Gurcharan Singh vs State Of Punjab

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1955 Supreme(SC) 96

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2nd November, 1955.
BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR AND SINHA, JJ.
Gurucharan Singh and another, Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1955.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. Jai Gopal Sethi, Senior Advocate (Mr. Gopal Singh, Advocate, with him), for Appellants; Mr. Jindra Lal and Mr. P. G. Gokhale, Advocates for Respondent.

Advocates:
Gopal Singh, Jai Gopal Sethi, JINDRA LAL, P.G.COKHALE

Headnote:Precedents-Questions of fact.
       Held: Reference to reported case when facts alone are involved -can be by way of illustration only and not by way of an appeal to precedent, because on facts no two cases can be similar. Each case has its own peculiar facts and it is, therefore, always risky to appeal to precedents -on questions of fact. - Sections 367, 423-Applicability-Principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus-Evidence Act (1872), Sections 5,101-104, and 106.
       Held: (1) Merely because two of the four accused have been acquitted though the evidence against all of them, so far as the direct testimony went, was the same it does not necessarily follow that the other two must be similarly acquitted. Where the lower court had differentiated the case of the accused who had been acquitted from the other two on the ground of absence of motive in the former case and in addition to that the evidence of the witnesses as against the convicted accused was consistent and not shaken by cross-examination there is no sufficient reason for the Appellate Court to go behind the finding which was based by the lower Court on that -evidence.
       (2) Where the positive evidence against the accused is clear, cogent .and reliable, the question of motive is of no importance.
       (3) Relationship of the prosecution witnesses to the murdered man is no ground for not acting upon their testimony if it is otherwise reliable in the sense that the witnesses were competent witnesses who could be expected to be near about the place of occurrence and could have seen what happened that afternoon.
       (4) The burden of proving alibi, lies on the accused setting up the defence. But even so, the burden of proving the case against the accused is on the prosecution irrespective of whether or not the accused have made out a plausible defence.

Judgement

SINHA, J. : This is an appeal by special leave on behalf of two brothers, Gurucharan Singh and Jagir Singh, who have been convicted under S. 302, Penal Code and sentenced to transportation for life by the Second Additional Sessions Judge of Ferozepore. Their convictions and sentences have been upheld by a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court by its judgment dated 30-6-1954.

The petitioners had been placed on trial along with two others, named Harnek Singh and Munshi. All these four had been convicted and sentenced, as stated above, by the learned Sessions Judge; but on appeal, the High Court gave Harnek Singh and Munshi the benefit of the doubt and acquitted them.

2. The prosecution case, shortly stated, is that on 2-9-1953 the two petitioners along with the other two accused, who were acquitted as aforesaid by the High Court, left their village called Sanghu Dhawan, all armed with gandasas and were seen proceeding towards Muktsar town, about three miles away.

A short time after, Inder Singh accompanied by his son, Gurucharan Singh (P. W. 2) and Mohinder Singh (P. W. 4), who also belonged to the same village, left for Muktsar to purchase some chemical manure on a permit by the agriculture department. Inder Singh proceeded ahead and the other two were behind him at a short distance. As soon as Inder Singh reached a certain bridge on the way to Muktsar, about a mile from ;the village, the four accused, who were lying in ambush in a neighbouring bajra field, came out of the field and attacked him.

Gurucharan Singh, the first appellant, opened the attack with a gandasa blow on his head. He was followed by Jagir Singh, accused who dealt some ganadasa blows on his leg. Inder Singh fell down and all the four accused were said to have attacked him with gandasas causing as many as 27 injuries on his person. Inder Singh s two companions, Gurucharan Singh and Mohinder Singh aforesaid, raised an alarm but were helpless spectators, who being unarmed, could not venture to come to his rescue.

Further it was stated by the prosecution witnesses aforesaid that while there was life still left in Inder Singh, accused Jagir Singh chopped of their victim s head from the body just above the lower jaw and wrapped the head along with the turban in the chaddar of the deceased.

Raman Singh and Hari Singh (P. Ws.) who were returning from Muktsar, claimed to have seen the last part of the prosecution case, namely, that the four accused were seen making away with the head wrapped in a piece of cloth. Gurnam Singh (P. W. 2) hastened to the police station and lodged the first information report at 5 P. M. the same afternoon, the place of occurrence being noted as a mile and a half towards the east of the police station.

The time of the occurrence is not specified except saying that it was in the afternoon. In the first information report all the four accused persons were named and said to have conspired to kill Inder Singh. The prosecution version as laid in the first information report is substantially as stated above. As regards the motive of the crime, it is said in the first information report "All the four culprits suspected my father of his having given a secret information against them".

3. At the trial Gurnam Singh (P. W. 2) and Mohinder Singh (P. W. 4) deposed as eye-witnesses to the occurrence from beginning to end, whereas Raman Singh (P. W. 6) and Hari Singh (P. W. 7) deposed to the last part of the prosecution case as having witnessed the occurrence on hearing an alarm from about 100 to 150 yards. They claim to have seen all the four accused armed with gandasas and Jagir Singh wrapping the head in a piece of cloth.

4. The defence of the appellants was a denial of their participation in the occurrence and they explained their implication by alleging that they were on inimical terms with the family of the deceased Inder Singh. The appellant, Jagir Singh, set up a case of alibi which may best be stated in his own words in his

Click Here to Read the rest of this document