Miss Lucy
Try free
← All judgments

Shingara Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another

Supreme Court4 November 2003N. Santosh Hegde · B.P. Singh

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

When a High Court reviews an acquittal on appeal, it may re-appreciate the entire evidence on record; but if it finds that the view taken by the trial court is a possible and reasonable view of the evidence, it will not substitute its own opinion for that of the trial court. The High Court may only reverse an acquittal where it finds the trial court's findings to be unreasonable or perverse, or that the court committed a serious error of law, or recorded findings in ignorance of relevant material or upon inadmissible evidence. Where two reasonable views of the evidence are possible on the record, the view favouring the accused must be accepted. In cases of acquittal, if the trial court's view is a possible reasonable view of the evidence, the High Court's interference is not justified. A material change in the evidence given by witnesses between their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and their testimony in court—where the change is deliberate and serves to bring the prosecution case into consonance with medical evidence—may impeach the credibility of those witnesses and support a finding that the trial court's alternative view of the occurrence is reasonable. Medical evidence establishing the trajectory and direction of injuries may be determinative of the relative positions of the victim and the person firing a weapon at the time of the incident. Where medical evidence indicates a projectile was fired from a lower level to a higher level, and prosecution witnesses testify to the contrary, the divergence between their initial statements and trial testimony must be scrutinised as to whether it represents a deliberate tailoring to conform to the medical findings rather than a genuine recollection. The absence of items from a site plan prepared by investigating officers—such as a ladder, bicycle, or cots—when those items are stated by witnesses to have been present at the scene, may reasonably lead to doubt whether the prosecution's version of events is accurate, particularly where witnesses cannot satisfactorily explain the omissions. A private party's criminal revision petition against an order of acquittal cannot result in the conviction of the accused; such a revision may become infructuous where the State has preferred an appeal which is allowed.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

CASE NO.:Appeal (crl.) 682-683 of 1996
PETITIONER:Shingara Singh
RESPONDENT:State of Haryana and another
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/11/2003
BENCH:N. SANTOSH HEGDE & B.P. SINGH
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENTWITHSPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS.2106-2108 OF 1996
B.P. SINGH, J.
The appellants in these appeals and special leavepetitions are Suba Singh (A-1) and his son Shingara Singh(A-2). They were both tried by the Additional SessionsJudge, Sirsa in Sessions Trial No.46 of 1991 chargedvariously of offences under Sections 302, 307, 302/34,307/34 IPC and under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. Thelearned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment andorder dated March 6, 1992 acquitted A-2 of all the chargeslevelled against him but found A-1 guilty of the offenceunder Section 304 Part I holding that he had exceeded hisright of private defence. Accordingly, he sentenced A-1 toundergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years andto pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default further to undergorigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Both theappellants were acquitted of other charges levelled againstthem.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Criminal Appeal No. 375-DBAof 1992 was preferred by the State of Haryana before theHigh Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh against theacquittal of A-2 under Sections 302 and 307 read withSection 34 IPC. Suba Singh preferred Criminal Appeal No.105-SB of 1992 against his conviction under Section 304Part I IPC, while the informant Balbir Singh preferred aCriminal Revision No.68 of 1993 against the sameimpugned judgment and order acquitting the appellants ofthe other charges levelled against them. The two Appealsand the Criminal Revision have been disposed of by acommon judgment and order of the High Court dated March6, 1992. The High Court allowed the appeal filed by theState and held A-2 guilty of the offence under sections 302and 307 IPC. A-1 was found guilty and convicted underSection 302/34 and 307/34 IPC. A-1 was also found guiltyof the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. A-2 hasbeen sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default toundergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years. Hehas also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonmentfor 10 years under Section 307 IPC and to pay a fine ofRs.5,000/- in default to undergo further rigorousimprisonment for one year. A-1 has been sentenced toundergo life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC and topay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo furtherrigorous imprisonment for ten years. Under Section 307/34IPC he has been sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- indefault to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for oneyear. While so allowing the appeal preferred by the Statethe High Court has in a mechanical manner allowed theCriminal Revision preferred by the informant, which ineffect had become infructuous since an appeal had beenpreferred by the State which was ultimately allowed. In anyevent a Criminal Revision preferred by a private partyagainst an order of acquittal could not result in theconviction of the accused.
The Criminal Appeal preferred by A-1 against hisconviction under Section 304 Part I was also disposed of inthe above terms.
The appellant Shingara Singh has preferred CriminalAppeal Nos. 682-683 of 1996 while A-1 Suba Singh haspreferred Special Leave Petition Nos. 2106-2108 of 1996.In the Special Leave Petition notice was issued with thedirection that the matter be heard along with CriminalAppeal Nos. 682-683 of 1996 preferred by A-2. In fact,there was no need for A-1 to file a Special Leave Petitionsince in view of the provisions of Section 380 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, an appealable judgment and orderhaving been passed against co-accused Shingara Singh, A-2,appellant Suba Singh, A-1 also had a right of appeal to thisCourt. However, we grant special leave to Suba Singh andproceed to dispose of these appeals by this commonjudgment and order.
A-1, Suba Singh and Gurdeep Singh (father of thedeceased) lived in adjoining houses in Village Chak Sahban.Suba Singh, A-1 and Gurdeep Singh are married to twosisters and are therefore related as co-brothers. A-2,Shingara Singh is the son of Suba Singh while the deceasedSurinder Singh was the son-in-law of Gurdeep Singh. It isnot in dispute that the courtyard of the two houses areadjacent divided by a common wall. The courtyard ofGurdeep Singh is at a slightly higher level than the courtyardof A-1, Suba Singh. The case of the prosecution is thatGurdeep Singh sold away his lands in village Chak Sahbanand purchased lands in village Mallewala. He also intendedto sell his house in village Chak Sahban and with that inview he had entered into an agreement with A-1, Suba Singhto sell his house in the village for a sum of Rs.52,000/-.According to the prosecution, A-1 Suba Singh failed to paythe amount within the time stipulated and therefore a disputearose between him and Gurdeep Singh. On July 1, 1991 thematter was settled by a Panchayat consisting of relatives ofthe parties who are themselves interrelated. In Panchayat itwas settled that A-1 Suba Singh will purchase the house andwill pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- by way of consideration. It isnot in dispute that immediately after the decision of thePanchayat A-1, Suba Singh actually paid a sum ofRs.45,000/- to Gurdeep Singh and honoured the decision ofthe Panchayat.
The case of the prosecution is that later in the day atabout 6.30 p.m. Balbir Singh, PW-5 Raghbir Singh son ofGurdeep Singh, Rur Singh, PW-6, Jagdip Singh andGurdeep Singh were taking meals in the courtyard ofGurdeep Singh. According to the evidence produced by theprosecution there were cots on which food was being servedby Gian Kaur, PW-7, wife of Gurdeep Singh. The case ofthe prosecution is that Suredner Singh (deceased) son-in-lawof Gurdeep Singh wanted to take away his cycle whichrested against the common wall of his courtyard. While hewas doing so the appellants climbed up the common wallwith the help of a ladder. While A-1 was empty handed, A-2 was carrying a licenced gun belonging to his father. A-1exhorted his son to kill Surinder Singh since he had beenhelping his father-in-law in the dispute relating to thepurchase of the house in the village. A-2, thereafter fired atSurinder Singh injuring him on his forehead as a result ofwhich he fell down. Gian Kaur, PW-7 rushed to the rescueof her son-in-law but A-2 shot at her also causing injury onthe dorsal aspect of her right hand. On alarm being raisedboth the appellants ran away.
After leaving the dead body in the care of Jeet Singhwho had come there by then, Balbir Singh, PW-5 left for thepolice station. After covering a distance of two kilometershe boarded a tractor and came to Sirsa where he metSukhdev Singh to whom he narrated the incident. They,thereafter, went to the police station Sadar and PW-5 lodgeda report at 10 p.m.
Sub Inspector, Pohp Singh, PW-10, the InvestigatingOfficer came to the place of occurrence and held inquestover the body of Surinder Singh. He, thereafter arranged toget the body sent for post mortem examination. He alsolifted blood stained earth from the place of occurrence.Thereafter, he went to the hospital and in the early morningof July 2, 1991 recorded the statement of Gian Kaur, PW-7and Rur Singh, PW-6. He again came back to the place ofoccurrence and prepared a rough site plan Ex. RR.
Dr. Beena Garg, PW-1 conducted the post mortemexamination on the body of Surinder Singh at the GeneralHospital, Sirsa on July 2, 1991 at 10 a.m.. She found thefollowing ante-mortem injuries on the person of deceased,Surinder Singh.
"1. A lacerated wound with inverted margins of2.5 cm. x 2 cm. on the middle of fore-head 4 cm. abovethe base of nose on mid line. Abrasion of 2 cm area insize was present surrounding this wound. Underlyingbones were fractured. Brain matter was seen to thewhole on dissection. Underlying bone fractured.Direction of the wound was upward and posteriorly.There was opening of 1.5 cm. x 1 cm. on the top ofoccipital bone in the midline. There was fracture offrontal both pariet alright temporal and occipital bone.Small pieces of bone were present in fractured area ofoccipital bone. Two flatent metallic pieces wererecovered from this area. These pieces were sealed andhanded over to the police.
2. 2.5 cm x 1 cm lacerated wound with covertedmargins present over the left frontal area, 5 cm above thelateral margins of left eye brow. Underlying bones werefractured. On dissection there was communication ofinjuries No.2 and 3. Direction of the track was slightlyupward-backward and medially.
3. Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm with evertedmargins over the left temporal region of scalp, 6 cm fromthe pinna of left ear. On dissection, the underlying bonewas found fractured."
According to PW-1, the death was due to injuries tothe brain caused by a fire arms. The injuries were sufficientto cause death in the ordinary course of nature and the timethat elapsed between the death and the post mortemexamination was 12 to 24 hours. Having regard to thenature of injuries she opined that firing must have been donefrom lower level to higher level. Deceased must have beenat a higher level than the person firing the gun. There wereno blackening scars around the wounds.
The case of the prosecution is that the accused werearrested on July 3, 1991. Shingara Singh, A-2 producedbefore the Investigating Officer the licenced gun of hisfather (A-1) which was taken into possession by theInvestigating Officer. Suba Singh, A-1 is said to haveproduced two empty and four live cartridges which werealso taken into possession.
On July 4, 1991 the site plan was drawn up by thedraftsman, PW-4 which was marked Exh.P-E. The said siteplan shows that the height of the wall on the side of thecourtyard of Gurdeep Singh was 4 feet 4 inches. Accordingto PW-4 he prepared the site plan as pointed out to him byBalbir Singh, PW-5 and Raghbir Singh.
After investigation, the appellants were put up for trialvariously charged as noticed earlier. The defence of theappellant Suba Singh as stated by him in his examinationunder Section 313 Cr.P.C. was that the occurrence did nottake place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. Headmitted that a Panchayat was convened for resolving thedispute relating to the purchase of land by him. He alsoadmitted that in view of the settlement arrived at he paid asum of Rs.45,000/- to Gurdeep Singh. However, he deniedthat he climbed up the wall with the help of a ladder andexhorted his son Shingara Singh to kill Surinder Singh, whowas taking away his cycle which rested against the commonwall. He stated that it was Surinder Singh (deceased) whohad climbed the wall and was resorting to brick batting.With folded hands he requested him not to do so. At thattime his son Shingara Singh, A-2 was not present. Despitehis pleadings, Surinder Singh (deceased) removed the bricksfrom the wall and threw them at him which hit him. GianKaur, PW-7 was supplying brick bats to Surinder Singhfrom the wall. Surinder Singh (deceased) shouted that hehad got the amount reduced by Rs.7,000/-. When this washappening he went inside his house, brought his gun andfired shots in his self defence which might have hit him. Hestated that he had himself produced the gun before theInvestigating Officer as also the two empties on the veryfirst day i.e. July 1, 1991. A false case has been made outagainst him and his son. In fact, his son was in the fields atthe time of occurrence but he had been falsely implicated onaccount of his being his only son. Witness PW-6, Rur Singhhad old enmity with him and he had also appeared as awitness against him in a civil case prior to the occurrence.Same is the defence of Shingara Singh, A-2.
At the trial, the prosecution mainly relied upon thetestimony of three alleged eye witnesses viz. Balbir SinghPW-5, Rur Singh PW-6 and Gian Kaur, PW-7. It alsoappears from the record that though some other witnesseswere cited by the prosecution they were given up as beingunnecessary which included Gurdeep Singh, Raghbir Singh,Jagbir Singh and some others.
The Trial Court on consideration of the evidence onrecord came to the conclusion that the prosecution case asalleged was not true and that the occurrence took place in allprobability in the manner alleged by the defence. It noticedthat all the three aforesaid eye witnesses had stated earlierthat both the appellants had climbed the common wall andfrom there the firing took place resulting in injuries toSurinder Singh (deceased) and Gian Kaur, PW-7. Thisversion was given by PW-5 in his FIR and the same versionwas repeated by PWs 6 and 7 in their statements recordedunder Section 161 Cr. P.C.. However, at the trial all thethree witnesses consistently gave a different version so as tobring the prosecution case in accord with the findings of theMedical Officer who had opined, having regard to the natureof injuries, that the injured must have been at a higher levelthan the person using the fire arm. If really, the appellantshad climbed the wall and A-2 fired at Surinder Singh,trajectory of the pellets would have shown a downwardmovement and not an upward movement as found by theMedical Officer. At the Trial all the three witnesseschanged their version by stating that only A-1, Suba Singhclimbed on the wall with the help of a ladder, while his sonShingara Singh, A-2 was still on the ladder and had notclimbed the wall. He was standing on the ladder in amanner that only his face was visible from the courtyard ofGurdeep Singh. He placed the barrel of the gun on the walland without resting the butt of the gun against his shoulder,fired at Surinder Singh. In this manner, it was sought to beprojected that Surinder Singh was at a higher level than thelevel of the weapon of Shingara Singh, A-2 when he firedthe gun. The Trial Court concluded that the tailored versiongiven by the witnesses for the first time in the witness boxwas only with a view to bring the prosecution case in accordwith the medical evidence on record and to negative the caseof the defence that it was Surinder Singh, who was standingon the wall while the firing took place from the groundlevel.
The Trial Court also found that Suba Singh, A-1 hadsix injuries on his person. On being arrested he was sent formedical examination by the Investigating Officer and wasexamined by Dr. Chaudhary, DW-1 who found thefollowing injuries on his person:-
"1. A bruise 4 x 2 cm on dorsolateral aspect of metacarpal of indexfinger, with abrasion 1 cm x linear in thespace between right index finger andthumb on dorsal aspect. Soft scalp oflight brown colour was present andcolour of bruise was brownish.
Tenderness was present and x-ray wasadvised.
2. A lacerated wound 2 cm x 2 cmx skin and tissue deep on the back of theleft leg, on lateral side, 7 cm above thesole of the left foot. Serious fluid exudedfrom the wound. The granolation tissuewas visible at places and edges of thewound were irregular and inflamed, withswelling of adjacent parts.
3. Swelling 2 x 1 cm on the top ofscalp, left to the midline and 12 cm fromthe base of nose.
4. Bruise 4 x 2 cm on left scapularregion above its upper border, placedhorizently of brownish colour.
5. Complaint of pain on the rightside of chest and infera axillary region,with tenderness.
6. Abrasion = cm x linear on theback of the right elbow."
It will be noticed from the above injuries that one ofthe injuries was on the scalp and caused by a bluntsubstance. The possibility of these injuries being caused bybrick-bats could not be ruled out. In cross- examination Dr.Chaudhary admitted that the possibility of all the injuriesexcept No.3 having been caused by friendly hands could notbe ruled out. The Trial Court, therefore, concluded that thepresence of injuries on Suba Singh, A-1 which had not beenexplained by the prosecution supported the defence versionand rendered it probable. Though the injuries were found tobe simple in nature and could have been self inflicted aswell, it was difficult to believe that so many injuries couldbe self suffered by the accused.
The Trial Court found that the other evidence onrecord also supported the defence version and rendered itprobable. The Investigating Officer, PW-10 admitted in hiscross-examination that when he visited the place ofoccurrence he had found that some of the bricks had beenremoved from the common wall. It was the case of thedefence that Surinder Singh (deceased) had thrown bricks atSuba Singh, A-1 from top of the wall. Though it was thecase of the prosecution that A-1 climbed the wall and A-2stood on the ladder and fired at the deceased, in the site planExh. P-R which was prepared by the Investigating Officeron July 2, 1991, the ladder has not been shown at all. Asecond site plan was drawn to scale on July 4, 1991 by PW-4 which is Exh. P-E. In that plan the point where the cycleof the deceased had been kept has not been shown. PW-10explained by saying that in the site plan drawn by him Exh.P-R the cycle was shown at 'J'. He, however, admitted thatthe cycle was not taken into possession. The Trial Courtfound that point J the last point shown in the marginal notes,seems to have been interpolated later. These facts, thereforedo not support the case of the prosecution that SurinderSingh had gone to take his bicycle when he was fired uponby A-2 who had climbed on top of the wall with the help ofa ladder. The medical evidence was only consistent with thehypothesis, that having regard to the direction of the injuryon the head of Surinder Singh, he must have been at ahigher level when fired upon by someone who was at alower level. This was consistent with the case of the defencethat firing was resorted to from the ground level whenSurinder Singh (deceased) was throwing brick bats afterclimbing the common wall. The Trial Court also found thatRur Singh did not appear to be a reliable witness because hedenied the fact that A-1 had deposed against him in a CivilSuit. This statement was proved to be false and thedeposition of A-1 was produced before the Court whichproved the fact that A-1 had deposed against him in a Civilsuit and this also established that Rur Singh was not ongood terms with A-1.
Having regard all aspects of the matter the Trial Courtconcluded that the defence version appeared to be moreprobable. It was also consistent with the medical evidenceon record. The prosecution witnesses had made vitalimprovements in their deposition with a view to make theirevidence consistent with the medical evidence on record.The prosecution failed to explain the injuries suffered by A-
1. The fact that some bricks had been removed from top ofthe common wall supported the defence case that SurinderSingh (deceased) had thrown bricks at A-1. The existenceof ladder and cycle was rendered doubtful because they werenot even shown in the site plans prepared by theprosecution. Moreover, the appellants not only produced thegun but also the empties which were found to have beenfired from the same gun. The Trial Court also consideredthe question as to whether there was any motive on the partof the appellants to commit the offence. It found that theappellants could have no motive to commit the offencebecause the dispute if any was amicably settled by thePanchayat and respecting the decision of the Panchayat A-1had promptly paid Rs.45,000/- to Gurdeep Singh. Havingdone so, there was no reason for them to commit theoffence. On the other hand, so far as Gurdeep Singh and hisfamily members are concerned, they may have reconciled tothe fact that they had to receive Rs.7,000/- less than theamount agreed to be paid, but Surinder Singh being a youngperson was angry and aggrieved on account of the fact thatthe Panchayat had reduced the price of the house to be soldby his father-in-law. The motive if any could be entertainedonly by Surinder Singh and not by the appellants. However,as observed by the Trial Court motive was not of muchsignificance in a case where the prosecution sought to proveits case by direct evidence of eye witnesses. The TrialCourt, therefore, concluded that the occurrence took place inthe manner stated by the defence. In all probability ShingaraSingh, A-2 was not present when the occurrence took place.However, it held that though A-1, Suba Singh had a right ofprivate defence, he certainly exceeded that right in as muchas the facts and circumstances did not justify his using theweapon in such a manner as to cause the death of SurinderSingh (deceased). He, therefore, found him guilty of theoffence punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC.
In the appeals the High Court has reversed thefindings recorded by the Trial Court. The High Court heldthat the Trial Court was not justified in holding that thedefence version was more probable since all the threewitnesses had improved upon their statements under Section161 Cr.P.C. and made significant changes while deposingbefore the Trial Court. The High Court considered thedeposition of these three witnesses namely PWs 5, 6 and 7and came to the conclusion that they had not stated that thefiring was resorted to from the ground level. Theirdeposition in Court proved that Shingara Singh, A-2 whileon the ladder fired at Surinder Singh.

In our view, the High Court has completely missed the significance of the finding recorded by the Trial Court. The Trial Court found that in the FIR as also statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. the witnesses had clearly mentioned that both the appellants had climbed on top of the wall and from there Shingara Singh, A-2 fired at Surinder Singh. If this version were to be accepted, the injury caused would not have been of the nature found by the Medical Officer who was clearly of the opinion, having regard to the trajectory of injuries, that the person firing the fire arm was at a lower level than the victim. Therefore, with a view to bring their case in consonance with the medical evidence on record, all the three witnesses made significant changes while deposing in Court and all of them thereafter consistently stated that while A-1 had climbed on top of the wall A-2 stood on the ladder in such a manner that only his face was visible from across the wall and while standing in that position, keeping the barrel of the gun on the wall and without resting the butt of the gun against his shoulder, he fired at the deceased. There was no dispute that their deposition in Court was consistent, but what was observed by the trial court was that their version as to the manner of occurrence as deposed to by them was at variance with what was stated in the first information report by PW 5, and in the statements of PWs 6 and 7 recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. When confronted with their earlier statements, they could not give a satisfactory explanation, with the result that their credibility was sufficiently impeached. The change of version by each one of them, and to the same effect, was deliberate and not merely accidental or an account of lapse of memory. It cannot be disputed that this was a very significant change. It cannot also be disputed that the change was deliberately made by all the witnesses, so that the prosecution case became consistent with the medical evidence on record. We, therefore, do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in coming to this conclusion.

The High Court then held that the upward direction of the wound could be on account of deflection of the metallic pieces of the bullet after striking the occipital bone. In the first instance there is no basis for this speculation. No such question was put to the doctor PW-1, Beena Garg, nor is there any other evidence to support this finding. Moreover, this was not a case of bullet being fired at the deceased. The doctor found pellet injuries caused to the deceased. The pellets having penetrated the skull bone, there was no possibility of its deflection because the brain matter is soft and cannot cause deflection of pellets or bullet. Be that as it may, it cannot be readily inferred, having regard to the evidence of the prosecution itself, that the direction of the injury was otherwise and not as found by PW-1. The finding that the pellet must have got deflected is at best speculative.

The High Court then found that the failure of the prosecution to explain the injuries on Suba Singh, A-1 did not affect the case of the prosecution. The reason assigned by the High Court is that he was not medically examined on the same day but was got examined by the police two days later, on July 3, 1991. This reason does not impress us because the medical evidence on record is consistent with the injuries having been caused at about the time of occurrence. The High Court then observed that according to the doctor the injuries except one could be self suffered. It therefore jumped to the conclusion that all the injuries may have been self suffered. It is possible for one to conjecture that the injuries may have been self suffered, but that does not provide a good reason for setting aside a finding of fact recorded by the Trial Court which came to the conclusion that A-1, Suba Singh resorted to firing when Surinder Singh (deceased) threw brick bats at him. The evidence of the Investigating Officer, PW-10 also disclosed that some bricks had been removed form top of the wall where the firing took place. Unfortunately, the Investigating Officer does not appear to have bothered to inspect the courtyard of the accused and therefore it is not possible to conjecture as to whether some brick bats were lying in the court yard of the accused, which may have further supported the defence case. The High court has observed that no such brick bats were found on the spot, but in doing so the High Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence of the Investigating Officer who does not appear to have at all inspected the courtyard of the accused. The High Court, further, observed that removal of the bricks from the wall would have been shown by the Investigating Officer in the site plan and also by the drafts-man who prepared another site plan, but these two witnesses have not shown the removal of the bricks from the wall in the site plans prepared by them. No doubt it is so, but what the High Court has failed to notice is the factual statement made by PW-10, the Investigating Officer who after consulting the case diary stated before the Court that he had noted the fact that some of the bricks had been removed from the common wall.

If such be the factual position, the failure to show that in the site plans cannot prejudice the case of the defence. The High Court then found that the appellants had a motive to commit the offence and it held so for the reason that A-1, Suba Singh had to make payment and part with money to buy the house after he had backed out of the agreement. In our view, having regard to the fact that the price of the house had been reduced by the Panchayat, Suba Singh, A-1 could hardly entertain a grudge on this account. Moreover, he readily paid Rs.45,000/- to Gurdeep Singh immediately after the settlement, before the occurrence took place on that day, which only shows that he was more than happy to buy the house at a reduced price. Therefore, in our view, he had no motive to commit the offence and we entirely agree with the finding of the trial court in this regard.

By its impugned judgment the High court reversed the order of acquittal in so far as Shingara Singh, A-2 is concerned and convicted him of the offence under section 302 IPC. It further convicted accused No.1 Suba Singh of the offence under section 302 read with section 34 IPC instead of section 304, Part I for which he was convicted by the trial court. We are of the view that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the order of acquittal of A-2 under section 302 IPC having regard to the facts of the case. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal the High Court is entitled to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record but having done so if it finds that the view taken by the trial court is a possible reasonable view of the evidence on record, it will not substitute its opinion for that of the trial court. Only in cases where the High Court finds that the findings recorded by the trial court are unreasonable or perverse or that the court has committed a serious error of law, or where the trial court had recorded its findings in ignorance of relevant material on record or by taking into consideration evidence which is not admissible, the High Court may be justified in reversing the order of acquittal. We do not find this case to be one where the High Court was justified in reversing the findings recorded by the trial court. At best, it may be contended that the view taken by the High Court is also a reasonable view of the evidence on record. However, we cannot say that the view taken by the trial court was not another reasonable view of the evidence on record. It is well settled that where two views are reasonably possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the one that favours the accused must be accepted. In any event in a case of acquittal if the view of the trial court is a possible reasonable view of the evidence on record, interference by the High Court may not be justified. Apart from the reasons given by the trial court we find that there are many other features which create a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. The case of the prosecution was that the prosecution witnesses and others were having their meals at about 6.30 p.m. sitting on cots in the court-yard of Gurdeep Singh. PW-5, Balbir Singh has stated that there were three such cots lying in the courtyard of Gurdeep Singh when PW-10 the Investigating Officer came there. But he further admits that the existence of these cots is not sown in the site plan prepared by him nor was it shown in the site plan prepared by PW-4.

The second aspect of the prosecution case is that the cycle of Surinder Singh was resting against the common wall and when he went to bring the cycle he was shot at by Shingara Singh A-2. However, PW-10, the Investigating Officer has admitted in his deposition that the cycle was not shown in the site plan prepared by him. He then stated that it was shown in the site plan Ex. PR at J shown in the note. The trial court looked at the site plan and came to the conclusion that the note in the site plan showing the presence of the bi-cycle was an interpolation. We also had a look at the site plan Ex. PR and we are not in a position to say that the trial court was not justified in making that observation.

So far as the ladder is concerned, PW-5, Balbir Singh stated that the ladder was in the same position when the Investigating Officer came to the place of occurrence but he could not explain why it was not shown in the site plan prepared by the police. Even PW-10 the Investigating officer had to admit that in the site plan the position of the ladder was not shown. These features of the prosecution case also support the conclusion reached by the trial court that the occurrence must have taken place in a manner different than the one deposed to by the alleged eye witnesses. The evidence on record with regard to the existence of cots in the court-yard of Gurdeep Singh, the existence of a bicycle, as also about the existence of a ladder is rather unsatisfactory and creates a serious doubt as to whether the prosecution witnesses are telling the truth. The omission to show them in both the site plans cannot be attributed to a mere lapse on the part of the investigating agency. In fact so far as the site plans are concerned, the case of the prosecution is that they were prepared in the presence of PW 5 and another witness and on their pointing. However, PW 5 denied that the plans were prepared in his presence. The other witness was not examined.

We are, therefore, of the considered view that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the order of acquittal passed in favour Shingara Singh, A-2. On appreciation of the evidence on record it appears to us that the occurrence in all probability may have taken place in the manner alleged by the defence, and not in the manner alleged by the prosecution. If that be so we must hold that Shingara Singh, A-2 was not even present when the occurrence took place. He, therefore, is entitled to acquittal.

However, so far as the case of Suba Singh, A-1 is concerned, we agree with the findings of the trial court that he had exceeded the right of private defence. In the facts and circumstances of the case there was no justification for using his gun in such a manner as to cause the death of the deceased. We, therefore, find him guilty of the offence under section 304 Part I IPC but in the facts and circumstances of the case sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine he shall undergo imprisonment for further period of one year.

Accordingly the appeals preferred by Shingara Singh, A-2 are allowed. The appeals preferred by Suba Singh, A-1, are partly allowed and he is found guilty of the offence punishable under section 304 Part I IPC instead of section 302 IPC and sentenced as indicated above.

L.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T....R. Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited#Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh#2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey and Ors.#State of Bihar#2003-11-25#25623#104-106#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 10906 of 1996#1996#Shanti Kumar Panda#Shakutala Devi#2003-11-03#25624#10906#R.C. LAHOTI### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 11483 of 1996#1996#Amrendra Pratap Singh#Tej Bahadur Prajapati & Ors.#2003-11-21#25625#11483#R.C. LAHOTI### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 9130 of 2003#2003#Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd.#Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd.#2003-11-18#25626#9130#CJI### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 14178-14184 of 1996#1996#Brij Behari Sahai (Dead) through L.Rs., etc. etc.#State of Uttar Pradesh#2003-11-28#25627#14178-14184#Doraiswamy Raju### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 1968 of 1996#1996#Goa Plast (P) Ltd.#Chico Ursula D'Souza#2003-11-20#25628#1968#B.P. Singh### Writ Petition (crl.)#Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003#2003#Ashok Kumar Pandey#The State of West Bengal#2003-11-18#25629#199#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 20 of 2003#2003#Surendra Paswan#State of Jharkhand#2003-11-28#25630#20#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 278 of 1997#1997#Vidyadharan#State of Kerala#2003-11-14#25631#278#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 292 of 1997#1997#State of Madhya Pradesh.#Awadh Kishore Gupta and Ors.#2003-11-18#25632#292#DORAISWAMY RAJU### ###State of Punjab & Anr.#M/s Devans Modern Brewaries Ltd. & Anr.#2003-11-20#25633##CJI.### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 331 of 1997#1997#Shriram#State of Madhya Pradesh#2003-11-24#25634#331#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 3630-3631 of 2003#2003#The Prohibition & Excise Supdt., A.P. & Ors.#Toddy Tappers Coop. Society, Marredpally & Ors.#2003-11-17#25635#3630-3631#CJI.### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 371-372 of 2003#2003#Ram Dular Rai & Ors.#State of Bihar#2003-11-27#25636#371-372#S.B. Sinha.### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4075-4081 of 1998#1998#Nair Service Society#Dist. Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors.#2003-11-17#25637#4075-4081#CJI.### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4698-4700 of 1994#1994#State of U.P. & Ors.#Lalji Tandon (Dead)#2003-11-03#25638#4698-4700#R.C. LAHOTI### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 506 of 1997#1997#State of Karnataka#Puttaraja#2003-11-27#25639#506#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 519-521 of 2003#2003#Goura Venkata Reddy Vs.#State of Andhra Pradesh#2003-11-19#25640#519-521#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 530-531 of 2003#2003#Bhargavan & Ors. #State of Kerala #2003-11-17#25641#530-531#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 7371 of 2002#2002#N.D. Thandani (Dead) By Lrs. #Arnavaz Rustom Printer & Anr. #2003-11-24#25642#7371#R.C. LAHOTI### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 9205-07 of 2003#2003#The Land Acquisition Officer, Nizamabad, District, Andhra Pradesh #Nookala Rajamallu and Ors. #2003-11-21#25643#9205-07#DORAISWAMY RAJU### Transfer Petition (crl.)#Transfer Petition (crl.) 77-78 of 2003#2003#K. Anbazhagan #The Superintendent of Police & ors.#2003-11-18#25644#77-78#S.N. VARIAVA### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 7868 of 1995#1995#ITW Signode India Ltd. #Collector of Central Excise #2003-11-19#25645#7868#CJI### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ### Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN. ###Appeal (crl.)#Appeal (crl.) 104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS 25671

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free