Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the conviction of appellant Babu Singh under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his younger brother Jagrup Singh at their village house in Punjab. The appellant and co-accused Sadhu Singh, also a brother, were charged under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC for hatching a conspiracy at Calcutta to kill Jagrup Singh and killing him in the village on 6.12.1981. The trial court acquitted Sadhu Singh of conspiracy but convicted Babu Singh relying on the eyewitness testimony of servant Jai Narain (PW14). The High Court of Punjab and Haryana affirmed the conviction and sentence. The prosecution case was that there were business disputes among the brothers at Calcutta; the deceased and appellant had come to the village. On the date of occurrence, while the deceased was sleeping after a meal, the appellant picked up a takua and inflicted two to three blows on the head of the deceased. Father Bant Singh (PW5) raised an alarm, but the appellant fled after inflicting the blows, and the deceased died at the spot. The father informed the Sarpanch Gurbux Singh (PW16) and lodged an FIR at 11:15 pm which was recorded by ASI PW18. PW18 immediately went to the spot, prepared the inquest report, sent the body for post-mortem, and recorded statements of some witnesses. Investigation was taken over by SI PW24 on 8.12.1981, and the appellant was arrested on 22.12.1981. The prosecution examined 24 witnesses; PWs 5, 6, and 14 were supposed to be eyewitnesses, but the father and mother turned hostile and were confronted under Section 154 of the Evidence Act. PW14 was the servant of the deceased who had come from Calcutta with him; he went to MLA Baldev Singh Mann (PW23) to arrange a telephone call to Calcutta to inform the family. The appellant's counsel raised four contentions: first, since the prosecution case was one of conspiracy and conspiracy was not proved, the murder charge must fail; second, PW14 was not present and his name did not appear in the FIR or inquest; third, it was improbable that the accused came all the way from Calcutta to Punjab to commit murder; fourth, PW14 was not examined on 6.12.1981 but only on 8.12.1981, making his testimony unreliable. The Supreme Court rejected all contentions. It held that mere failure to prove conspiracy does not ipso facto nullify the direct evidence of actual assault; the substantive murder charge must be assessed independently. On PW14, the court stated that the FIR can be used only for corroborating or contradicting the maker; non-mention of a witness's name is not fatal if the witness is independent and reliable, relying on Nirpal Singh v. State of Haryana. The inquest statement repeating the FIR is hit by Section 162 CrPC and can be used only for contradiction under Section 145 Evidence Act. The delay in examining PW14 was sufficiently explained by his going to the MLA to arrange a telephone call. The court refused to speculate on why the accused preferred the village over Calcutta, holding that the prosecution case must be adjudged on evidence, not conjecture. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC were upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Conspiracy - Proof of Conspiracy not necessary for substantive offence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 120-B, 302 - The prosecution alleged both accused conspired at Calcutta to murder the deceased; trial court acquitted co-accused of conspiracy but convicted appellant under Section 302 based on direct evidence of assault. The Supreme Court held that mere failure to establish the conspiracy charge does not ipso facto invalidate the charge of murder, and the evidence of actual assault must be assessed independently. Held first contention rejected. (Paras 1-6) B) Criminal Law - Eyewitness Testimony - Non-mention of witness in FIR - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302; Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 154 - FIR can be used only for corroborating or contradicting its maker; non-mention of an eyewitness's name in FIR does not by itself discredit his testimony if the witness is independent and reliable. The court relied on Nirpal Singh and others v. State of Haryana, (1977) 2 SCC 131 and held that omission of witness name in FIR may be an honest omission and cannot be the sole ground to reject evidence. (Paras 3-4) C) Criminal Law - Inquest Report/Statement - Statement recorded during inquest is hit by Section 162 CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 162; Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 145 - The inquest report repeating the FIR and not mentioning witness name is irrelevant to impeach the witness; such statement during investigation can be used only for contradiction under Section 145 Evidence Act. Held that non-mention of witness name in inquest statement is hardly relevant. (Paras 4-5) D) Criminal Law - Prosecution Case - Probability/Conjecture - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The court held that it cannot enter into the arena of conjecture as to why the accused chose the village rather than Calcutta to commit murder; prosecution case must be adjudged on evidence laid and not on speculation. Held no substance in improbability argument. (Paras 3-4) E) Criminal Law - Delay in Examination - Delay in examining eyewitness PW14 from 6.12.1981 to 8.12.1981 explained by witness going to MLA to arrange telephone call to Calcutta - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 154; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 162 - Delay in examination of witness not fatal when explained by witness's action of contacting MLA to inform family; no adverse inference drawn. Held conviction upheld. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether failure to establish charge of conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC invalidated the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC; whether testimony of sole eyewitness PW14 could be relied upon despite non-mention in FIR, non-mention in inquest statement, and delay in examination; whether the prosecution story was improbable because the accused allegedly traveled from Calcutta to Punjab to commit murder when he could have committed it in Calcutta
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence of appellant under Section 302 IPC upheld. The court found no substance in any of the contentions raised; sole eyewitness testimony was reliable; failure to prove conspiracy did not vitiate the conviction.
Law Points
- Non-mention of witness name in FIR does not by itself discredit reliable eyewitness testimony
- F.I.R. can be used only for corroborating or contradicting its maker
- statement to investigating officer during inquest is hit by Section 162 CrPC and can be used only for contradiction under Section 145 Evidence Act
- failure to prove conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC does not ipso facto invalidate substantive offence of murder under Section 302 IPC
- prosecution case must be adjudged on evidence laid not on conjecture
