Gurbakhsh Singh vs State Of Punjab

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: supreme-court

Case Number: Not extracted

Decision Date: 16 February, 1955

Coram: S.R. Das

In this case the Supreme Court recorded that the matter concerned an appeal filed by Gurbakhsh Singh against his conviction and sentences. The original trial was instituted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code for the murder of Mohinder Singh and under Section 307 read with Section 34 for the infliction of gun‑shot injuries on Thakar Singh, who was identified as PW‑17. The accused before the Additional Sessions Judge comprised Gurbakhsh Singh, his brother Labh Singh, his son Piara Singh and his brother’s son Jawahri. After hearing the evidence, the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Labh Singh, Piara Singh and Jawahri of both charges, but found Gurbakhsh Singh guilty of both the murder and the violent injury. The Judge sentenced Gurbakhsh Singh to death for the murder charge under Section 302 and imposed a term of five years’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 307. The High Court subsequently dismissed Gurbakhsh Singh’s appeal, confirmed the conviction and the sentences, and the matter was taken as a reference to the Supreme Court on the basis of a special leave petition filed by Gurbakhsh Singh.

The prosecution case, as set out, described an earlier disturbance that occurred on either the 27th or 28th of October, 1953. According to that account, an altercation broke out in front of Suja Singh’s house between Sundar Singh, who was the brother of Suja Singh, and their employee Mohinder Singh on one side, and Gurbakhsh Singh together with Gurdip Singh on the other side. The dispute allegedly arose over “changars” that had been raised by Gurbakhsh Singh while he was in a drunken condition. The prosecution asserted that after threatening Sundar Singh and Mohinder Singh with severe consequences, Gurbakhsh Singh withdrew from the scene. The next day, on 12‑11‑1953 at about sunset, the prosecution claimed that Gurbakhsh Singh, now armed with a gun, and his associates Labh Singh, Piara Singh and Jawahri, who were each armed with spears, approached the front of Suja Singh’s house, raised a “lalkara,” and verbally abused Suja Singh and his brother Sundar Singh. At that moment, the employee Mohinder Singh emerged from the house, followed by Suja Singh, Sundar Singh and Sundar’s wife, Musammat Gurdial Kuer. The prosecution alleged that Gurbakhsh Singh fired immediately, striking Mohinder Singh in the chest and abdomen, causing him to collapse and die instantly. A neighbour, Thakar Singh, then came forward and pleaded with Gurbakhsh Singh not to fire again; nevertheless, Gurbakhsh Singh discharged the weapon a second time, wounding Thakar Singh’s right arm. Thakar Singh subsequently entered Suja Singh’s house, whose front door had been closed from the inside. The first information report was lodged by Suja Singh at the police station at ten p.m. on the same day. The incident was reportedly witnessed by Suja Singh (PW‑15), Sundar Singh (PW‑16), Thakar Singh (PW‑17) and Joginder Singh (PW‑18), all of whom were examined before the Additional Sessions Judge. Two additional persons, Musammat Gurdial Kuer (PW‑19) and Jarnail Singh (PW‑20), were also said to be eyewitnesses; they were offered for cross‑examination but the defence counsel did not examine them. The Additional Sessions Judge expressed doubt that Gurbakhsh Singh, who alone appeared to have a grievance against Sundar Singh and Mohinder Singh, could have acted in the manner alleged.

In this case, the Court noted that because of a prior confrontation, Gurbakhsh Singh had taken with him his brother Labh Singh, who was seventy years old, and his son and nephew, aged sixteen and fourteen respectively, to assist him despite being armed with a firearm. The trial court acquitted those three accompanying persons on the basis that the evidence concerning them was unreliable. Nevertheless, the Additional Sessions Judge gave credence to the eyewitness testimony that directly implicated Gurbakhsh Singh and, relying on that evidence, convicted and sentenced him as previously recorded. Upon the filing of an appeal, the High Court examined the findings of the Additional Sessions Judge, affirmed the conviction and the imposed sentences on Gurbakhsh Singh, and dismissed his appeal. Counsel for the appellant then contended that the eyewitnesses whose statements had been rejected with regard to the three other accused should not have been accepted to support the conviction of Gurbakhsh Singh. The High Court had noted that the residence of Labh Singh, Piara Singh and Jawahri lay only forty karams from Suja Singh’s house, making it plausible that after hearing the first gunshot they emerged from their home and were observed by the witnesses. Those witnesses could have mistakenly identified the three men as associates of Gurbakhsh Singh who had accompanied him from the outset. Consequently, the High Court concluded that the witnesses had not deliberately or knowingly fabricated statements solely to implicate the three individuals. The appellant’s counsel further argued that because all eyewitnesses were examined under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, their testimonies should be considered unreliable unless corroborated by other unimpeachable evidence. Additional submissions alleged that persons capable of testifying in favor of the accused had been arrested, detained under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and subjected to intimidation. It was also submitted that witnesses examined by the police were never called before the court, that the ballistic expert was not examined, and that eyewitnesses who were admittedly present at the scene were not examined in trial. The Court observed that most of these criticisms had not been raised before the High Court and that they pertained only to the appreciation of evidence, which a special‑leave appeal does not permit the Supreme Court to re‑evaluate as a third fact‑finding body. After hearing the appellant’s counsel at length, the Court found no ground to disturb the concurrent factual findings of the subordinate courts. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal.