Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Stemming from Inter-Group Violence: Nishan Singh vs. State of Punjab (2008)

Date of the Judgment: March 7, 2008

Judges: S.B. Sinha, J and Harjit Singh Bedi, J

Did a procedural lapse during trial impact justice in a murder case? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the appeal of Nishan Singh v. State of Punjab. This case arose from a series of interconnected violent incidents, leading to charges under Section 302 (murder) and Section 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The bench, comprising Justices S.B. Sinha and Harjit Singh Bedi, examined whether procedural irregularities during the trial, specifically concerning the re-examination of witnesses, warranted overturning the conviction.

Case Background

The case involves a series of three interconnected incidents that occurred on or about June 30, 1999, stemming from an initial altercation. The incidents are as follows:

1. First Incident: At approximately 2:30 p.m., Rachhpal Singh, along with Sawinder Singh and Hardev Singh, had an altercation with Resham Singh. During this altercation, Rachhpal Singh inflicted knife injuries on Resham Singh’s right wrist and chest, resulting in Resham Singh’s death at the scene. The knife was picked up from Pargat Singh II. This incident is the subject of Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2007.

2. Second Incident: Following the murder of Resham Singh, an incident occurred involving Hardev Singh, Dilbagh Singh, and Baljit Singh. Sawinder Singh, armed with a gandasi (a type of axe), came to their house and started verbally abusing them. When Dilbagh Singh objected, Sawinder Singh struck him on the head with the gandasi. Pargat Singh II, who witnessed the murder of Resham Singh, arrived with his brother Mehal Singh. Pargat Singh II was armed with a rifle, while Mehal Singh was unarmed. Baljit Singh allegedly climbed onto the roof of a nearby Gurudwara (Sikh temple) and began throwing brickbats. Mehal Singh then incited Pargat Singh II to shoot Baljit Singh, resulting in Baljit Singh being shot in the left shoulder. Mehal Singh and Pargat Singh II then fled the scene.

3. Third Incident: Hardev Singh and Dilbagh Singh, along with the injured Baljit Singh, were being transported to Amritsar in a tractor trolley driven by Hardev Singh. While passing through Jasraur, near the house of Karaj Singh, they were intercepted by Pargat Singh-I and Nishan Singh, accompanied by Major Singh. Nishan Singh was armed with a .12 bore gun. Pargat Singh-I allegedly incited Nishan Singh to kill Hardev Singh, claiming that Hardev Singh had murdered his brother Resham Singh. Nishan Singh then fired a shot, hitting Hardev Singh in the left ear, causing the tractor to crash into Jagtar Singh’s house. Hardev Singh died on the spot. Additional shots were fired, injuring Sudagar Singh (a Chowkidar or watchman) and another person. Baljit Singh, Dilbagh Singh, and the Chowkidar were then taken to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital in a mini-bus. This incident led to the charges against Nishan Singh and Pargat Singh-I.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The legal framework relevant to this case primarily involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

• Section 302, IPC: Deals with the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 307, IPC: Addresses the attempt to commit murder. It specifies the punishment for acts done with the intention or knowledge to cause death.
• Section 34, IPC: Concerns acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

Arguments

The arguments presented by both the appellants and the State of Punjab are summarized below:

Arguments on behalf of the Appellants (Nishan Singh and Pargat Singh-I):

• Procedural Irregularity:
  • The primary argument was that after summoning Nishan Singh under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), Swaran Singh (PW1) was not examined-in-chief afresh but only tendered for cross-examination. This, they argued, violated sub-section 4 of Section 319 of CrPC, which mandates a de novo (fresh) trial, thereby vitiating the entire trial against Nishan Singh.
  • Illustration: Imagine a scenario where a key witness gives critical testimony implicating a newly added accused. If the court doesn’t allow the accused to hear the witness’s full testimony again and only provides an opportunity to question the witness, it deprives the accused of a fair chance to understand and challenge the evidence.
• Identity of Appellants:
  • The appellants contended that the courts below erred in identifying Pargat Singh, arguing that he was not involved in the first incident.
• Deposition of Sudagar Singh:
  • They highlighted that Sudagar Singh, the chowkidar (watchman) who was injured in the incident, stated that neither of the appellants was present during the shooting.
• Overt Act Attribution:
  • Nishan Singh’s counsel argued that while PW1 named Nishan Singh in his examination-in-chief, his cross-examination attributed the overt act of firing the shot to Pargat Singh-I. Therefore, a case against Nishan Singh could not stand.
• Reliability of Dilbagh Singh’s Evidence:
  • The appellants challenged the reliance on Dilbagh Singh’s testimony, arguing that his injuries, as described by D.W.2 Dr. Gurmanjit Rai, would have prevented him from witnessing the occurrence.
• Prosecution Case Inconsistency:
  • Given that the prosecution’s case involved Pargat Singh-I allegedly instigating the crime, the evidence suggesting Nishan Singh fired the shot should not be accepted.

Arguments on behalf of the Appellant (Rachhpal Singh):

• Lack of Intention:
  • Rachhpal Singh’s counsel argued that since he was unarmed and allegedly snatched the knife from Pargat Singh – II, he could not have had the intention to cause Resham Singh’s murder.
• Delayed Recording of Statements:
  • The defense claimed that the investigating officer recorded the witnesses’ statements six hours after the incident, making them unreliable.
• Interested Witnesses:
  • The defense argued that the prosecution witnesses were “interested” (biased), and the courts erred in relying on their testimonies.
• Acquittal of Sawinder Singh:
  • The defense argued that the lower courts failed to consider the implications of Sawinder Singh’s acquittal when assessing the evidence.

Arguments on behalf of the State of Punjab:

• Justification for Rachhpal Singh’s Conviction:
  • The State argued that Sawinder Singh’s acquittal was due to a lack of evidence against him, while the prosecution had successfully proven that Rachhpal Singh caused the injuries to Resham Singh.
• Compliance with Section 319 CrPC:
  • The State refuted the claim that Swaran Singh was not re-examined after Nishan Singh was summoned. They stated that charges were framed on November 30, 2001, and Swaran Singh was re-examined on September 5, 2003, as PW3, thus fulfilling the requirements of sub-section 4 of Section 319 CrPC.
• Lack of Prejudice:
  • The State contended that even if there were irregularities, Section 465 of the CrPC dictates that a conviction should not be reversed unless the accused suffered real prejudice.
• Common Intention:
  • The State argued that Nishan Singh and Pargat Singh were charged under Section 302/34 IPC, and since their common intention was established, it was unnecessary to prove specific overt acts by each of them.
• Reliability of Dilbagh Singh’s Evidence:
  • The State defended the acceptance of Dilbagh Singh’s evidence, stating that his brain injury was examined by DW2 three years after the incident.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether the trial against Nishan Singh was vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 319(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates a de novo trial when a new accused is summoned.
2. Whether the courts below erred in regard to the identity of the appellants, particularly Pargat Singh.
3. Whether the courts below failed to consider the deposition of Sudagar Singh, who stated that neither of the appellants was present when the incident took place.
4. Whether the conviction of Nishan Singh was sustainable given that PW1 attributed the overt act of firing the shot to Pargat Singh-I in his cross-examination.
5. Whether the reliance placed on the evidence of Dilbagh Singh was misplaced, considering the nature of injuries he suffered.
6. Whether Rachhpal Singh could be convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, given that he was not armed with any weapon and allegedly snatched the knife from Pargat Singh – II.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities

The court considered various cases and legal provisions while arriving at its decision:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Shashikant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh and Ors. [(2002) 3 SCR 400]: The court distinguished this case based on its specific factual matrix, noting that in the present case, the statutory requirements had been met.
• State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhooraji & Ors. [(2001) 7 SCC 679]: The court cited this case to support the principle that a trial conducted by a competent court should not be invalidated merely due to a procedural lapse, especially when it does not result in a failure of justice.
• Dr. M.C. Sulkunte v. State of Mysore [AIR 1971 SC 508]: This authority was used to reinforce the point that a conviction should only be set aside if there is a demonstrated miscarriage of justice resulting from an irregular investigation.
• Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.K. Sehgal & Anr. [(1999) 8 SCC 501]: The court referenced this case to highlight that an appellate court should not reverse a finding due to an error or irregularity in the sanction for prosecution unless it leads to a failure of justice.
• State of Haryana v. Ram Singh [2002 (1) SCR 208]: This case was cited to emphasize that while the Supreme Court is generally hesitant to intervene in concurrent findings of fact, it will do so if the finding suffers from perversity or procedural injustice.
• Sukhdev Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar [(2001) 8 SCC 86]: The court used this authority to assert that it has the ability to sift through evidence and determine the truth from witness testimonies.
• appabhai & Anr. v. State of Gujarat [1988 Supp.1 SCC 241]: This case was cited to support the argument that minor discrepancies that do not undermine the core of the prosecution’s case can be disregarded.
• Harendra Nath Mishra & Ors. v. State of Bihar [JT 2002 (10) SC 157]: The court cited this case to emphasize that determining an accused’s intention to kill must be based on the specific facts of each case.
• Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1958 SC 465]: This authority was referenced to guide the consideration of whether the intention was to inflict the injury that was actually inflicted.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court, in arriving at its decision to dismiss the appeals, placed significant emphasis on several key factors. The concurrent findings of the lower courts, the testimonies of injured witnesses, and the established motive of the accused played crucial roles in the Court’s reasoning. The Court carefully assessed the compliance with procedural laws and the reliability of the evidence presented.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

For the issue of whether the trial against Nishan Singh was vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 319(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

Evidence presented that Swaran Singh was re-examined as PW3 → Court assesses compliance with Section 319(4) CrPC → Court finds that Swaran Singh was examined in chief again on 5.9.2003 as PW3, after charges were framed afresh on 30th November, 2001 → Conclusion: Requirements of sub-section (4) of section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure complied with → Trial against Nishan Singh was not vitiated.

The court’s reasoning involved a step-by-step analysis of the facts, testimonies, and legal provisions. It considered alternative interpretations but ultimately rejected them based on the evidence and established legal principles. The decision was reached after a thorough evaluation of the case, ensuring a fair and just outcome.

Key quotes from the judgment:

• “Requirements of sub-section (4) of section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore, have been complied with in this case.”
• “The Courts below have clearly noticed the supportive role Pargat Singh-I and Pargat Singh-II.”
• “We do not see any reason to disbelieve his testimony.”

Key Takeaways

• Compliance with Section 319(4) CrPC is crucial when summoning a new accused.
• Courts rely on concurrent findings of lower courts unless there is perversity or procedural injustice.
• Testimonies of injured witnesses hold significant weight in criminal cases.
• Established motive strengthens the prosecution’s case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that compliance with Section 319(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is essential when summoning a new accused, and the absence of such compliance can vitiate the trial. However, the court also emphasized that procedural irregularities should not automatically lead to the reversal of a conviction unless they result in a failure of justice.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the conviction of the accused. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural laws while also ensuring that justice is not thwarted by minor irregularities. The judgment reinforces the principles of fair trial and the significance of reliable evidence in criminal proceedings.

Category

• Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Criminal Law
  • Murder
  • Attempt to Murder
  • Common Intention
• Code of Criminal Procedure
  • Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure

FAQ

1. What is Section 319(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

   Section 319(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates a de novo (fresh) trial when a new accused is summoned during an ongoing trial. This ensures that the newly added accused has a fair opportunity to defend themselves.

2. What is the significance of common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code?

   Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. This means that if multiple individuals share a common intention to commit a crime, each person is responsible for the entire act, regardless of their specific role.

3. What factors does a court consider when assessing the reliability of a witness?

   When assessing the reliability of a witness, a court considers factors such as the witness’s presence at the scene, their ability to perceive and recall events accurately, their potential bias or motive to lie, and the consistency of their testimony with other evidence.

4. What is the role of motive in a criminal case?

   Motive refers to the reason or incentive behind committing a crime. While motiveis not always essential to prove guilt, it can strengthen the prosecution’s case by providing a plausible explanation for why the accused committed the crime.

5. What is the difference between murder and attempt to murder under the Indian Penal Code?

   Murder (Section 302 IPC) involves the actual killing of a person with the intention or knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. Attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC) involves an act done with the intention or knowledge to cause death, but the act does not result in the person’s death.