Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, J.:- The appellant Chuhar Singh suspected that the deceased Japan Singh had committed theft of some parts of his tubewell. On August 3, 1972 at about 5 p.m. the appellant asked Japan Singh to take a special oath denying the theft. That sparked off a quarrel during which Shisha Singh and Didar Singh are alleged to have held Japan Singh. The appellant then snatched a stick from Japan Singhs hands and he is alleged to have given him two blows on his head, causing thereby his death. The incident happened in a village called Danauli.

2. The appellant, along with Shisha Singh and Didar Singh, was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jindh, under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code for causing the death of Japan Singh. The learned Judge acquitted Shisha Singh, but convicted Didar Singh under Section 323 and the appellant under Section 304 Part I of the Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-.

3. In appeal, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana acquitted Didar Singh, but confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Sec. 304 Part I. The High Court, however, reduced the sentence of the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and maintained the sentence of fine. This appeal by special leave is directed against that judgment.

4. The case depends for its success on the evidence of a witness called Darbara Singh (P. W. 1). The fact that the prosecution has been able to examine but one eye-witness to the occurrence cannot detract from the strength of its case. What is important is not how many witnesses have been examined by the prosecution but what is the nature and quality of evidence on which it relies. The evidence of a single witness may sustain a sentence of death whereas a host of vulnerable witnesses may fail to support a simple charge of hurt. Since the case must stand or fall by the evidence of Darbara Singh, it is necessary to examine that evidence critically.

5. Darbara Singh belongs to a village called Rohd which is about a mile away from Danauli. He says that he went to Danauli because he wanted to borrow paddy saplings from one Chanan Singh. He further says that as he entered the particular lane where the incident took place, he heard a quarrel between the deceased Japan Singh on the one hand and the appellant and the two co-accused on the other. He claims that he saw the two co-accused holding Japan Singh, the appellant snatching a stick from his hand and assaulting him on his head with that stick.

6. It is surprising that the statement of so important a witness should not have been recorded for over three weeks. Darbara Singh says that his statement was recorded by a police officer 20 or 30 days after the incident. A.S.I. Raj Singh contradicts him and deposed that he recorded Darbara Singhs atement on the very night of the 3rd but considering the serious allegations which have been made against Raj Singh, it is impossible to accept his claim. Besides, the subsequent course of events renders it more probable that Darbara Singhs statement was not recorded except at a late stage of the investigation. Krishna Chandra Katyal, the Dy. Superintendent of Police, went to Danauli on 5th August for verifying the statement recorded by A. S. I. Raj Singh and A. S. I. Rameshwar Dayal. He verified the statements of various witnesses soon after his arrival in Danauli but he contacted Darbara Singh nearly a month later on 4th September. That shows that Darbara Singhs statement was not recorded by the investigating officer before the arrival of the Dy. Superintendent of police; or else, he could not have failed to question an important witness like Darbara Singh. A large number of witnesses who claimed to have seen the incident resiled from their statements and it would appear that Darbara Singh came forward a month after the incident to support a dying cause.

7. In his statement before the Dy. Superint