SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.C. GUPTA AND P.S. KAILASAM, JJ.
Milkiyat Singh and others, Appellants
Versus
The State of Rajasthan, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 271 of 1973, D/- 25-8-1980.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 307, 34 – Murder Offence - Appeal Against Conviction - (P. W. 3) lodged F. I. R. in this case containing following story - Surjit Singh along with his brother and (P. W. 11) and (P. W. 4) had started from Surjit Singhs house for village Jandwala Sikhan to see ailing wife of one Jiwan Singh and when they had reached a point near house of one Ram Singh, they found Dal Singh - Chhotu Singh, Genda Singh, Hansa Singh and Milkiyat Singh sitting in a pit - As complainants party approached, Dal Singh and others stood up and Dal Singh shouted - Enemies had come. murder them - Milkiyat Singh then fired from his gun hitting Balbir Singh in chest and he fell dead, Chhotu Singh fired a shot at (P. W. 4) which hit him in leg - Assailants then left firing shots in air from guns they carried to scare people away - It is stated that Balbir Singh was also armed with a 12 bore gun - It is further stated that Dal Singh and his companions had formed a "goonda party" in village and that on a report made by Balbir Singh Police had recovered illegal arms from possession of Chhotu Singh, Genda Singh, Hansa Singh and Milkiyat Singh which turned them hostile toward Balbir Singh – Held, Wound in which no pellet was found was a gun shot wound - It is difficult to see why what was possible medically in case of Balbir Singh could not be so in case of Chhotu Singh accused - D. W. 1 was examined for defence - High Court accepted his evidence to find that Balbir Singh after receiving gun shot injury could not have moved an inch and he must have been hit at spot indicated as point No. 2 in site plan where his body was found and not at point No. 1 as P. W. 4 had deposed - This possibility is also there that such a small pellet in such nature of wound may go in other part of body and in that case it would be very difficult to find out pellet - From particulars of injury given by Dr. O. P. Sharma and while seeing mark of present injury this can be said that more possibility is that this injury can be caused by pellet - In this state of evidence, specially medical evidence, it is difficult to hold with any certainty that occurrence had taken place in way prosecution witnesses allege - From medical evidence it is difficult to reach a firm conclusion that defence version is altogether false - In these circumstances Court do not find it safe to maintain conviction of appellants – Court set aside conviction of appellants and sentences passed on them and acquit them of charges framed against them, they are on bail, bail bonds furnished by them are discharged - Appeal allowed.
Judgment
GUPTA. J.:- This is an appeal from a Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court affirming on appeal the order of conviction and the sentences passed on the appellants before us by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Shri Ganganagar. Of the four appellants Milkiyat Singh and Chhotu Singh were convicted under Section 302 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life under the first count and rigorous imprisonment for five years under the second : Hansa Singh and Genda Singh were convicted under Section 302/34 and Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and were also awarded the same sentences.
2. On March, 13, 1970, Surjit Singh (P. W. 3) lodged the F. I. R. in this case containing the following story. At 12.30 P. M. on that day Surjit Singh along with his brother Balbir Singh and Jagir Singh (P. W. 11) and Jagroop Singh (P. W. 4) had started from Surjit Singhs house for village Jandwala Sikhan to see the ailing wife of one Jiwan Singh and when they had reached a point near the house of one Ram Singh, they found Dal Singh. Chhotu Singh, Genda Singh, Hansa Singh and Milkiyat Singh sitting in a pit. As the complainants party approached, Dal Singh and others stood up and Dal Singh shouted : "the enemies had come. murder them." Milkiyat Singh then fired from his gun hitting Balbir Singh in the chest and he fell dead, Chhotu Singh fired a shot at Jagroop Singh (P. W. 4) which hit him in the leg. The assailants then left firing shots in the air from the guns they carried to scare people away. It is stated that Balbir Singh was also armed with a 12 bore gun. It is further stated that Dal Singh and his companions had formed a "goonda party" in the village and that on a report made by Balbir Singh the Police had recovered illegal arms from the possession of Chhotu Singh, Genda Singh, Hansa Singh and Milkiyat Singh which turned them hostile toward Balbir Singh.
3. It would appear from the F. I. R. that Dal Singh was the leader of the group and that at his call the shots killing Balbir Singh and injuring Jagroop Singh had been fired. Surprisingly Dal Singh is not named as an accused in this case. It is said a private complaint alleging an offence punishable under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code has been filed against him. In their evidence before the Court Surjit Singh (P. W. 3) and Jagroop Singh (P. W. 4) repeated what was stated in the F. I. R. concerning the role played by Dal Singh. However in a supplementary statement to police (exhibit D-3) Surjit Singh said : "I have stated by mistake that he (Dal Singh) was in the pit ................." In a similar supplementary statement (exhibit D-4) Jagroop Singh also said that Dal Singh was not present along with other accused in the pit and that he had mentioned Dal Singhs name in his earlier statement to the police because Dal Singhs name was mentioned by Surjit Singh. Both Surjit Singh (P. W. 3) and Jagroop Singh (P. W. 4) denied in their depositions that they had stated to the police that Dal Singh was not present at the time of the occurrence. P. W. 8 Girdhari Singh who was S. H. O. of the concerned police station however said in his deposition : "On 13-4-70 I recorded the statements of Surjit Singh and Jagroop Singh P. Ws. Exhibit D-3 and Exhibit, D-4 respectively, as they deposed to, correctly. These bear my signature, The Deputy S. P. also interrogated and verified Surjit Singh and Jagroop Singh regarding Ex. D-3 and Ex. D-4." The prosecution story as stated in the F. I. R. and as narrated in court by the eye-witness P. W. 3 Surjit Singh, P. W. 4 Jagroop Singh and P. W. 11 Jangir Singh is one integrated account which gives a leading role to Dal Singh in the occurrence. It is true that if part of the story is found doubtful, it would not necessarily falsify the whole account, but in that case the rest of the story told by the alleged eye-witnesses must then be examined carefully before it is relied on. Here, in view of Exhibits D-
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.