Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the Punjab High Court confirming the conviction of three appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of Inder Singh. The appellants, along with their brother Ratti Ram, were tried by the Sessions Judge, Patiala, for an offence committed in the early hours of June 2, 1960 in village Petwar. The prosecution alleged that the murder was an act of reprisal because the appellants' brother, Dewan Singh, had been killed earlier and Dhup Singh, the step-brother of the deceased, was convicted for that murder. Inder Singh had moved the State Government for parole for Dhup Singh, which application was pending at the time of the assault, and this angered the appellants. The facts showed that on June 2, 1960, before sunrise, Inder Singh was returning towards his house after relieving himself when he was suddenly attacked near the Baithak of Krishan Lal Jat. Darya Singh had a lathi and Rasala and Pehlada each had a gandasa; Ratti Ram allegedly joined the assault. The assailants inflicted serious injuries and Darya Singh fired shots in the air. Inder Singh raised an alarm, and his brother Dalip Singh, wife Dharam Devi, and son Shamsher Singh rushed to the scene but did not intervene due to fear. After the assailants left, the relatives found him dead. An FIR was lodged, leading to investigation and trial. The prosecution relied on the evidence of three eye-witnesses: Dalip Singh, Shamsher Singh, and Dharam Devi, all close relatives of the deceased and allegedly hostile to the accused. The trial court acquitted Ratti Ram but convicted the three appellants. The High Court dismissed the appellants' appeal and the State's appeal against acquittal. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave, arguing that the evidence of interested and hostile witnesses could not be accepted without corroboration and that the trial court had failed to exercise its power under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to examine independent witnesses. The Supreme Court rejected both contentions. On the first issue, the Court held that while evidence of interested witnesses must be examined very carefully, there is no rule of law requiring corroboration. Such witnesses are not akin to accomplices. The Court observed that if the offence occurred in front of the victim's house, the presence of relatives who rushed out on hearing shouts is not improbable. The Court further noted that a witness hostile to the assailant would not deliberately omit to name the real assailant and substitute an innocent enemy, because the desire to punish the actual offender would be strong. The Court distinguished earlier decisions cited by the appellants, holding they were inapplicable. On the second issue, the Court held that the power under Section 540 is discretionary and must be exercised in the interests of justice, but failure to exercise it does not automatically introduce a serious infirmity in the trial. There was no material to show that any independent eye-witness had been kept back, and the case could not be remanded on the hypothetical ground that scrutiny of the police diary might reveal such a witness. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and life imprisonment.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Interested and Hostile Witnesses - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 34; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 172 - Evidence of witnesses related to deceased and sharing hostility towards accused does not require corroboration as a matter of law. The court must scrutinize such evidence carefully, considering whether witnesses were chance witnesses and whether their presence was natural; if offence occurred in front of victim's house, relatives rushing out on hearing shouts is probable. The desire to punish the real assailant makes it unlikely the witness would substitute an innocent enemy. Held that conviction based on such evidence, after careful scrutiny by trial court and High Court, was valid (Paras 1-8). B) Criminal Procedure - Power to Summon Witnesses - Section 540 CrPC, 1898 - Court's power under Section 540 is discretionary and exercisable in interests of justice; failure to exercise it does not automatically introduce serious infirmity in trial. In absence of material showing independent eyewitnesses were withheld, case cannot be remanded solely on hypothetical ground that police diary scrutiny might reveal such witnesses. Held that failure to exercise Section 540 did not vitiate trial (Paras 1-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether evidence of interested and hostile witnesses, being close relatives of the deceased, could be accepted without corroboration as a matter of law; whether failure of trial court to exercise its power under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to examine independent witnesses introduced a serious infirmity in the trial.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the three appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the sentence of imprisonment for life.
Law Points
- Evidence of interested witnesses must be scrutinized carefully but does not require corroboration as a matter of law
- presence of relatives at scene in front of victim's house not improbable
- motive of reprisal relevant
- power under Section 540 CrPC is discretionary and failure to exercise does not vitiate trial unless prejudice shown
- court cannot remand case solely on hypothetical ground that police diary scrutiny may reveal independent witness
