[Cites 22, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Mohan Singh vs State Of Delhi on 16 April, 2026
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 28th January, 2026
Pronounced on: 16th April, 2026
+ CRL.A. 555/2002
MOHAN SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Mohd. Shamikh, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF DELHI ....Respondent
Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP with
Mr. Manvendra Yadav,
Advocate with Insp. Deepak
Kumar Yadav, PS Mayapuri for
State.
2.
CRL.A. 704/2002
SURINDER SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. B. K. Roy, Mr. Sunder Lal
Sharma and Mr. Yashwant
Sharma, Advocates
versus
STATE OF DELHI ....Respondent
Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP with
Mr. Manvendra Yadav,
Advocate with Insp. Deepak
Kumar Yadav, PS Mayapuri for
State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. These two appeals have been filed by the appellants against the
judgment of conviction dated 05th June, 2002 and the order on
sentence dated 10th July, 2002 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, New Delhi ["trial court"], in Sessions Case No.
40/2001, arising out of FIR No. 182/1996 registered under sections
302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code ["IPC"] at Police Station
Mayapuri. Since both the appeals emanate from the same FIR and
assail the same judgment, they are being disposed of together by this
common judgment.
Brief Facts
2. Pithily put, the case of the prosecution is that on 09th June,
1996, at about 5:15 PM, an incident took place at the TSR stand
located in Sagarpur, Delhi. Raj Kishore [PW-8], a TSR driver, was
present at the stand along with his nephew Ram Kishore [deceased].
The appellant Surinder Singh, also a TSR driver, attempted to take
passengers out of turn, leading to an altercation between Raj Kishore
[PW-8] and appellant Surinder Singh
3. After the initial exchange, appellant Surinder Singh, before
leaving, told Raj Kishore [PW-8] that he would let him know how he
had stopped him from taking passengers out of turn. He then left the
spot and returned shortly thereafter accompanied by his parents- Sh.
Brij Mohan and Smt. Sada Kanwar and the appellant ASI Mohan
Singh, armed with weapons like a knife, iron strip (patti), four-
cornered danda and a hockey stick. During the ensuing assault,
appellant Surinder struck Raj Kishore [PW-8] on his right eye with the
hockey stick. Appellant ASI Mohan Singh caught hold of Ram
Kishore [deceased]. He along with Brij Mohan then exhorted to stab
him by uttering "maar sale ko chaku, bach na jaye", upon which,
Appellant Surinder took out a knife from the back pocket of his pant
and inflicted 2-3 knife blows on Ram Kishore [deceased]. The mother
of the Appellant Surinder, that is Sada Kanwar, also gave blow with
iron patti to the deceased. Meanwhile, when Raj Kishore [PW-8] tried
to save the deceased, he was caught hold by Brij Mohan and Appellant
ASI Mohan Singh. Appellant Surinder Singh stabbed him with knife
blow on the left side of his chest, while ASI Mohan Singh struck iron
patti on his left eye. He caught hold of that strip which resulted in
injuries on his right hand. Raj Kishore [PW-8] and Ram Kishore
[deceased] ran towards 'D' Block police picket but Ram Kishore
collapsed on the way and later succumbed to his injuries. PW8 Raj
Kishore was then removed to the hospital for medical treatment.
4. The information of the incident was recorded vide DD No. 15-
A. The police reached the spot and thereafter went to the hospital,
where (PW-8) was medically examined. On the basis of his statement,
the present FIR No. 182/1996 was registered at Police Station
Mayapuri.
5. During investigation, the police seized the four-cornered danda,
along with the TSRs and the knife. The blood-stained clothes of Sada
Kanwar and blood-stained uniform of ASI Mohan Singh were also
seized. They were arrested on the same day, whereas appellant
Surinder Singh was arrested on 10th June, 1996 and was interrogated.
He made a disclosure statement [Ex. PW2/B] and at his instance, a
blood-stained T-shirt [Ex. P6] and a piece of hockey stick [Ex. P7]
was recovered. They were sealed and seized vide memos Ex. PW2/C
and Ex. PW2/D respectively.
6. Upon completion of investigation, chargesheet dated
03.04.1997 was filed against the accused persons.
7. The learned trial court framed charges under Sections
302/307/34 IPC against all accused persons. Accused Sada Kanwar
was additionally charged under Section 25 read with Section 27 of the
Arms Act. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 28
witnesses, including the injured witness Raj Kishore [PW-8].
9. Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure ["Cr.P.C."], wherein, they denied the
incriminating evidence put to them and claimed innocence. In their
defence, they examined one witness namely Ghanshyam Naruka
(DW-1).
10. The learned trial court, vide impugned judgment dated 05th
June, 2002, acquitted accused persons Brij Mohan, Sada Kanwar and
appellant ASI Mohan Singh of the charges under Section 302 IPC, but
convicted them for lesser offence under Section 324/34 IPC. However,
appellant Surinder Singh was convicted for offence under Section 302
IPC. Accused Sada Kanwar was also convicted for offence under
Section 25 of Arms Act. Vide order dated 10th July, 2002, the convicts
were sentenced as under:-
"Accused Surinder is sentenced U/s 302 IPC
to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a
fine of Rs. 100/- in default to further undergo
R.I. for one week.
Accused Brij Mohan, Sada Kanwar
and Mohan Singh are sentenced to undergo
R.I. for one and a half years and to pay a fine
of Rs. l,000/-each in default to further undergo
R.I. for seven days.
Accused Sada Kanwar is also
sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months U/s
25 Arms Act and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in
default to further undergo R.I. for seven days."
11. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the present
appeals.
12. The sentences awarded to the appellants Mohan Singh and
Surinder Singh were suspended vide orders dated 07th August, 2002
and 21st November, 2002 respectively.
13. During the hearing of these appeals, the counsel for appellant
Mohan Singh in CRL.A. 555/2002 confined his challenge only to the
quantum of sentence and submitted that he does not wish to challenge
the judgment of conviction dated 05th June, 2002. It was further
prayed that he may be released for the period already undergone by
him. The said submission is also supported vide an Affidavit dated
28th January, 2026 filed by him.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant Surinder Singh in CRL.A.
704/2002:
14. The learned counsel, appearing for appellant Surinder Singh in
CRL.A. 704/2002, assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that
it is contrary to law and that the prosecution case suffers from inherent
improbabilities. It was submitted that the prosecution version is
neither probable nor appealing to the common sense. It has been
contended that the incident took place in a crowded place that is
'Sunday Market', but prosecution failed to produce even a single
independent public witness apart from the injured interested witness
and the police persons. He submitted that the injured witness at the
best proves his presence at the spot and suffering injuries, but it is not
guaranteed that the version given by him was truthful.
15. The learned counsel has pointed out that PW-8 Raj Kishore
deposed that all accused including Brij Mohan, Sada Kanwar and ASI
Mohan Singh, were present at the spot and participated in the assault,
whereas, PW-6 Constable Richpal categorically stated that only
appellant Surinder Singh was present and that the other accused were
not present at the spot at all. Such contradictory versions regarding the
presence and role of the accused demolish the prosecution story. He
further submitted that PW-8 attributed hockey blows, knife blows and
iron patti blows in a particular sequence, whereas, PW-6 claimed to
have seen the incident from a moving bus and deposed only about a
single blow inflicted by the appellant Surinder Singh. According to
him, these two versions are mutually destructive and cannot co-exist.
The incident of murder cannot be seen by eye witnesses differently.
16. It has been further submitted that PW-18 Constable Dilbag
Singh also deposed about injury to one more person namely Babban,
but the said Babban is neither an accused nor a witness in the case.
The non-examination of such a material witness casts a serious doubt
on the prosecution version and suggests suppression of material facts
and evidence.
17. It was also contended that there is no recovery of knife from the
possession of appellant Surinder Singh. The non-recovery of knife at
his instance and the absence of any forensic corroboration of the
presence of blood on the knife, fatally weakens the prosecution case.
18. It was also contended that prosecution has failed to prove any
strong motive behind the commission of the crime, inasmuch as, the
incident arose out of a sudden quarrel on a trivial issue and there was
no mens rea or motive for the commission of the murder. It has been
further submitted that prosecution failed to place on record any
document that appellant Surinder Singh ever used to drive scooter or
that the scooter was in his name or in the name of any of his family
members or it was a hired scooter. He further submits that the police
has even failed to produce the driving license in the name of appellant
Surinder Singh.
19. It was further submitted that even though two police witnesses
had already reached at the spot by 5.45 pm and the distance of the
police station from the place of incident was hardly one kilometre and
the incident took place at 5.45 pm on 09th June, 1996, but the FIR was
registered at 7.55 pm, that is after more than two hours. The three
accused, the recovered weapon and the case property were allegedly
kept for about two hours without even registration of the FIR and
without seizure of the same. The delay in registration of the FIR and
not sealing the weapon of offence and other case property cannot rule
out the possibility of false implication and plantation of the weapon of
offence because police could not arrest the real culprit despite their
presence at the place of occurrence. It is also submitted that despite
three out of the four accused persons already apprehended at the spot,
their names are not mentioned in the DD entry, which proves
fabrication and false implication.
20. Relying upon the testimony of DW-1 Ghanshyam, it is argued
that the appellant Surinder Singh was forced to come at the police
station in bargain for the release of Brij Mohan and Sada Kanwar, who
were illegally detained with the assurance that after enquiry he would
be let off, but was falsely implicated in the present case along with the
other co-accused persons namely Brij Mohan, Sada Kanwar and ASI
Mohan Singh.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant ASI Mohan Singh in
21. The learned counsel for the appellant Mohan Singh while
confining his prayer to only the quantum of sentence, submits that the
appellant has already undergone one year of sentence out of one and a
half years awarded to him and is now aged about 80 years and because
of this case, he was placed under suspension and was not even paid
the service benefits. He therefore prayed that lenient view be taken
and appellant Mohan Singh may be sentenced with imprisonment
already undergone by him.
Submissions on behalf of State
22. Per contra, learned APP for the State contended that the Trial
Court has given detailed and well-reasoned findings and convicted the
appellants after a fair trial and proper appreciation of evidence.
23. It was submitted that the presence of PW-8 Raj Kishore, an
injured witness, at the scene of occurrence stands conclusively
established and carries strong evidentiary value. It was contended that
the absence of independent public witnesses is not fatal to the
prosecution case and conviction can be based on the testimony of an
injured witness and police witnesses if found reliable.
24. The alleged contradictions in the statements of PW-6, PW-8 and
PW-18 are, at best, minor discrepancies arising from differences in
perception and passage of time. These variations do not go to the root
of the matter and do not discredit the core of the prosecution case and
the trial court has carefully considered their statements before passing
the judgment.
25. It was lastly submitted that the prosecution has proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt and that the learned trial court has rightly
convicted the appellants. Considering the gravity of offence, it was
stated that the appeals are devoid of merit and deserve to be dismissed.
Reasoning and Analysis
26. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the
material on record. It is well settled that while exercising appellate
jurisdiction in a criminal appeal against conviction, the Court may re-
appreciate the evidence to ascertain whether the findings recorded by
the trial court suffer from perversity, material illegality, or result in
miscarriage of justice.
27. Dealing with the present case, on the basis of the evidence led,
we find that the prosecution case rests primarily on the testimonies of
PW-8 Raj Kishore (injured witness), PW-6 Constable Richpal (eye
witness), as also PW-11 HC Mahender Singh and PW-18 Constable
Dilbagh Singh, who reached at the spot immediately on getting the
information.
28. From the evidence led, it is evident that the occurrence of the
incident itself is not in dispute. The evidence establishes that the
incident took place at the TSR stand at Sunday Market on 09th June,
1996, in which PW-8 Raj Kishore suffered injuries on his person and
one Ram Kishore, the nephew of PW-8, died at the spot due to stab
injuries.
29. The defence has laid considerable emphasis on the
inconsistencies in the testimonies of material witnesses, thereby,
arguing that such contradictions and inconsistencies weaken the
prosecution case. We, therefore, now proceed to examine the material
evidence in order to assess as to whether the same inspires confidence
or create any reasonable doubt in the prosecution narrative.
30. PW-8 Raj Kishore deposed that on 09th June, 1996, he was
standing at Sagarpur TSR Stand near Ajanta Park and was waiting for
his turn. His nephew (Bhanja) Ram Kishore was also with him.
Meanwhile, accused Surinder Singh came in his TSR No. DIR 8917.
PW-8 told him that it was his turn to lift the passengers but accused
Surinder Singh was adamant. On his protest, accused Surinder Singh
told him "wait for some time, I will let you know how to stop me from
taking the passengers out of the turn". Surinder Singh came back
armed with a knife, accompanied by co-accused persons namely SI
Mohan Singh, his father Brij Mohan and his mother Sada Kanwar
(mentioned as Sarda Rani in the testimony of PW-8). Brij Mohan was
having a four cornered danda, Surinder was having hockey stick and
the mother of Surinder was having a knife like iron strip (patti).
Surinder gave hockey blow on his head, as a result, the hockey stick
broke. SI Mohan Singh was in police uniform. Brij Mohan gave danda
blow on his right shoulder. On seeing this, his nephew Ram Kishore
rushed to save him. SI Mohan Singh and Brij Mohan then caught hold
of Ram Kishore. SI Mohan Singh exhorted "Maar Saale Ko". On
hearing this, Surinder Singh took out a knife from his back pocket and
gave 3-4 knife blows on the chest of Ram Kishore. When PW-8 tried
to save him, he was caught by Surinder Singh and Brij Mohan, SI
Mohan Singh gave a knife blow near his diaphragm (below his chest)
and the mother of accused Surinder Singh gave him a blow with knife
like iron patti on his face near left eye. PW-8 Raj Kishore further
deposed that public had gathered at the place of incident and on seeing
them, the accused persons tried to run away, but before that, accused
Surinder gave a knife blow to him, resulting in injuries in his
righthand palm. He further stated that he and his nephew Ram Kishore
tried to rush towards D Block, Janak Puri Police Chowki but Ram
Kishore fell down only after 5-10 steps. He rushed to the Police
Chowki and was taken to hospital by the police on a Bullet
motorcycle, where his statement Ex. PW-8/A was recorded by the
police. He identified all the accused, including the present appellants
Surinder Singh and Mohan Singh.
31. In his cross examination, PW-8 stated that he had told the police
in his statement Ex. PW-8/A that as soon as they arrived, SI Mohan
Singh enquired from accused Surinder as to who removed his scooter
from there. He was confronted with statement Ex. PW-8/A, where this
fact is not so recorded. He further stated that he told the police that he
was not allowed to fall as accused Mohan Singh and Brij Mohan had
caught hold of him by his arms. He was confronted with statement Ex.
PW-8/A, where this fact is not so recorded. He further said that he had
told the police in his statement that on seeing Ram Kishore, both the
accused, that is, Brij Mohan and SI Mohan Singh, had left him and
caught hold of Ram Kishore. However, this fact is not mentioned in
the statement Ex. PW-8/A. Similarly, the fact that accused Mohan
Singh gave him knife blow near his diaphragm, was also not found
mentioned in the statement Ex. PW-8/A. In further cross examination,
he stated that accused persons were also accompanied by one more
person at the time of assault on them, who also gave them beatings.
The fifth such person was having bricks in his hands and he hit him
below the neck. However, no injury was inflicted by the fifth person
on the person of deceased Ram Kishore. He further stated that the
blood did not drop on the clothes or motorcycle of the police official,
who took him to the hospital from the police post.
32. Upon appreciation of the testimony of PW-8 Raj Kishore, we
find that his testimony to the extent that SI Mohan Singh gave him
knife blow near his diaphragm is in contradiction and an improvement
over the previous statement Ex. PW-8/A, which formed the basis of
recording of the FIR. However, his remaining testimony with regard
to the details of the incident, particularly with regard to presence of
the accused persons with weapons at the spot and causing of stab
injury to Ram Kishore by appellant Surinder Singh remains consistent
and cogent.
33. The incident allegedly took place in the month of June 1996.
The testimony of PW-8 was recorded on 17th September, 1999, that is
after more than three years. Human memory is short and when such
like incidents involving so many persons happen all of a sudden and
the witness is called upon to depose about them after a long interval,
due to failing memory, such like contradictions may occur in the
testimonies of even a truthful witness and therefore should not be
given much importance, particularly when the testimony of the
witness on the other material aspects inspires confidence.
34. No doubt, in cross examination, PW-8 has deposed about the
involvement of one more offender who hit brick below his neck but is
not prosecuted, the same cannot be regarded as an improvement or a
contradiction of the prosecution narrative of the incident, inasmuch as,
in his statement Ex. PW-8/A, PW-8 stated that besides four named
accused, there were some other persons also who had beaten them and
therefore the mention of fifth offender in cross examination is not fatal
to the prosecution version.
35. PW-6 Constable Richpal from Delhi Home Guard is the eye
witness of the occurrence. According to him, on 09th June, 1996, at
about 5.15 pm, he alighted from a bus coming from Sagar Puri at D
Block, Janak Puri and boarded a bus route No. 832 to Shahdara. On
the way, he saw from glass panes of the bus that two three wheeler
scooters stopped, the driver of one of the scooters and the passengers
in the scooter got down from the said scooter and the drivers of both
the scooters started quarrelling. One of the drivers took out a knife
from the back pocket of his trouser and thrust the same in the chest of
other scooter driver. He deposed that the name of the scooter driver
who gave knife blow was subsequently revealed as Surinder Singh
while the name of the deceased was also subsequently revealed as Raj
Kishore. He deposed that he got the bus stopped and went to the
nearby police booth, where he came to know that the police had
already reached at the spot. He thereafter returned at the spot where
HC Mahender Singh and HC Dilbagh Singh were found present. At
their instructions, he removed the injured to DDU Hospital and got
him admitted there. According to him, accused Brij Mohan, Sada
Kanwar and Mohan Singh were not present at the spot and were found
sitting at the police station subsequently. He further stated that the
clothes of Brij Mohan, Sada Kanwar and Mohan Singh were seized by
the police. He identified his signatures on the seizure memo Ex. PW-
6/A and Ex. PW-6/B respectively. He is also witness to the arrest of
accused Brij Mohan, Sada Kanwar and Mohan Singh and identified
his signatures on the personal search memos Ex. PW-6/D and Ex.
PW-6/E.
36. PW-6 was declared hostile and was cross examined by the
learned APP with the permission of the court. In such cross
examination, he denied the suggestion that in his statement dated 09th
June, 1996, he gave the name of injured/deceased as Ram Kishore. He
denied that in his presence after Surinder inflicted a blow on the
person of the deceased, there was an exchange of hockey and danda
blows between both sides. He denied the suggestion that when he
returned from the police booth, he found HC Dilbagh Sigh and HC
Mahender Singh had apprehended the father and mother of accused
Surinder and one Assistant Sub Inspector of Delhi Police. He denied
the suggestion that he had got the injured Ram Kishore admitted in
DDU Hospital and not Raj Kishore. He denied the suggestion that
accused Brij Mohan, Sada Kanwar and Mohan Singh were arrested in
his presence pursuant to evidence having been collected against them
by the Investigating Officer. He was confronted with statement Ex.
PW-6/F, where the aforesaid facts are so recorded. He denied that
accused Brij Mohan, Sada Kanwar and Mohan Singh were arrested in
his presence. However, he voluntarily stated that they were not present
at the spot but were seen by him subsequently at the police station,
where they were arrested in his presence. He admitted that the saree
and blouse which the accused Sada Kanwar was wearing, were taken
into police possession. He admitted that the clothes of the aforesaid
accused persons were kept in sealed parcels, which were sealed with
the seal of GS. He denied that on 10th June, 1996, he joined the
investigation with SI Mehar Singh, SI Karan Singh and Inspector
Gyan Singh or that accused Surinder was arrested from house No.
681/10, Saad Nagar, Palam Colony or that his personal search was
conducted in his presence vide memo Ex. PW-2/A. However, he
admitted that the memo Ex. PW-2/A bears his signatures. According
to him, accused Surinder was arrested on the night of 09th June, 1996
itself and he signed the personal search memo Ex. PW-2/A on 09th
June, 1996. He denied that accused Surinder gave disclosure statement
Ex. PW-2/B on 10th June, 1996 but admitted signatures on the
disclosure statement. He denied that accused Surinder had pointed out
house No. 681/10, Gali No. 27-C, Saad Nagar, Palam Colony and got
recovered his black colour T shirt which was seized in his presence
vide memo Ex. PW-2/C but identified his signatures on the memo Ex.
PW-2/C. According to him, accused Surinder had pointed out the
place and got recovered the T shirt on 09th June, 1996. He denied that
on 10th June, 1996, accused Surinder had got recovered the broken
hockey stick having black tape on it from near Aditya Apartments,
which was also sealed with the seal of GS and seized vide memo Ex.
PW-2/D. According to him, he had got recovered the piece of hockey
stick on 09th June, 1996 itself. He denied the suggestion that accused
Brij Mohan, Sada Kanwar and Mohan Singh were involved in the
murder of Ram Kishore and he saw them at the spot. He identified the
clothes of the accused persons and the broken piece of hockey stick,
which are Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-7 respectively.
37. In cross examination by the learned defence counsel, PW-6
stated that when he got down from the bus, the total number of
persons present at the spot were three and there were two three
wheeler scooters and no other person or vehicle was present there.
38. On appreciation of the testimony of PW-6, we find that PW-6
has not fully supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile.
It is a well settled law that the testimony of a hostile witness cannot be
effaced or washed off the record in entirety. So much of the testimony
of such witness which inspires confidence may be acted and relied
upon. Thus, examining the testimony of PW-6 to the extent that one of
the TSR drivers took out the knife from the back pocket of his trouser
and thrust the same into the chest of the other scooter driver, can still
be relied upon. It clearly appears from his testimony that he had not
witnessed the complete incident and therefore deposed only what he
saw as he witnessed the incident while he was on a moving bus route
and later got the bus stopped and went to nearby police booth The
MLC of Ram Kishore Ex. PW-25/I records that patient was brought
dead by DHG Constable Richpal (PW-6). The statement of PW-6 that
the name of the injured rushed to the hospital was Raj Kishore and not
Ram Kishore does not also affect the worth of his testimony. Both
names being similar, PW-6 may have mixed up the name of the person
rushed to the hospital by him.
39. PW-11 HC Mahender Singh, who was on duty at Sunday
Market, D Block, Janak Puri, reached at the spot upon getting the
information regarding quarrel. He categorically deposed that on
reaching the spot, he found accused Mohan Singh in the uniform,
accused Brij Mohan armed with danda and accused Sada Kanwar. He
stated that accused Surinder gave knife blows to one Raj Kishore in
his presence. He further deposed that Ram Kishore was also lying in
an injured condition. In the meanwhile, PW-18 HC Dilbagh Singh and
PW-6 DHG Richpal also reached there. PW-6 took injured Ram
Kishore to the hospital. He further deposed that when they tried to
overpower accused Surinder and Sada Kanwar, the mother of accused
Surinder snatched the knife from him and helped him in escaping from
the spot. With the help of HC Dilbagh Singh, he overpowered SI
Mohan Singh, Brij Mohan and Sada Kanwar. Raj Kishore also left for
the hospital. He further stated that the danda and the knife were seized
from accused Brij Mohan and Sada Kanwar vide memos Ex. PW-10C
and Ex. PW-10/D. One broken piece of hockey was seized vide memo
Ex. PW-10/G. The blood spots and earth control were lifted from the
spot vide memo Ex.PW-10/F. The TSR was seized vide memo Ex.
PW-10/H. He identified the recovered articles including the knife and
the broken piece of hockey.
40. In cross examination, PW-11 stated that there were number of
shops near the place of occurrence and that PW-6 and PW-8 reached
at the spot after 5-7 minutes of his arrival at the place of occurrence.
He further stated that he was holding accused Mohan Singh and that
accused Sada Kanwar and Brij Mohan tried to run away. He admitted
that the Home Guard Constable had taken Ram Kishore (deceased) to
DDU Hospital.
41. The testimony of PW-11 to the extent that Surinder Singh gave
knife blows to Raj Kishore in his presence, has not been contested
during cross examination. There is not even a suggestion that he did
not inflict knife blows to Raj Kishore. The testimony of PW-8 Raj
Kishore thus stands corroborated to the aforesaid extent by the
testimonies of PW-6 and PW-11. PW-11 further corroborated the
presence of all the accused persons at the spot and the recovery of
weapon of offence, that is knife, danda and broken piece of hockey
from the spot. Another important aspect proved through the testimony
of PW-11 is that Sada Kanwar helped accused Surinder run away from
the spot and, in the process, took away the knife from him, which
explains the reason why he was not apprehended from the spot itself
then and there.
42. PW-18 HC Dilbagh Singh, who was on duty at Police Picket,
Maya Puri, also rushed to the spot upon getting the information
regarding quarrel, involving TSR drivers at Sagar Pur near Aditya
Apartments and TSR Stand. He deposed that on reaching the spot, he
found that HC Mahender Singh was holding the hand of accused Brij
Mohan. SI Mohan Singh was also present there. He deposed about the
presence of mother of accused Surinder also at the spot, who made
him escape from the spot after snatching the knife from his hand. He
further deposed that the injured lying there after receiving the knife
blow, was sent to DDU Hospital through DHG Richpal Singh.
According to him, one more injured namely Babban was also sent to
the hospital.
43. There is no cross examination of PW-18 with regard to his
testimony that accused Surinder was made to escape from the spot by
his mother.
44. Much emphasis has been laid by the defence regarding
introduction of one more injured namely Babban. In the absence of
any other evidence in this regard, any reference of injured Babban
appears to be just one stray and unsubstantiated statement and cannot
be treated as constituting an integral or pivotal part of the prosecution
case. Even, the defence did not question about the presence of any
such injured at the spot or hospital from the IO. Hence, such averment
made by of PW-18 cannot be given undue importance.
45. Admittedly, the incident took place near the TSR Stand near
Sunday Market. It is also in evidence that there were shops near the
place of occurrence. It is also in evidence that public persons had
gathered but none of them was joined in the investigation or made
witnesses. In the matter of appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is
not the number of witnesses but the quality of their evidence which is
important, as there is no rule of law or evidence that any particular
number of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact. It is a
time honoured principle that evidence must be weighed and not
counted. The test is whether the evidence led has a ring of truth, is
cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. It is the quality and not
the quantity which determines the adequacy of evidence as provided
under Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the present
case, the evidence of the injured witnesses cannot be discarded merely
on the ground that the independent public witnesses were not
examined. The Supreme Court in Appabhai and Anr. Vs. State of
Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696 held that:-
"11. ......It is no doubt true that the
prosecution has not been able to produce any
independent witness to the incident that took
place at the bus stand. There must have been
several of such witnesses. But the prosecution
case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that
ground alone. Experience reminds us that
civilized people are generally insensitive when
a crime is committed even in their presence.
They withdraw both from the victim and the
vigilante. They keep themselves away from the
Court unless it is inevitable. They think that
crime like civil dispute is between two
individuals or parties and they should not
involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the
general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is
there everywhere whether in village life, towns
or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with
which the investigating agency has to
discharge its duties. The court, therefore,
instead of doubting the prosecution case for
want of independent witness must consider the
broad spectrum of the prosecution version and
then search for the nugget of truth with due
regard to probability, if any, suggested by the
accused."
46. We do find that there are certain contradictions/omissions/
improvements in the testimonies of the witnesses, but they are not of
such a magnitude as to demolish the substratum of the prosecution
case. In cases of sudden violence, the witnesses cannot be expected to
narrate the occurrence with photographic precision. Normal
discrepancies with passage of time are natural and may in facts and
circumstances of the case lend assurance that the witnesses are not
tutored.
47. The presence of PW-8 Raj Kishore at the spot stands
conclusively established, he being an injured witness. His testimony
assumes considerable significance for more than one reason. Firstly,
he was himself injured in the same transaction and is, therefore, a
natural witness to the occurrence. Secondly, his evidence, insofar as
the role of appellant Surinder Singh is concerned, has remained
substantially unshaken. He has also elaborated the role played by the
appellant Mohan Singh during the incident. Merely because PW-8 was
related to the deceased, would not be a valid ground to discard his
testimony, particularly when he himself suffered injuries in the
incident of assault. There is no reason why he would shield the real
culprits and implicate innocent persons with whom he has no axe to
grind. No material contradictions of such magnitude have been
brought out as would render his evidence unworthy of acceptance.
48. It is a settled principle that the testimony of an injured witness
carries strong evidentiary value and stands on a higher pedestal than
any other witness and deserves acceptance unless strong reasons exist
for its rejection. In Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
[(2010) 10 SCC 259], the Supreme Court held as under:
"28. The question of the weight to be attached
to the evidence of a witness that was himself
injured in the course of the occurrence has
been extensively discussed by this Court.
Where a witness to the occurrence has himself
been injured in the incident, the testimony of
such a witness is generally considered to be
very reliable, as he is a witness that comes
with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the
scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his
actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate
someone. "Convincing evidence is required to
discredit an injured witness." [Vide Ramlagan
Singh v. State of Bihar, Malkhan Singh v.
State of U.P., Machhi Singh v. State of
Punjab, Appabhai v. State of Gujarat,
Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra, Bhag Singh,
Mohar v. State of U.P.(SCC p. 606b-c),
Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan,
Vishnuv. State of Rajasthan, Annareddy
Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P. and Balraje
v. State of Maharashtra.]"
49. What remains constant and materially unshaken in the
prosecution evidence is that the appellant Surinder Singh was the
person who wielded the knife and inflicted the fatal injuries on Ram
Kishore. On this core aspect, the evidence of PW-8 remains clear and
categorical. Even the testimony of PW-6, when read fairly, does not
exculpate Surinder Singh, but rather supports the prosecution case to
the extent that the principal assailant Surinder caused stab injuries to
PW-8. The consistent thread running through the prosecution evidence
is thus that the fatal knife assault was committed by appellant Surinder
Singh and this core evidence remains unshaken. Minor inconsistencies
or variations in narration are natural in the case of sudden violence
and do not erode the core of an otherwise credible prosecution case.
50. It is evident from the testimony of PW-8 that appellant Surinder
Singh attempted to take passengers out of turn, which led to
altercation, following which, he went and came back with the co-
accused persons, including appellant Mohan Singh, armed with
weapons, that is knife, danda, hockey stick and patti and inflicted stab
wounds to PW-8 Raj Kishore and his nephew Ram Kishore
(deceased). The medical evidence corroborates the ocular testimony of
causing stab wounds with knife.
51. The argument of defence regarding absence of motive to kill
and the act being not premeditated is not impressive. Multiple stab
injuries with knife were caused to PW-8 and the other victim. Such
stab injuries were caused on the vital parts of the body. Appellant
must be attributed the knowledge that by such act, he would cause
death of the victim. The case in hand does not fall under any of the
exceptions of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence on
record clearly reveals that appellant Surinder Singh was not a passive
bystander or a mere participant in a sudden scuffle, but the person who
escalated the incident into a fatal assault by using a deadly weapon.
The act of taking out a knife from the back pocket of his pant and
inflicting repeated blows on the deceased Ram Kishore, clearly
establishes the requisite knowledge that by such act, he would cause
death of the victim. The nature of weapon used, the manner of assault
and the resultant death leaves no room for doubt that the offence
squarely falls within the ambit of Section 302 IPC.
52. It is evident from the testimonies of PW-11 HC Mahender
Singh and PW-18 HC Dilbagh Singh that accused Mohan Singh, Brij
Mohan and Sada Kanwar were overpowered at the spot. PW-10 SI
Karan Singh, the first IO of this case, who reached the spot after
receiving DD No. 15-A Ex. PW-4/A, also confirmed the presence of
the aforesaid three accused at the spot in the custody of HC Dilbagh
Singh and HC Mahender Singh. Inspector Gyan Singh, second IO
(PW-28) deposed about the arrest of the aforesaid three accused from
the spot with weapons. Thus, the presence and arrest of accused
Mohan Singh from the spot is beyond doubt. Admittedly, the names of
accused Mohan Singh, Brij Mohan and Sada Kanwar are not
mentioned in the FIR. The FIR Ex. PW-4/B was recorded on the basis
of the statement of PW-8 Raj Kishore Ex. PW-8/A, recorded at the
hospital. In such statement, he did not mention the names of the
accused persons except accused Surinder. However, it is recorded that
accused Surinder came back at the spot along with an ASI, having one
star, his father and mother. There is no cross examination of PW-8 Raj
Kishore as to whether he knew the names of the aforesaid three
accused persons at the time when he gave the statement Ex. PW-8/A
and therefore accused Mohan Singh cannot take any benefit on
account of the reason that his name is not mentioned in the FIR.
53. The incident took place at 5.15 pm and the information
regarding the incident reached the Police Station vide DD No. 15-A
Ex. PW-4/A at 5.45 pm, whereafter, SI Karan Singh (PW-10) firstly
went at the spot and from there to the hospital, where, he recorded the
statement of the injured Raj Kishore, prepared the Rukka Ex. PW-
10/A and sent the same at Police Station at 7.30 pm for the registration
of the FIR. As per PW-4, ASI Om Prakash, Duty Officer, the Rukka
was received at 7.55 pm, on the basis of which, he recorded the FIR.
We find no inordinate delay in the registration of the FIR, which may
create any kind of suspicion or doubt of any manipulation or
interpolation.
54. The evidence on record, as appreciated by the learned trial
court, clearly establishes that appellant Surinder Singh was the
principal assailant and gave fatal injuries to the deceased Ram
Kishore. As per the MLC and post-mortem report of the deceased
Ram Kishore, he suffered multiple ante-mortem stab injuries caused
by a sharp-edged weapon. One of the stab wounds was located on the
chest, a vital part of the body and was found to be penetrative in
nature and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
The weapon used and the repeated blows to the two victims, leave no
manner of doubt that accused had the knowledge that by such act, he
would cause the death of the victim.
55. The gravity of the offence committed by the appellant Surinder
Singh, resulting in the loss of a human life, cannot be diluted based on
minor contradictions. The judgment of the learned Trial Court
therefore does not warrant any interference. It is also noteworthy that
the learned Trial Court, while appreciating the evidence, carefully
distinguished the role of the present appellant from that of the co-
accused persons and did not accept the prosecution case in its entirety
against the other accused persons. This indicates a judicious
evaluation of evidence and lends assurance to the correctness of the
findings recorded against all the accused persons.
56. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that
prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt
against the appellant Surinder Singh. We find no merit in the
challenge laid to his conviction under Section 302 IPC. Upon an
independent re-appreciation of the evidence on record, we are of the
considered view that the learned trial Court was justified in convicting
Surinder Singh and that his conviction and subsequent order on
sentence are just, proper and proportionate to the gravity of the
offence.
57. The case of appellant Mohan Singh [in CRL.A. 555/2002],
however, stands on a different footing. The learned Trial Court itself
has recorded a clear finding that he did not give fatal injuries to the
deceased and that the principal role in causing death was attributable
to Surinder Singh. While the presence and participation of Mohan
Singh in the occurrence stands proved, the evidence does not attribute
to him any direct act resulting in the death of the deceased, as held by
trial court. The appellant Mohan Singh is not challenging his
conviction, but simply prays for reduction of his sentence and has also
filed an affidavit in this regard.
58. The criminal justice system in India embodies the reformative
theory of punishment. The object of sentencing is not merely to punish
but to transform the individual into a law-abiding citizen, particularly
where the circumstances do not disclose a continuing propensity for
violence and the offender is capable of reform. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977)
3 SCC 287, while emphasizing the reformative theory of punishment,
observed as under:
"9. It is thus plain that crime is a pathological
aberration, that the criminal can ordinarily be
redeemed, that the State has to rehabilitate
rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads
to anti-social behaviour has to be countered
not by undue cruelty but byre-culturisation.
Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is
the individual, and the goal is salvaging him
for society. The infliction of harsh and savage
punishment is thus a relic of past and
regressive times. The human today views
sentencing as a process of reshaping a person
who has deteriorated into criminality and the
modern community has a primary stake in the
rehabilitation of the offender as a means of
social defence. We, therefore, consider a
therapeutic, rather than an "in terrorem"
outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts,
since brutal incarceration of the person merely
produces laceration of his mind."
59. The Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Mishra v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1104, while relying on the judgment
of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) held that while imposing sentence,
aggravating and mitigating circumstances of a case are to be taken into
consideration. Further, in K. Pounammal v. State Represented by
Inspector of Police, 2025 INSC 1014, the appellant chose not to
contest his conviction, but sought a reduction in sentence. The
Supreme Court upheld the conviction but modified the punishment
considering the mitigating circumstances. The relevant portion of the
judgment reads as under:-
"6. The conviction and sentence have their
respective realms. While the conviction would
be recorded on the basis of evidence adduced
before the Court which would establish the
implication of the accused in the offence, the
guilty person or the convicted when to be
awarded a sentence, a host of factors would
operate to govern."
6.1. In determining the final sentence and the
nature thereof, variety of factors that would
operate would include the intervening time
between the commission of offence and the
actual award of the sentence, age of the
accused, the stress which he or she might have
suffered because of passage of time during
each case has remained pending and
undecided, the family circumstance and such
other factors, without becoming exhaustive."
7. The process of sentencing by the courts is
guided by theories such as punitive, deterrent
or reformative. Each school of thought has its
own object and purpose to explain awarding
of sentence and its utility. Amongst these
theories, reformative approach has become
increasingly acceptable to the modern
jurisprudence. Reformation is something
always considered progressive. When there
are mitigating circumstances, the court would
lean towards reducing of the sentence. The
focus would be on the crime, and not on the
criminal. The society and system would
nurture the guilt with positivity, while
selecting the sentence."
60. The appellant Mohan Singh in CRL.A. 555/2002 is stated to be
80 years old. This Court while suspending the sentence of appellant
Mohan Singh vide order dated 07th August, 2002 noted that he has
already deposited the fine amount and has undergone one year in jail
during the trial. The judgment of conviction is of the year 2002. He
has suffered the ignominy and ordeal of the trial for over two decades.
The prolongation of a criminal case for an unreasonable period is in
itself a kind of suffering and the convict who has appealed against
conviction and sentence, everyday awaits the fate of litigation and
spends time in distress.
61. In light of the cumulative facts and circumstances of the case
and taking the mitigating circumstances in totality, we are of the view
that the ends of justice would be adequately met by reducing the
sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant Mohan
Singh.
Conclusion:
62. In view of the above discussion, CRL.A.555/2002 is partly
allowed and the sentence awarded to appellant Mohan Singh is
reduced to the sentence already undergone by him. However, CRL. A.
704/2002, filed by appellant Surinder Singh, is dismissed. He is
directed to surrender before the Superintendent, Jail immediately to
serve the remaining sentence. In the event of failure to surrender,
appropriate steps shall be taken by the State to ensure his arrest for
undergoing the remaining sentence.
63. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial Court and
Superintendent, Jail for information and necessary action.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
APRIL 16, 2026/AK/RM
