DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Tags Evidence

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Crl.), 2099 of 2008, Judgment Date: Jan 06, 2016

 The word alibi means “elsewhere”. The plea of alibi is  not  one  of
the General Exceptions contained in Chapter IV of  IPC.  It  is  a  rule  of
evidence recognized under Section 11 of the Evidence Act. However,  plea  of
alibi taken by the defence is required to be proved only  after  prosecution
has proved its case against the accused. In the present case said  condition
is fulfilled.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2099 OF 2008

Darshan Singh … Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 02.09.2008,
passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, whereby the High
Court has disposed of Criminal Appeals No. 209 D.B. and 568 DBA, both of
1998 and Criminal Revision No. 654 of 1998. The appeal filed by the State
qua Darshan Singh (present appellant) against his acquittal by the trial
court, was allowed and his acquittal was reversed. The present appellant
has been convicted by the High Court under Section 302 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”), and sentenced to imprisonment for life and
directed to pay a fine Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine he is
directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six
months. Appellant Darshan Singh has been further found guilty of the charge
of offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine of
Rs. 1,000/- with default clause directing to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for further period of two months.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers
on record.

3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that there was dispute between
complainant and his relatives on one side and accused persons on the other
side regarding their turn of irrigating their fields. On account of this,
earlier there had been incidents of assaulting each other. In the
circumstances, both the parties were facing proceedings under Section
107/151 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.PC”) before
Executive Magistrate, Faridkot. On 17.02.1995, complainant Amrik Singh (PW-
1) along with Raj Singh (PW-3), Sukhchain Singh (PW-2) , Harbans Singh (one
of the deceased), and their father Mander Singh and cousin Gursewak Singh
with maternal uncle Santa Singh (another deceased) and Boota Singh had gone
to attend the proceedings of the court. From the side of accused Surain
Singh, Jasmail Singh, Darshan Singh (present appellant), Jhanda Singh and
Boota Singh had also come to the court on said date. At about 11.00 a.m.
both the sides started quarrelling and had a heated exchange of words, as
Surain Singh objected to presence of Bhajan Singh who was relative of
complainant Amrik Singh and not a party to the proceedings. He (Surain
Singh), a Amritdhari Sikh, took out his Siri Sahib (Small Kripan, a sharp
edged weapon) and gave blow to Bhajan Singh. When complainant party
attempted to separate them, Surain Singh gave Kripan blow on the person of
Mander Singh. He assaulted also on the left shoulder of the complainant
Amrik Singh, and gave two blows on the person of Suckhchain Singh. He did
not stop there and also assaulted Harbans Singh (deceased) with Kripan.
Accused Darshan Singh (appellant) also took out his Kripan and inflicted
injuries on the person of Santa Singh (another deceased). Accused Darshan
Singh (appellant) is said to have given blows also to Raj Singh. Pal Singh
and Jhanda Singh caught hold of Gursewak Singh, and Darshan Singh assaulted
them also. Accused Boota Singh instigated other accused that no one should
be escaped alive. The injured were taken to Guru Gobind Singh Medical
Hospital, Faridkot, where Santa Singh and Harbans Singh succumbed to their
injuries.

4. Report of the above incident was lodged by complainant Amrik Singh
(PW-2). On the basis of it, FIR No. 14, dated 17.02.1995 was registered at
Police Station, City Faridkot. The investigation was taken up by Sub-
inspector Ranjit Singh (PW-17), who took the dead bodies in his possession,
sealed it, prepared inquest report and got sent them for post-mortem
examination. Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu (PW-4) conducted post-mortem
examination on the dead bodies of Santa Singh and Harbans Singh on
17.02.1995, and prepared autopsy reports. The other injured were also
medically examined by PW-4 Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu and PW-5 Dr. Manjit
Singh. There were injuries also on the side of the accused, and from their
side accused Pal Singh, accused Surain Singh and accused Jhanda Singh
suffered injuries. After interrogating witnesses and on completion of
investigation PW-16 Assistant Sub-inspector Ram Singh (who took over
investigation from S.I Ranjit Singh) submitted charge-sheet against accused
persons in the court.

5. It appears that after the committal of the case it was registered as
Session Case No. 33 of 1995. On 7.7.1995, Additional Sessions Judge,
Faridkot framed charge against all the accused, namely, Surain Singh,
Darshan Singh (present appellant), Pal Singh, Jhanda Singh , Jasmail Singh,
Boota Singh and Lachman Dass relating to offences punishable under Section
148, 302/149 (on separate counts of death of two persons), 307/149,
324/149, 218 and 201 IPC to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried.

6. Thereafter prosecution got examined PW-1 Amrik Singh (informant), PW-
2 Sukhchain Singh, PW-3 Raj Singh (all the three injured eye witnesses), PW-
4 Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu who conducted post-mortem examination, PW-5 Dr.
Manjit Singh, PW-6 Gurcharanjit Kaur, Ahalmad, PW-7 Ujjagar Singh, Steno to
A.D.C. Moga, PW-8 ASI Basant Singh, PW-9 Head Constable Shagan Singh, PW-
10 Inspector Prithvi Singh, PW-11 Prithi Pal Singh, S.S.Teacher, PW-12
Dharam Singh, Draftsman, PW-13 MHC Baljit Singh, PW-14 Dr. S.P. Singla, PW-
15 Sub Inspector Shivraj Bhushan, PW-16 Sub Inspector Ram Singh, PW-17
Inspector Ranjit Singh, PW-18 Constable Jagjit Singh and PW-19 Satish
Kalia, Ahalmad.
7. The evidence adduced by prosecution was put to the accused by the
trial court under Section 313 of Cr.PC. In reply to which the accused
persons alleged that evidence against them was incorrect. Appellant Darshan
Singh took the specific plea of alibi stating that on 17.02.1995 he was
attending his duty as a Laboratory Assistant in Senior Secondary School,
Janerian. Other accused took pleas of self defence. On behalf of the
defence DW-1 Satnam Kaur, DW-2 Rajinder Kumar, DW-3 Darshan Singh (Teacher
in primary school, Pakhi Khurd), DW-4 Pawan Kumar, Ahalmad, DW-5 J.V.
Tiwari, DW-6 Mukhtiar Singh, DW-7 Om Parkash and DW-8 ASI Harvinder Pal
Singh were examined.

8. The trial court after hearing the parties found that charge as
against accused Boota Singh, Darshan Singh and Lachman Dass is not proved
and, as such, they were acquitted. However, accused Surain Singh was
convicted under Section 302 of IPC for committing murder of Harbans Singh
and also under Section 307 of IPC for attempting to murder Sukhchain Singh.
He (Surain Singh) was further convicted under Section 324 of IPC. Rest of
the accused Jhanda Singh, Jasmail Singh and Pal Singh were convicted under
Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 324/34 of IPC. After hearing the sentence, the
trial court sentenced the convicts to various sentences.

9. Convicts Surain Singh, Jhanda Singh, Jasmail Singh and Pal Singh
challenged their conviction before the High Court, and by the impugned
order the High Court allowed appeal of Jhanda Singh, Jasmail Singh and Pal
Singh, but appeal of Surain Singh was dismissed. The connected appeal No.
568 DBA of 1998 filed by the State qua Darshan Singh against order of his
acquittal was allowed, and he was convicted under Section 302 of IPC for
committing murder of Santa Singh and sentenced to imprisonment for life and
directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default clause. He was further
convicted under Section 324 of IPC for voluntarily causing hurt with a
deadly weapon on person of Gursewak Singh and Raj Singh and sentenced to
rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.
1,000/- with default clause. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated
02.09.2008, passed by the High Court, this appeal is filed by accused
Darshan Singh who was acquitted by the trial court, but order of acquittal
was reversed and was convicted by the High Court.

10. Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, Senior Advocate, on behalf of the appellant, has
argued before us that where two views are possible on the basis of evidence
on record, the High Court should not have reversed the order of acquittal
recorded by trial court. It is further contended that appellant Darshan
Singh was discharging his duties in the school on 17.02.1995 and was not
present at the place of incident when occurrence took place and as such,
the acquittal recorded by the trial court was not liable to be interfered
with. Our attention is drawn to the evidence adduced in defence in support
of plea of alibi.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State pointed out that in
the incident in question, while Surain Singh committed murder of Harbans
Singh, the appellant (Darshan Singh) committed murder of Santa Singh. It is
further submitted that plea of alibi taken by the defence was correctly
found false by the High Court after re-appreciation of evidence. Learned
counsel for the State referred to the statements of injured eye witnesses.

12. We have considered rival submissions and perused the entire record of
the case. There are three injured eye witnesses in the present case,
namely, PW-1 Amrik Singh, PW-2 Sukhchain Singh and PW-3 Raj Singh. It is a
case of day light incident. Injuries on the person of said eye witnesses
have been corroborated by PW-4 Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu, PW-5 Dr. Manjit
Singh and PW-14 Dr. S.P. Singla. Ocular testimony of eye witnesses cannot
be discarded lightly. Once the prosecution has discharged its burden, the
burden to prove that appellant Darshan Singh was not present with other
accused at the place of incident and had gone elsewhere, lies on him.
Injured eye witnesses have assigned specific role as to how he assaulted
Santa Singh who suffered ante mortem injuries which gets corroborated from
the autopsy report of Santa Singh. There are as many as five stabbed wounds
out of the six ante mortem injuries. The same are being reproduced below
from autopsy report of Santa Singh:-
“1. Transverse stab wound 3 x 0.5 cm was present on the anterior side of
chest on the left side, 6 cms below and lateral to left nipple at 4.00 O’
clock position. C.B.P was present. On dissection, it is going in wards and
medially through 6th inter costal space, piercing the pericardium and left
vertical. Pericardial sac contains about 200 C.C of fluid blood.

2. Transverse stab wound 3 x 0.5 cm on the lateral side of left side of
chest 6 cms lateral to the injury no.1. It was bone deep C.B.P.

3. Transverse stab wound 2 x 0.5 cm was present at the back of the left
side of abdomen 3 cms lateral to midline and 15 cm above the posterior
superior iliac spine of left side on dissection, the peritoneum large
intestia was cut. Peritoneal cavity contained about 500 C.C. of fluid and
clotted blood.

4. Transverse stab wound 2.5 x 0.5 cm was present on the back of the left
side of abdomen, 6 cms lateral to the injury no.3 C.B.P. It was skin deep.

5. An oblique stab wound 1.5 x 25 cm on the back of left side of chest, 2
cms from the midline and 20 cms below the nape of the neck, it was bone
deep C.B.P.

6. A transverse stab wound 4 x 0.5 cms on the back of left side of
chest, 5 cms from the midline and 12 cms below the nape of the neck. C.B.P.
It was bone deep.”

13. From the record, PW-1 Amrik Singh (eye witness) appears to have
suffered following injuries at the time of the incident:-
“2.4cm x 1cm incised wound-10.5 cms below and posterior to left
shoulder joint. X-ray of left shoulder joint advised.

Injury was kept under observation and duration was within 6 hours
weapon used was sharp weapon”

Injuries were declared simple in nature as per x-ray report and was
result of a sharp weapon.”

14. Another eye witness PW-2 Sukhchain Singh found to have suffered
following injuries as per the injury report proved on the record:-
“1. 1.0 cm x 0.25 cm incised wound on the middle of forehead. X-ray
advised.

2. 2 cm x 1 cm incised wound on right side of chest 17 cms from
xiphisternum. Profuse bleeding was present. X-ray advised.

3. 3 x 2 cms incised wound on right lumber region-10 cms below
injury no.2. Surgical opinion and X-ray advised.”

15. Third eye witness PW-3 Raj Singh suffered following injuries on the
date of incident, as proved on the record:-
“1. 1.9 cm x 1 incised wound in right Gluteal region-6 ½ cms below the
right. Anterior superior iliac spine. X-ray advised.

2. 2cms x 1 cm incised wound on right lower chest. Bonedeep 22 cms below
the right anterior, Axillary fold-17 cms below and slightly lateral to
right memory gland. Surgical opinion was advised.”

16. Now, we come to the defence plea of appellant Darshan Singh which was
accepted by the trial court but rejected by the High Court. There is no
cavil over the fact that appellant Darshan Singh was posted as Lab
Assistant with the Senior Secondary School, Janerian. After carefully going
through the statements of defence witnesses and other evidence on record,
we agree with the High Court that accused Darshan Singh has taken false
plea of alibi. It is proved on the record that in the proceedings under
Section 107/151 of Cr.PC before Executive Magistrate, Faridkot, he was to
be present in said case on 17.02.1995. His presence and role is narrated
in detail by the injured eye witnesses. In view of his role in the incident
narrated by the eye witnesses, it is hard to believe that after moving
application on 16.02.1995 for casual leave for 17.02.1995, Darshan Singh
attended the school next day in the first half and sought half day leave
thereafter. The attendance register was not seized immediately after the
incident. His plea of alibi is vacillating.

17. The word alibi means “elsewhere”. The plea of alibi is not one of
the General Exceptions contained in Chapter IV of IPC. It is a rule of
evidence recognized under Section 11 of the Evidence Act. However, plea of
alibi taken by the defence is required to be proved only after prosecution
has proved its case against the accused. In the present case said condition
is fulfilled.

18. After scrutinizing the entire evidence on record, we do not find any
illegality in appreciation of evidence, or in arriving at the conclusion as
to the guilt of the present appellant by the High Court.

19. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we find no force in this
appeal which liable to be dismissed.

20. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Appellant be taken into
custody by the court concerned to make him serve out the remaining part of
sentence, awarded by the High Court.

………………….....…………J.
[Dipak Misra]

.………………….……………J.
[Prafulla C. Pant]
New Delhi;
January 06, 2016.

Back to Judgments