The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the accused of murder, despite the challenges to the reliability of the first information report and the recovery of the fired cartridge cases and firearms.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - Murder - Conviction - Evidence - Appreciation - Recovery of fired cartridge cases and firearms - Corroboration of testimony of eye-witnesses - Reliability - Test identification parades - Admissibility - Identification of accused - Sufficiency of evidence.
Fact of the Case:

Appellants Mukund Singh and Kartar Singh, along with petitioner Malkiat Singh, were convicted of murdering Roor Singh, his son Gurbux Singh, and daughter Smt. Jeet Kaur. The prosecution alleged that the accused, along with others, came to the deceased's land with the intention of killing them. An eyewitness, Mansha Singh, lodged a police report shortly after the incident, naming Mukund Singh and Malkiat Singh as the main culprits. The police recovered fired cartridge cases and firearms from the scene of the crime and from the accused during their arrests. The accused challenged the reliability of the evidence, arguing that the first information report was inaccurate and that the recovery of the fired cartridge cases and firearms was tampered with.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused. It found that the first information report was not discredited by the subsequent statement of the eyewitness, which added two more accused to the list. The court also rejected the argument that the recovery of the fired cartridge cases and firearms was unreliable, noting that the evidence was corroborated by the testimony of the eyewitnesses and the results of the test identification parades.
Issues: 1. Whether the first information report was discredited by the subsequent statement of the eyewitness? 2. Whether the recovery of the fired cartridge cases and firearms was unreliable? 3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict the accused?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the first information report was not discredited by the subsequent statement of the eyewitness because the eyewitness had not mentioned the additional accused in the first information report due to the confused state of his mind at the time of the incident. 2. The court held that the recovery of the fired cartridge cases and firearms was reliable because the evidence was corroborated by the testimony of the eyewitnesses and the results of the test identification parades. 3. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the accused because the testimony of the eyewitnesses was corroborated by the recovery of the fired cartridge cases and firearms, and the accused had not provided any reasonable explanation for their presence at the scene of the crime.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and the review petition, upholding the conviction of the accused.

Judgment

SHINGHAL, J. :- These appeals and the petition for review arise out of the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated November 7, 1974, upholding the conviction of appellants Mukund Singh and Kartar Singh and petitioner Malkiat Singh in the following circumstances.

Roor Singh (deceased) used to live in village Kurrar. His daughter Smt. Pritam Kaur was married to one Karnail Singh who was appointed by some Sadhs as their mukhtaram in respect of their lands measuring 15 bighas in that village. Karnail Singh sold that land to his father-in-law Roor Singh. Kalu Sadh filed a suit for pre-emption through his wife Smt. Harnam Kaur. The suit was decreed some five or six months before the date of incident. Roor Singh filed a suit in the court of Sub-Judge, Barnala, claiming that he was in possession of the land and was entitled to it, but it was dismissed. He again filed a suit against Smt. Harnam Kaur and Kalu Sadh, and it was pending on the date of the incident. Roor Singh obtained a temporary injunction against Smt. Harnam Kaur and her husband Kalu Sadh on August 23, 1971, restraining his dispossession as they wanted to execute the pre-emption decree.

2. It is alleged that as Smt. Harnam Kaur wanted to dispossess Roor Singh somehow, she obtained the help of her son-in-law accused Malkiat Singh who, in turn, took the help of accused Mukund Singh who was a friend of Darshan Singh (P. W. 3) also. Accused Malkiat Singh and Mukund Singh went to village Tappa to meet Darshan Singh on December 26, 1971, and asked him to bring his tractor-trolly and licensed rifle to Mahal Kalan on December 30, 1971, because they wanted to cultivate the aforesaid land that day. Darshan singh agreed to the proposal and reached Mahal Kalan at about midday in his tractor trolly. He met accused Mukund Singh and Malkiat Singh there, along with the other four accused and Lal Singh, Malkiat Singh, Mukund Singh, Kartar Singh and Lal Singh were armed with 12 bore guns, while Hari Singh, Preet Singh and Kala Ram had gandasas. Smt. Surjeet Kaur and Smt. Harnam Kaur arrived there and gave the information that Roor Singh and his three sons were irrigating that part of the field which abutted on the cart road leading to Mahal Khurd. They said that it was an opportune time to do away with them and undertook to bear all the expenses. Mukund Singh, Malkiat Singh, Kartar Singh, Hari Singh, Preet Singh, Kala Ram and Lal Singh then went in the trolly of the tractor of Darshan Singh to village Kurrar and reached there at about 4 p. m. It is alleged that Darshan Singh detached the trolly from the tractor and raced the tractor in field Khasra No. 61/24 which was a part of the land which had been purchased by Roor Singh from the sadhs. All the other accused followed the tractor. They found that Roor Singh was irrigating the adjoining field (Khasra No. 61/25) from his tube-well. His sons Gurbux Singh, Mansha Singh (P. W. 2), and Surjeet Singh (P. W. 4) were also there and so also his daughter Smt. Jeet Kaur who had come to serve tea to her father and brothers in the field. It is alleged that Roor Singh and Gurbux Singh asked the accused to remove the tractor from their field and to clear out, but to no avail. Roor Singh and Gurbux Singh then rushed towards the accused with their "dhangi" and kripan" and hit Kala Ram accused. Accused Malkiat Singh and Kartar Singh fired their guns at Roor Singh, Gurbux Singh aimed a blow with his kripan at Mukund Singh but it fell on his gun and a splinter fell out from it. Lal Singh, Mukund Singh and Darshan Singh fired at Gurbux Singh who fell down. Smt. Jeet Kaur raised an alarm and stepped towards her father. Lal Singh and Kartar Singh accused fired at her Mansha Singh (P. W. 2) and Surjeet Singh (P. W.4), the other sons of Roor Singh, did not venture to rescue their father, brother and sister, but raised an alarm. Malkiat Singh then told his companions that they should leave as they had succeeded in killing Roor Singh, his son

Click Here to Read the rest of this document