1. Murder trial — Conviction under Section 302/34, IPC — Appeal against conviction and acquittal based on ocular and medical evidence. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 358
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. A.S. ANAND AND FAIZAN-UDDIN, JJ.
Balwant Singh and another, Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana, Respondent.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 163 with 162A of 1982 with Spl. Leave Petn. (Crim.) No. 342 of 1982
Decided on 18-3-1994.
WITH
State of Haryana, Appellant
Versus
Mahabir Singh and another, Respondents.
WITH
Raj Singh, Petitioner
Versus
Mahabir Singh and others, Respondents.
The judgment establishes that reliable ocular testimony, corroborated by medical evidence and serological reports (matching blood groups on the weapon), is sufficient for conviction. It warns against overturning convictions based on conjectures when forensic evidence and witness testimony consistently establish the accused's complicity.
Headnote:(1) Appeal Against Conviction - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302/34 - Conviction under. Appeal - Previous enmity - Ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence. Nothing to show that the clothes of P.W. 8 and P.W. 10 had not been stained with blood while lifting the deceased - Mere negligence of the investigating officer to take their clothes into possession Botto effect the trustworthiness of these witnesses - F.I.R. lodged promptly. Prosecution has established beyond any doubt the complicity of the appellants - Convictions legally sustainable.
Held: Inspite of the lengthy cross examination nothing has been brought out on the record to doubt his veracity. Raj Singh PW 8 has given a detailed account of the occurrence, including the part played by each one of the accused persons. No infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel in so far as his testimony is concerned. The testimony of Ganesh Dun Sharma PW 3 who had sent rukka Ex. PD to the police after Suraj Bhan deceased had been taken to the Primary, Health Centre in a seriously injured condition by Raj Singh PW 8 and Jagmal Singh PW 10, clearly establishes the presence of both these witnesses in the Primary Health Centre at about 4.30 p.m. The name of Raj Singh PW 8 as the person who had brought Suraj Bhan deceased to the Primary Health Centre is clearly written in rukka Ex. PD. Corroboration in this behalf is also available from rukka Ex. P A sent by Dr. Dhingra PW 1, which conveyed the necessary information to the police at Gurgaon to the effect that Suraj Bhan deceased had been brought to the casualty ward of the Civil Hospital, Gurgaon, as dead and that the patient had been referred from Primary Health Centre Pataudi, with slip No. 23155 dated 26.10.1980. P.W. 10, Jagmal Singh has also given a detailed account and has fully supported PW8, Raj Singh. His testimony had impressed us. There is nothing in the cross-examination of the witness which may effect his credibility at all. He appears to bean independent and reliable witness. (Para 8)
Further held, that the First Information Report was promptly lodged and neither the occurrence was ante-timed nor the First Information Report was ante-dated as argued by the learned counsel for the accused. There is, as a matter of fact, no factual foundation for the argument to the contrary raised by learned counsel for the accused and the submission that the First Information Report was delayed does not rest on any factually correct premises. Both the High Court and the Trial Court were perfectly sound in their approach to hold that the First Information Report had been lodged promptly and that both Raj Singh PW 8 and Jagmal Singh PW 10 were the eye witnesses who had witnessed the occurrence and that their testimony did not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever and that both of them were truthful witnesses. (para 9)
(ii) Appeal Against Acquittal - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Acquittal for offence under - Appeal- Alleged absence of any injury by the weapons alleged to have been carried and used by respondent - Ocular evidence revealing that a gandasi blow given on the head of the deceased - Gandasi discovered on the disclosure statement made by the respondent - Medical evidence stating that the injuries present on the head of the deceased could have been caused by gandasi - No contradiction between the ocular testimony and medical evidence - Blood stains on the weapon of offence tallied with the blood group with which clothes of the deceased had been stained - Order of acquittal of respondent not sustainable. (Paras 11 and 12)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Reliability of eye-witnesses — Consistency between medical evidence and ocular testimony — Validity of weapon recovery and promptness of first information report. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. Ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence and serology reports — Prompt FIR — Absence of bloodstains on witnesses' clothes does not invalidate their testimony. (Para 8 , 9 , 12 , 13 )
4. Conviction is sustainable when ocular testimony is corroborated by medical evidence and forensic reports, notwithstanding minor investigating lapses. (Para 9 , 12 , 13 )
5. Convictions of two appellants upheld; acquittal of one respondent restored; acquittal of another respondent set aside with conviction under Section 302/34, IPC. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 )
6. Does the absence of bloodstains on the clothes of witnesses who assisted the victim affect their credibility?
No. The court held that the mere negligence of the investigating officer in failing to seize the clothes of witnesses does not cast doubt on their trustworthiness if their testimony is otherwise reliable and corroborated. (Para 9 )
7. How is a conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence resolved when forensic reports are available?
When ocular testimony is corroborated by medical evidence and serology reports—specifically matching the blood group on the weapon to the victim—the evidence conclusively establishes the assailant's complicity. (Para 12 , 13 )
8. What is the impact of a failed plea of alibi on the assessment of other evidence?
Once a plea of alibi is disbelieved, the court must properly appreciate the remaining evidence, such as weapon recovery and forensic reports, to determine guilt rather than relying on surmises or conjectures. (Para 12 , 13 )
9. When is the benefit of doubt granted despite the recovery of a weapon from the accused?
Benefit of doubt is granted if there is no forensic evidence linking the weapon to the victim and the medical evidence does not specifically support injuries caused by that particular weapon. (Para 14 )
JUDGMENT
Dr. ANAND, J.: - Balwant Singh along with his brothers Mahabir Singh and Lal Singh and his son Abhey Singh were challenged by the police for an occurrence which took place on 26-10-1980 at 3.45 p.m. at Heily Mandi in which Suraj Bhan was murdered. All the four accused were sent up for trial. The learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon convicted Mahabir Singh for an offence under Section 302, IPC and Lal Singh, Balwant Singh and Abhey Singh for the offences under Section 302/34, IPC. Each of the accused was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. An appeal was filed by all the four convicts in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court dismissed the appeal in so far as the conviction and sentence of Balwant Singh and Abhey Singh are concerned but giving benefit of the doubt acquitted Mahabir Singh and Lal Singh. Balwant Singh and Abhey Singh have filed an appeal on special leave being granted against their conviction and sentence. The State has filed an appeal against the acquittal of Mahabir Singh and Lal Singh. The complainant has also filed S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 342 of 1982 against the acquittal of Mahabir Singh and Lal Singh.
2. Since, both the appeals and the special leave petition arise out of the common judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, they are being dealt with and disposed of together.
3. According to the prosecution case, there was previous enmity and some litigation was also pending between Suraj Bhan, deceased and his sons on the one hand and Balwant Singh and his brothers on the other. On the date of occurrence i.e. 26-10-1980, it is alleged that at about 3.30/3.45 p.m., when Raj Singh PW 8 who was the Sambandhi of Suraj Bhan deceased, after taking their meals at the house of Jagdish PW at about 1.45 p.m. were proceeding on foot towards Pataudi, at a distance of about 4-5 Kms from Hailey Mandi, all of a sudden near the Jain Temple, Mahabir Singh accused armed with a Gandasi, Lal Singh accused armed with a Jailley, Abhey Singh and Balwant Singh accused armed with a lathi each, came running from behind and assaulted Suraj Bhan, deceased Mahabir Singh and Lal Singh inflicted injuries on the head of Suraj Bhan deceased with their respective weapons, on receipt of which he fell down and thereafter Balwant Singh and his son Abhey Singh accused gave numerous lathi blows on the person of Suraj Bhan. On an alarm being raised by Raj Singh PW 8, Jgmal Singh PW 10, who has his house at a distance of about 1 Km. from the place of occurrence and was going to Pataudi, was attracted to the scene. He rushed to the place of occurrence and also raised an alarm whereupon all the four accused sped away. Raj Singh PW 8 and Jagmal Singh PW 10 then removed Suraj Bhan in an injured condition to the Primary Health Center, Pataudi in a tonga. The doctor at the Primary Health Centre was on leave and, therfore, Ganesh Dutt Sharma Pharmacist, PW 3 sent a rukka Ex. PD to the police and advised Raj Singh PW 8 to remove the injured Suraj Bhan, who was in a serious condition to the General Hospital at Gurgaon. SI Sultan Singh PW 11, on receipt of rukka Ex. PD proceeded to the Primary Health Center, Pataudi and on reaching there he recorded the statement of Raj Singh PW 8, Ex. PK/1, which forms the basis of the first information report. Jagmal Singh PW 10 in the meanwhile arranged for a taxi and both he and Raj Singh PW 8 removed the deceased to General Hospital Gurgaon where Dr. S.R. Dhingra, PW 1 examined Suraj Bhan but declared him dead. The Doctor gave the intimation through rukka Ex. PA to police station City Gurgaon.
4. SI Sultan Singh PW 11, after registration of the case, started the investigation and went to the spot of occurrence and prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence. He also made a search for the accused person, but they could not be found. All the four accused later on surrendered in the Court on 3-11-1980 and were arrested by SI Sultan Singh on 5-11-1980. On the disclosure statement, Ex. PO, ma
