Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 6385
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Lisa Gill, Parmod Goyal, JJ
Balraj Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-D-1246-DB of 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Satinder Kaur, Ms. Parneet Kaur
For the Respondents: Mr. Raghav Garg
The testimony of related eyewitnesses is reliable and sufficient for conviction if found consistent; medical evidence regarding the timing of rigor mortis is variable and cannot override credible ocular testimony unless proven conclusive.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 27 - Conviction for murder - Reliability of eyewitnesses - It is well settled that relatives of a victim are competent witnesses and their testimony can be relied upon if it is found to be consistent, trustworthy, and reliable. Mere relationship does not render a witness 'interested' in a way that suggests false implication. (Para 9)
(B) Medical Evidence - Rigor Mortis - Estimation of time of death - Medical opinion regarding the onset and duration of rigor mortis is not conclusive. It depends on various factors such as age, temperature, and physical exertion. Ocular evidence cannot be dislodged by hypothetical medical assessments unless the medical opinion is shown to be conclusive. (Paras 17, 21)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of the deceased following a dispute over a passage (pahi) between their respective agricultural lands. The prosecution alleged that the appellant shot the deceased while he was operating a tractor. The defense argued that the testimony of the eyewitnesses was unreliable due to their relationship as relatives, and that the medical evidence concerning rigor mortis contradicted the prosecution's stated time of occurrence.
Findings of Court:
The Court found the testimonies of the eyewitnesses to be natural, consistent, and reliable, despite extensive cross-examination. It held that the motives and the presence of the witnesses at the crime scene were established. The medical evidence provided by the defense regarding the time of death was deemed speculative and insufficient to override the consistent ocular testimony.
Issues: Whether the eyewitnesses were reliable given their relationship to the deceased and whether the medical evidence concerning rigor mortis created sufficient doubt to override the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: Ocular evidence from natural and consistent witnesses is to be given precedence over medical timing estimates, which are subject to variables like temperature and physical condition of the body, unless such medical evidence is entirely conclusive and renders the prosecution's case impossible.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of trial court findings and prosecution case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. credibility of related and interested witnesses. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. motive in criminal cases and its necessity for conviction. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 4. evaluation of medical opinion regarding rigor mortis against ocular evidence. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. final evaluation of evidence and appellate conclusion. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
****
PARMOD GOYAL, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 04.07.2014 and order of sentence dated 05.07.2014 passed by Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab in Sessions Case No. 07 of 01.07.2013 whereby and whereunder appellant Balraj Singh was held guilty under section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and section 27 of Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Arms Act’) and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (in default to pay fine, to undergo RI for two months) under section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (in default to pay fine, to undergo RI for one month) under section 27 of Arms Act.
2. Challan against the appellant was presented on 10.05.2013. Appellant along with Kuldeep Singh was put to trial for commission of offence under Section 302 of the IPC and section 27 of Arms Act. Thereafter charges under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act were framed. Prosecution case as put forth by way of statement of Bhupinder Singh-brother of deceased-Lakhvir Singh, on the basis of which FIR was registered, is that complainant along with his elder brother Lakhvir Singh (deceased) and father Bakhshish Singh was residing in a hamlet (dhani) constructed in their agricultural fields, which they had purchased about 7–8 years ago. A lined water channel (pakka khal) passes through the purchased land and adjoining this water channel is temporary passage (pahi) leading to the hamlet of Balraj Singh @ Raja and Sehajpal Singh, sons of Joginder Singh. Another permanent passage connects their hamlet with the Fazilka–Malout Road. Approximately, one month prior to the occurrence, Bhupinder Singh and his family got the lined water channel (pakka khal) demarcated by the Halqa Patwari and Kanungo. Upon demarcation, it was found that passage falls within their ownership. On learning this, Balraj Singh requested some time for verification. On 17.12.2013, after a lapse of one month, Bhupinder Singh along with his brother Lakhvir Singh (deceased), father Bakhshish Singh and relative Baljinder Singh were cultivating the passage falling within their share with the help of their Farm-60 tractor. Lakhvir Singh was driving the tractor, while Bhupinder Singh, his father, and their relative followed him behind the tractor. When they reached in the middle of the field, accused Balraj Singh @ Raja, armed with a revolver, arrived there along with Kuldeep Singh, Gurcharan Singh, and Rattan @ Bunty (son of Prem Verma). They stopped the tractor and forbade them from ploughing the passage (pahi) threatening with dire consequences, if they proceeded. The complainant party tried to pacify them stating that the passage falls within their share and they do not wish to quarrel. Upon being pacified, the accused persons initially returned to their hamlet (dhani). Shortly thereafter, accused Balraj Singh @ Raja came outside his hamlet and began hurling abuses. Meanwhile, accused Bunty and Kuldeep Singh went inside the hamlet. At around 12:00 noon, Kuldeep Singh brought out 12-bore gun and handed it over to Balraj Singh. At that time, the complainant’s brother Lakhvir Singh (deceased) had reached the end of the fields while ploughing with the tractor. Balraj Singh, after taking the gun, aimed it towards Lakhvir Singh, raised a lalkara (challenge) proclaiming that they would not allow him to plough the passage (pahi) and fired a sho
