1. Land dispute leading to a violent attack resulting in three deaths — charges under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 256
1997(2) Supreme 238
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.K. Mukherjee and B.N. Kirpal, JJ.
Satbir -Appellant
versus
Surat Singh & Ors. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 779 of 1989
with
Criminal Appeal Nos. 780-783 of 1989
Decided on 12-2-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : R.L. Kohli and Swaraj Kaushal, Sr. Advocates, R.C. Kohli, Prem Malhotra, Ajai Siwach, Harinder Mohan Singh, Ranbir Yadav, Sanjiv K. Pabbi, A.K. Mahajan, Ashok K. Mahajan, Advocates.
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Ordinarily, the Supreme Court does not interfere with an order of acquittal recorded by the High Court but if the High Court arrives at its findings over looking important facts and relying upon few circumstances which do not in any way impair the probative value of the evidence during trial, this Court would be failing in its duty to do complete justice if it does not interfere with such order of acquittal.
Ordinarily, the Supreme Court does not interfere with an order of acquittal recorded by the High Court but if the High Court arrives at its findings over looking important facts and relying upon few circumstances which do not in any way impair the probative value of the evidence during trial, this Court would be failing in its duty to do complete justice if it does not interfere with such order of acquittal.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL-Scope of interference by Supreme Court.
Held : Ordinarily this Court does not interfere with an order of acquittal recorded by the High Court; but if the High Court arrives at its findings over looking important facts and relying upon few circumstances which do not in any way impair the probative value of the evidence adduced during trial, this Court would be failing in its duty to do complete justice if it does not interfere with such order of acquittal. (Para 9)
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 148 and 302/149-Charges of rioting and murder-Murder of three persons-Question of involvement of accused persons-Three eye witnesses-PWs 7 and 9 named all nine persons as miscreants-No reason to disbelieve testimonies of eye witnesses regarding individual roles of accused persons-FIR with detailed prosecution case incorporated therein lodged with promptitude-Accused U and S held entitled to benefit of doubt as their names do not find place in FIR-Accused Smt. C and Smt. G are also entitled to acquittal as though present, it cannot be held that they shared common object of committing murders-Other five accused, namely S, B, D, S and C convicted u/ss 148 and 302/149-Sentence of imprisonment for life considering offences committed 10 years back. (Paras 15 & 16)
EVIDENCE-Rioting and murder-A number of persons assaulted three persons at one and the same time with different weapons-Contradictions as to who assaulted whom and with what weapon-Not a ground to reject evidence of eye witnesses, if it was otherwise reliable. (Para 12)
EVIDENCE-Rioting and murder-Evidence of eye witnesses along with FIR and medical evidence proving rioting and murder-Motive insignificant. (Para 14)
EVIDENCE-Eye witnesses-Relation witnesses-Evidentiary value-Mere relationship does not make evidence of a witness suspect and unworthy of credit. (Para 11)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Prosecution alleges joint assault and conspiracy; defense claims false implication due to enmity and asserts possession of the disputed land. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 )
3. High Court erred in discarding eye-witness testimony based on surmise, chance witness status, and minor medical contradictions in a multi-assailant attack. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. Mere relationship or chance witness status does not discredit testimony; minor contradictions between ocular and medical evidence in multi-assailant attacks do not invalidate reliable evidence. (Para 11 , 12 )
5. Five accused convicted under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment; others acquitted. (Para 15 , 16 )
6. Is the testimony of a chance witness inherently unbelievable?
No, the evidence of a chance witness is not necessarily incredible or unbelievable, although it requires cautious and close scrutiny. (Para 11 )
7. Does a familial relationship between a witness and the deceased automatically make the witness unreliable?
No, mere relationship does not make the evidence of a witness suspect and unworthy of credit. (Para 11 )
8. How should contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence be treated in cases involving multiple assailants?
In incidents where multiple persons assault victims with different weapons, some contradictions regarding specific roles are expected and should not be grounds to reject reliable evidence if the overall medical findings support the cause of death. (Para 12 )
9. When is a delay in lodging an FIR considered significant enough to doubt the prosecution's case?
Delay must be judged in the context of the sequence of events and distances covered; prompt reporting after the incident, considering the circumstances, corroborates the testimony. (Para 13 )
10. Is proof of motive essential when there is strong ocular and medical evidence of a crime?
When eye-witness testimony and medical evidence prove the commission of the crime, the question of motive becomes insignificant. (Para 14 )
JUDGMENT
M.K. Mukherjee, J.-These appeals stem from an incident that took place in the morning of June 20, 1984 in village Misri, under the jurisdiction of Police Station Bondkalan, in the district of Bhiwani, in which three residents of the village, namely Prabhu, his son Bir Singh and Mir Singh and Suraj Bhan, one of their distant relations, were killed. Over the incident a case was registered by the police on a report lodged by Satbir Singh, a resident of the same village, and on completion of investigation police submitted charge-sheet against thirteen persons. As one of them was a child his case was separated for trial by the Children s Court and the other twelve were arraigned before the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani pursuant to an order of commitment made under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Against nine of them, namely, Surat Singh, Balwant Singh, Dola Ram, Subh Ram, Udey Ram, Suresh Kumar, Chhajju Ram, Smt. Chameli and Smt. Giarsi, charges under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC were framed. Against Surat Singh and two others, namely, Ram Singh and Bishambhar a charge of criminal conspiracy to commit the three murders was framed. The remaining accused, namely, Dr. Satyavart Arya, the then doctor in charge of the local primary health centre, was asked to answer charges under Sections 193, 218 and 466 IPC, which were based on the allegations that to make out a defence of alibi in favour of Surat Singh he made false documents to show that he (Surat Singh) was a patient in the health centre between the period from June 19 to June 21, 1984. The trial ended with an order of conviction and sentence recorded against them in respect of all the charges framed. While six of the nine accused persons convicted under Sections 302/149 IPC were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life, the other three, namely, Surat Singh, Balwant Singh and Dola Ram were sentenced to death. For the other convictions different terms of imprisonment and fine were imposed upon them.
2. Aggrieved thereby they preferred appeals in the High Court which were heard alongwith the reference made by the trial Judge under Section 366 Cr.P.C. for confirmation of the sentence of death. By a common judgment the High Court allowed all the appeals, set aside the order of conviction and sentence recorded against the twelve accused persons and rejected the reference. The above judgment of the High Court is under challenge in these appeals: one of which has been filed by Satbir, who lodged the F.I.R., and the others by the State of Haryana. During the pendency of these appeals Dr. Satyavart Arya died and therefore the appeals as against him abate. All the appeals have been heard together and this judgment will dispose of them.
3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that land bearing killa No. 31/17 in village Misri belonged to Partap, son of Prabhu (the deceased). After death of Pratap, his widow Surjit sold it to accused Surat Singh, Balwant Singh and Dola Ram, who are all sons of accused Chhajju Ram. The possession, however, remained with Prabhu and he used to cultivate it. In the early morning of the fateful day Prabhu along with Bir Singh and Suraj Bhan went to plough the aforesaid land; and at or about 8 A.M. Raj Kumari (PW 10), grand-daughter of Prabhu, came to the field with meals for them. Soon after her arrival, Surat Singh armed with a jelli, Balwant Singh with a Farsa, Dola Ram with a Kulhari and Krishan, Subh Ram, Udey Ram, Suresh Kumar and Chhajju Ram with lathis came to the field along with accused Smt. Chameli and Smt. Giarsi. While Chameli was carrying a bag containing red chilli powder and stones Giarsi was having some stones in her hands. Reaching there Surat Singh raised a lalkara that they would exterminate Prabhu and his companions as they were ploughing the land purchased by them. To this Prabhu retorted that it was his ancestral land and he was in its possession for long. Hearing this Smt. Chameli took out stones and chilli powder from her bag and started throwing
