water from the outlet. When Mohinder Singh retorted to his such threat, Dalip Singh gave two blows on the head of Mohinder Singh with a gandasa as a result of which he fell down. When Bagicha Singh (P.W.7) tried to intervene, Shabeg Singh gave a takwa blow on his head. Rachhpal Singh then gave a takwa blow on his back and Manjit Singh a dang blow on his right arm. When Shabeg Singh (P.W.6) raised an alarm, Baldev Singh gave a kassia blow on his head and Arjan Singh two dang blows on his left arm. To defend themselves when the complainant party assaulted Rachhpal Singh, the accused persons left the place.
(b) The three injured were then taken to the local Primary Health Centre where Dr. Pratap Singh (P.W.1) examined them. On the person of Mohinder Singh he found incised wound 7-1/2" x 1/6" x bone deep with profuse bleeding on the left side of his forehead with brain matter coming out of the wound in its middle 3-1/2" where the bone was cut through and through. He next examined Bagicha Singh and found the following injuries :
1. A bleeding incised wound 2" x 1/6" x bone deep on the right side of the head.
2. Incised wound 1" x 1/4" x muscle deep on the back of the upper part of the right chest 2" from shoulder joint.
3. Reddish contusion with swelling 3" x 2" on the back of the right wrist joint.
P.W.1 also examined Shabeg Singh (P.W.6) who had the following injuries on his person:
1. A bleeding incised wound 1-1/4"x 1/6" x bone deep on the left side of the head, bleeding on examination.
2. Reddish contusion with swelling 2" x 1" on the back and upper third of the left forearm.
3. Reddish contusion 1" x 1" on the back and lower part of the left forearm.
Later, in the night, P.W.1 examined Rachhpal Singh and found the following injuries on his person:
1. A bleeding incised wound 1" x 1/16" x bone deep on the midline of the head.
2. Reddish contusion 3" x 1" on the left lateral surface of the chest.
3. Abraded contusion 3" x 1-1/2" on the posterior lateral surface of middle of right thigh.
4. Abraded contusion 3" x 1-1/2" over posterior surface on middle of the left thigh.
5. Abrasion 1/2" x 1/6" on the dorsam of the left hand.
Earlier Mohinder Singh was referred to and admitted in Frances Newton Hospital, Ferozepur, where he succumbed to his injuries on February 17, 1984.
(c) On getting information from the Hospital about admission of Mohinder Singh, A.S.I. Iqbal Singh (P.W.8), of Ghal Khurd Police Station went there and enquired about the fitness of Mohinder Singh to make a statement. As the doctor opined that Mohinder Singh was unfit to make any statement he (P.W.8) recorded the statement of Shabeg Singh (Ex.P.12) at 2.30 P.M. and sent it to the police station for registration of a case. On its basis formal F.I.R. Ex. P12/B was drawn up and a case registered. S.I. Harbhajan Singh (P.W.9) took up investigation and went to the spot. He prepared a rough site plan and collected some blood stained earth and wheat plants from the spot. He prepared sealed parcels in respect of those articles and sent them to Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.) for examination.
(d) Conseque
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
