TARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(SC)-1990-10-43
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on October 25,1990

TARA SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BALAKA SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [DISTINGUISHED]



Cited Judgements :-

KUKAPALLI MOHAN RAO VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(SC)-2012-12-25] [REFERRED TO]
MADALAIMUTHU VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-1994-3-104] [REFERRED TO]
BYASDEV HALDAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2017-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-8-179] [REFERRED TO]
RAMACHAL AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-267] [REFERRED TO]
AKBAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
SURYA PANDEY AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-3-21] [REFERRED TO]
SURYA PANDEY AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-3-21] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. VS. BACHCHAN KHAN [LAWS(ALL)-2022-7-54] [REFERRED TO]
SAHEBGONDA LAXMAN BIRAJDAR & ORS. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-10-85] [REFERRED TO]
MOTTMMAL SHAJI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2017-2-55] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. GURCHARAN SINGH @ HAPPY [LAWS(P&H)-2007-2-39] [REFERRED TO]
SATPAUL ALIAS LALA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2007-5-77] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA MONDAL AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2016-4-12] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2001-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-59] [REFERRED]
RAJA HUSSAIN VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-200] [REFERRED TO]
HEERA LAL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-7-21] [REFERRED TO]
MD HASEN ALI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-1997-2-26] [REFERRED TO]
ABU BAKKAR SIDDIQUE VS. JAMELA KHATUN AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2016-7-74] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. RUPA GANGA AYAR [LAWS(GJH)-2017-11-237] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SHANKER VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-11-48] [REFERRED TO]
RAJA HUSSAIN VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-36] [REFERRED TO]
BADRI NARAYAN VS. STATE OF U.P [LAWS(ALL)-2022-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
TAUKIR AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-8] [REFERRED TO]
GANGA RAM AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-351] [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2017-10-261] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH @ RAJA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2019-11-258] [REFERRED TO]
P RAJAGOPAL VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2009-3-61] [REFERRED TO]
BALBIR KUMAR VERMA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1991-7-46] [REFERRED TO]
SAHEBRAO VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2000-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
SITARAM VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-11-35] [REFERRED TO]
NAMDEO AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2015-6-332] [REFERRED TO]
SRIRAM VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2018-7-195] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHDEV VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-26] [REFERRED TO]
DHRUV RAJ RAI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-89] [REFERRED TO]
KALLU ALIAS GURDAYAL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-205] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-3-126] [REFERRED TO]
BHOOKAN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-114] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH KORI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-435] [REFERRED TO]
MULUWA VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2020-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
PEHLAD VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2014-2-528] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY NAREGAL POLICE VS. YALLAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2018-9-86] [REFERRED TO]
NANKU ALIAS BRAHM SAHAI & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-3-312] [REFERRED TO]
KASHMIR SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2018-1-87] [REFERRED TO]
RAM JEEVAN VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-300] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIK SIDDIQ HUSSAIN ALIAS SIDDIQ VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2002-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
MRINAL KANTI ROY BARMAN VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2009-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDER VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2007-12-137] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER SINGH ALIAS PARTAP VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2014-3-546] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2021-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
JYOTIBA LAXMAN PATEL VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2000-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SWAROOP AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-7-51] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH @ TIDKE VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-54] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-267] [REFERRED TO]
IRFAN VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-189] [REFERRED TO]
MITHAIYA VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-52] [REFERRED TO]
CHAMELI VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-1-144] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR ALIAS BHUSHAN PYARE LAL VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2006-11-159] [REFERRED TO]
D N BHARTHARE VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2007-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
BOYA BOGAM PEDDA MADDILETY AND ORS. VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2020-8-56] [REFERRED TO]
DALAPATHI BALAYYA VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2004-10-82] [REFERRED TO]
BOYA PEDDA MADDULETI VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2004-7-101] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER KUMAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-2001-8-137] [REFERRED]
GOPAL CHANDRA DAS AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2016-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
KEDAR NATH SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-1995-7-37] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN LODH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-25] [REFERRED TO]
KALUA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-193] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2017-12-184] [REFERRED TO]
M R GOPALAKRISHNAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2015-7-276] [REFERRED]
SAWANT VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2006-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
DALIP KUMAR VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2012-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
STATE AND ORS VS. PEDDAKKA @ PADMAVATHAMMA W/O MALLAPA AND ORS [LAWS(KAR)-2011-10-160] [REFERRED]
SAHEBRAO VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2006-5-35] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR @ SAILAN S/O SOMAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2018-3-116] [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD VS. MANJURI BIBI AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2015-11-42] [REFERRED]
JAHANGIR SEIKH VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2016-3-66] [REFERRED TO]
CHUNI LAL RAINA VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [LAWS(J&K)-1997-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
JANAK SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2014-3-564] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court convicting the two appellants herein under S. 302 read with S. 34, I.P.C. and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/- in default of which to undergo further one year's rigorous imprisonment. The main submission in this appeal is that there was inordinate delay in registering the case and the investigation is tainted and consequently the whole case should be thrown out. The material facts of the case are as follows.
(2.)The two appellants and the three other accused who were also tried along with them are residents of village Lopan in Ludhiana District. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 are brothers and the 5th accused is the relation. The deceased one Hazura Singh aged about 80 years was the Sarpanch of the village. In the year 1971 he lodged a report stating that some cement pipes in his fields were removed by the four brothers accused Nos. 1 to 4 along with other members of the family. A case was registered and the trial was pending. There was security proceedings also between P.W. 2, son of the deceased and the two appellants and their brothers. On 15th August, 1975 at about 5 p.m. P.W. 2 Bant Singh along with his sister's son P.W. 4 Harbhajan Singh and his sister were hoeing the maize crop in their field. Hazura Singh the deceased came on the spot and after going around the field was going towards the path, at a distance of about 40 Karams from where the prosecution witnesses were working. P.W. 3 was also working in a neighbouring field which he had taken on lease. The five accused emerged from the field. Tara Singh and Dial Singh, the two appellants herein were armed with Kirpans while their other two brothers were armed with gandasas and the 5th accused was armed with a takwa. The first appellant shouted that the deceased should not be spared. The deceased hearing this tried to run away. When he reached the field of one Chandan Singh all the accused overtook him. The first appellant (AI) inflicted a kirpan blow on his neck while the second appellant also inflicted another blow on the neck and they inflicted further blows on the deceased on receipt of which he fell down. The other accused thereafter are said to have given him some blows. P.Ws. 2 to 4 who had seen the crime raised an alarm. The ,accused thereupon ran away. P.W. 2 who is witness of the occurrence went to the village which is half a mile away and informed the Lambardar, P.W. 5. P.W. 2 then went in the company of the Lambardar to the Police Station at Samrala which is at a distance of 6 1/2 miles and lodged a report at about 8.45 p. m. on the same evening. The Sub-Inspector P.W.9 registered the crime and issued an FIR which reached the Magistrate at about 2.45 a.m. P.W. 9 took up the investigation, reached the occurrence at about 9.45 p.m., held the inquest and completed the same by 11.55 p.m. Then the body was sent for post-mortem. The next day at about 9.30 a.m. Dr. Bimla Kalra, P.W. 1 conducted the post-mortem and she found as many as 12 incised wounds and one contusion. Some of them were on the head and injuries Nos. 7, 8 and 11 were either on the neck or near about. The doctor opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage. She also opined that injuries Nos. 1 to 5 which were on the head were also individually sufficient to cause the death. The accused were absconding. Then later they were arrested and at their instance the weapons were recovered. The trial Court relying on the evidence of the three eyewitnesses which is corroborated by the medical evidence and the circumstantial evidence convicted all the five accused and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/- each. The Division Bench of the High Court, however, felt that it is not safe to convict all the five accused since no specific acts are attributed to accused Nos. 3 to 5. The learned Judges after consideration of the evidence were of the view that because of the interested nature of the evidence of the main eye-witnesses and to avoid any innocent being convicted it would not be safe to rely on any omnibus allegation. In that view of the matter the learned Judges convicted the two appellants only to whom specific overt acts are attributed and acquitted accused Nos. 3 to 5.
(3.)Shri R. K. Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that there was unexplained delay in the special report reaching the Magistrate and therefore a reasonable doubt arises that this time should have been utilised for consultation with a view to implicate some of the appellants falsely out of enmity. It is also submitted that the possibility of false implication of these accused cannot be ruled out. It is also his submission that the very fact that the Investigating Officer took such a long time for sending the report to the Magistrate itself suggests that he must have colluded with the members of the prosecution party in preparing the first report and therefore the entire investigation is tainted and according to the learned Counsel the case based on such tainted investigation must be thrown out in a wholesale manner as there is no scope to separate grain from the chaff. He relied on a judgment of this Court in Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 511:(AIR 1975 SC 1962). In that case the names of the four accused alleged to have taken part in assault on the deceased were not at all mentioned in the inquest report and in the brief statement of the person who has lodged the FIR four hours before. That was also a case arising out of faction and the witnesses also were found to be interested. Taking these circumstances into consideration this Court observed (at p. 1965 of AIR) :
"This circumstances speaks volumes against the prosecution case. If, therefore, it is once established that the names of the four accused were deliberately added in the inqeust report at the instance of the prosecution there is no guarantee regarding the truth about the participation in the assault on the deceased by the appellants."

It is further observed that (at p. 1966 of AIR) :--

"It is true that there are as many as eight witnesses who are alleged to have seen the occurrence and they have given a parrot-like version of the entire case regarding the assault on the deceased by the various accused persons. All these witnesses have with one voice and with complete unanimity implicated even the four accused persons acquitted by the HighCourt, equally with the appellants making absolutely no distinction between one and the other.

xx xx xx

xx xx xx

In these circumstances, therefore, we are satisfied that in view of the finding of the High Court that the F.I.R. was a belated document having come into existence much later than the time it is said to have been recorded and which adds the names of the four accused against whom the prosecution case is absolutely identical with the appellants. the case of the appellants cannot at all be distinguished."

But the facts in the instant case are altogether different. The names of the accused are consistently mentioned throughout. There is absolutely no ground to hold that the FIR was brought into existence subsequently during the investigation and the mere delay in lodging the report by itself cannot give scope for an adverse inference leading to rejection of the prosecution case outright.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.