minal Appeal No 918 of 1981
From the Judgment and Order dated 10881 of the Punjab  Haryana High Court in Crl
A No 417 DB of 1980
UR Lalit M Qmaruddin and Mrs M Oumaruddin for the Appellant
Ranbir Singh Yadav and RS Suri NP for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NP SINGH J
The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for causing the murder of Paramjit Singh
It is said that the appellant and the deceased were intimate friends and they used to visit frequently each other s house
But Paramjit Singh hereinafter referred to as deceased  misbehaved with the wife of the appellant and because of that the appellant had nursed a grudge
On July 8 1979 in the morning the appellant asked the deceased to accompany him to Chandigarh and Mohali where he wanted to take some suitable shop for his business
They boarded a bus of the Road Transport Corporation at Patiala for Chandigarh at about 959 AM Gurcharan Singh PW 8 also came to Chandigarh by the same bus
The appellant and the deceased reached Chandigarh at about 1130 AM and after staying there for some time they boarded a local bus for Mohali Gurdev Singh PW 23 accom 1030 panied them in the bus from Chandigarh to Mohali
At Mohali after getting down from the bus the appellant went to Raj Kumar Singh PW 711 brother of his wife and borrowed a bicycle from him
During this period the deceased was sitting at a shop and taking aerated water
Shortly thereafter the appellant arrived with the bicycle at the said shop and both left on the bicycle
The deceased was pedalling the bicycle and the appellant sat behind on the carrier
Both were seen going on the bicycle by Jaimal Singh PW 5 by the side of the Gurdwara Sahib Singh Sabha Mohali
Jaimal Singh PW 5 after taking his meals went to Gurdwara Sahib Singh Sabha at about 245 PM the same day
One Om Parkash came there and told him that a Sikh gentleman was lying on the ground in the campus of the said Gurdwara in an injured condition
Jaimal Singh PW 5 accompanied by Balwinder Singh Sewadar came to the spot and found the victim lying on the ground and bleeding profusely
He identified him to be the same person whom he had seen earlier on the bicycle
The victim could not speak
Jaimal Singh PW 5 left Om Parkash and Balwinder Singh Sewadar at the spot and summoned members of the Gurdwara Committee
Some of the members who were available reached
But in the meantime the victim succumbed to the injuries
They searched for the assailant
Thereafter Jaimal Singh PW 5 accompanied by Chatter Singh went to the Police Station Mohali and lodged the first information report at 400 PM the same day
It is further the case of the prosecution that near about the time of the occurrence the appellant was seen coming from the side of the Gurdwara Sahib Singh Sabha and was noticed on the way by Joginder Singh PW 9 with blood on his hand
On being asked the appellant gave out that he had a fight with someone
and he was going to the hospital to get his injuries dressed
Gurdev Singh PW 23 on his way back from the hotel also saw the appellant going on the bicycle and found him puzzled
He also saw the hand of the appellant stained with blood and blood marks on his clothes as well
On querry the appellant said that he had got the injury through barbed wire and was going to the doctor to get his wounds dressed
Last in the chain of events the appellant reached the house of Raj Kumar Singh PW 11 and returned him his bicycle
It is also the case of the prosecution that next day on July 9 1979 the appellant made over the his shirt to Ram Gopal PW 6 Dry Cleaner 1031 asking him to remove the stains from it
A copy of the receipt prepared in connection with the aforesaid shirt was produced during the trial
The doctor who held the post mortem examination found several incised wounds on the person of the deceased including injury on the abdomen
There is no dispute that the prosecution case is based solely on the circumstantial evidence
If at a trial the prosecution adduces direct evidence to prove the charge the Court is primarily concerned whether the witnesses who have testified about the role of the accused are reliable
Once the Court is satisfied that the witnesses who are said to have seen the occurrence are trustworthy and inspire confidence the finding of guilt has to be recorded if otherwise the accused has to be acquitted
But in a case based on circumstantial evidence neither the accused nor the manner of occurrence is known to the persons connected with the victim
The first information report is lodged only disclosing the offence leaving to the investigating agency to find out the offender
It is said that men lie but circumstances do not
Under the circumstances prevailing in the society today it is not true in many cases
Sometimes the circumstances which are sought to be proved against the accused for purpose of establishing the charge are planted by the elements hostile to the accused who find out witnesses to fill up the gaps in the chain of circumstances
In countries having sophisticated modes of investigation every trace left behind by the culprit can be followed and pursued imme diately
Unfortunately it is not available in many parts of the this country
That is why Courts have insisted i the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established ii all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one sought to be proved iii the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and iv the chain of evidence should not have any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused
A note of caution has also been struck regarding the role of imagination
In the case of Reg vs Hodge 1838 2 Lewin 227 it was said The mind was apt to take a pleasure in adapting circumstances to one another and even in straining them a little if need be to force them to form parts of one 1032 connected while and the more ingenious the mind of the individual the more likely was it considering such matter to overreach and mislead itself to supply some little link that is wanting to take for granted some fact consistent with its previous theories and necessary to render them complete  It has been impressed that suspicion and conjecture should not take place of legal proof It is true that the chain of events proved by the prosecution must show that within all human probability the offence has been committed by the accused but the Court is expected to consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts along with the motive suggested by the prosecution which induced the accused to follow a particular path
The existence of a motive is often an enlightening factor in a process of presumptive reasoning in cases depending on circumstantial evidence
Coming to the facts of the present case Pritam Kaur PW 12 mother of the deceased has deposed that the appellant went to her house in the morning and took the deceased with him saying that he win be accompanying him to Mohali because the appellant had to select a suitable shop
Thereafter both of them left together
There does not appear to be any reason on the part of the mother of the victim to falsely state about the deceased going along with the appellant in the morning of July 8 1979
Gurcharan Singh PW 8 has testified that at 930 AM he saw the appellant and the deceased at the bus stand
He exchanged greeting with them
They told him that they were going to Chandigarh or Mohali
The deceased purchased two bus tickets for Chandigarh in his presence
Gurcharan Singh PW 8 travelled in the same bus with the appellant and the deceased and all the three came out from the bus at Chandigarh together
Sahib Chand PW 24 an employee of the Punjab Roadways Transport Corporation had sold two tickets
The yard control register was produced before the Court to prove in respect of sale of the two tickets which were recovered from the person of the deceased at the time to the post mortem examination
The two tickets were recovered on July 8 1979 on the date
of occurrence itself before the appellant had been located as the culprit of the crime
The two tickets recovered from the person of the deceased 1033 establish that the deceased had travelled from Patiala along with one another person who was close to him because the deceased was keeping both the tickets in his pocket
This circumstances corroborates the evidence of Pritam Kaur PW 12 as well as of Gurcharan Singh PW 8
The other circumstance in the chain of events according to the prosecution is that the appellant and the deceased boarded a local bus at Chandigarh for Mohali reaching there at about 130 PM Gurdev Singh PW 23 who was then employee in Colonization Department Sector 22 Chandigarh and residing at Badheri also travelled in the same local bus
He belonged to Patiala
Gurdev Singh PW 23 saw the appellant and the deceased getting down from the local bus at Mohali
They also exchanged greetings with him and on being asked the appellant told him that they were going to select a shop
They walked together for a short distance and thereafter Gurdev Singh PW 23 went to take his meals at a dhaba
Thereafter the appellant asked the deceased to wait at a shop and he himself went to his wife s brother Raj Kumar Singh PW 11 and borrowed a bicycle from him
Raj Kumar Singh PW 11 although a close relation of the appellant has testified that the appellant took his red bicycle from his house at about 130 PM Jaimal Singh PW 5 saw the deceased taking aerated water at the shop and later saw the appellant and the deceased both going together on a red bicycle
The deceased was pedalling the bicycle and the appellant was sitting on the carrier
Gurdev Singh PW23 aforesaid who had left the appellant and the deceased while going to the dhaba for taking his meals after taking his meals at about 230 PM again saw the appellant coming on the same bicycle alone
The appellant appeared to be puzzled and his hands were stained with blood
There were also blood spots on his clothes
Gurdev Singh PW 23 asked him
as to what had happened to him
The appellant without stopping the bicycle said that he got entangled in the were and ware rushing to some doctor to get himself bandaged
Yet another witness Joginder Singh PW 9 who had gone to Mohali in search of some plot saw the appellant at about 215 PM coming on a red colour bicycle
He also noticed the hand of the appellant stained with blood
On query the appellant told Joginder Singh PW 9 that he had a fight with some person and was going to hospital for dressing of his wounds
Thereafter the appellant went to Raj Kumar Singh PW 11 his brother in law to hand over the bicycle aforesaid
1034 It may be mentioned that in the Court Raj Kumar Singh PW 11 stated that this appellant had gone to his house at about 130 PM and taken his red colour bicycle which he returned the same day later
But he denied that he had stated during investigation that he had seen injuries on the hand of the appellant
He also denied that he had told the police during investigation that the appellant was mentally agitated
Still the fact that the appellant had taken from him his red colour bicycle at about 130 PM which the appellant returned to him later the same day has been testified by him
If this part of the evidence of Raj Kumar Singh PW 11 is accepted which we find no reason to doubt then his evidence corroborates the evidence of Jaimal Singh PW 5 and Gurdev Singh PW 23 that the appellant was going with the deceased on a red colour bicycle at about 130 PM and about 230 PM the appellant was seen coming on the bicycle alone
Jaimal Singh PW 5 has also stated that be had seen the accused and the deceased going on the bicycle at a place which was 500 yards from the local Gurdwara Singh Sabha
Jaimal Singh PW 5 later went to the said Gurdwara and in the Gurdwara premises while he was talking with Balwinder Singh Sewadar at about 245 PM one Om Parkash came there and informed that a Sikh gentlemen was lying on the ground in an injured condition
All of them went towards the place where the injured was lying
Jaimal Singh recognised the victim to be the same person whom he had seen earlier taking aerated water at the shop and later on the bicycle along with the appellant
Blood was coming out from his abdominal region
The victim was not in a position to speak
Jaimal Singh PW 5 went to call the members of the Gurdwara Committee
Two members of the Gurdwara reached the spot
But by that time victim had succumbled to his injuries
Therefore they went to the Police Station Mohali where Jaimal Singh PW 5 lodged the first information report at 400 PM Jaimal Singh PW 5 did not know either the name of the appellant or that of the deceased but he stated in the first information report that he had gone to Dhaba and at about 130 PM while taking meals he saw a fair complexioned Sardar taking aerated water in the adjoining shop
After taking meals when he was going on the road again he saw the same Sardar pedalling a cycle going towards Gurdwara Singh Sabha Mohafi and behind him a young Hindu Mona was sitting on the cycle
Then he gave the details as to how then at the Gurdwara at about 245 PM one Om Parkash told him that one Sardar was lying in a comer of Gurdwara in an injured 1035 condition
He went and identified that he was the same young man whom he had seen taking aerated water at the shop and then on the bicycle
The first information report was lodged within one and a half hours of the occurrence giving the aforesaid details
The statements made in the first information report corroborate fully the testimony of Jaimal Singh PW 5 in Court
Once the evidence of Jaimal Singh is accepted it supports and corroborates the evidence of Gurdev Singh PW 23 who had travelled with the appellant and deceased in local bus from Chandigarh to Mohali and had got down at Mohali at 130 PM
He later saw the appellant at about 230 PM returning on the bicycle with injuries on hand and blood on clothes
Gurdev Singh PW 23 knew the appellant as well as deceased from before
Apart from the evidence of the witnesses who have proved the different links in the chain of events the shirt which the appellant was wearing and on which blood had been noticed by witnesses as already mentioned above was recovered from the laundry of Ram Gopal PW 6
According to Ram Gopal PW 6 on July 9 1979 the appellant had given that shirt to remove certain stains
He had issued a receipt to the appellant and one chit was tagged with the shirt for identification
The third was kept by way of record
The shirt was seized and sent to the chemical examiner who found human blood on the said shirt
The shirt as well as the bicycle were produced as exhibits before the Trial Court and have been identified by the witnesses who were examined on behalf of the prosecution
None of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution appear to have been set up or planted by any inimical source
They are neither interested in the deceased nor have any bias against the appellant
So far the motive which impelled the appellant to commit the murder it has been suggested on behalf of the prosecution that the appellant and the deceased were intimate friends but the appellant had a suspicion that the deceased was misbehaving with his wife for which the appellant had a resentment
The resentment was never allowed to be surfaced by the appellant by way of strong protest or confrontation
However he had mentioned this to Darshanjit Singh PW 13 Kanwaljit Singh PW 14 and Sarup Lal PW 15 rile three witnesses aforesaid have deposed as to how the appellant was carrying a suspicion and was tense from inside in respect of the conduct of tile deceased
There is nothing on the record to show that the aforesaid three witnesses were either inimical to the appellant or 1036 interested in the deceased because of that they could have concocted a motive for commission of the crime by the appellant
According to us the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is clear unambiguous and in unmistakable terms establish that the appellant is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing has been brought to our notice which leaves any gap in the circumstances to establish the guilt of the appellant
The facts of the case stands the scrutiny and tests as laid down by this Court in the cases of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar vs State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343 Deonandan Mishra vs The State of Bihar   Govinda Reddy vs State of Nysore AIR 1960 SC 29 Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra  Ashok Kumar Chatterjee vs State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1989 SC 1890 and State of UP vs Ashok Kumar Srivastava The appeal is accordingly dismissed
VPR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The respondent in the appeal joined Government Service in the Ministry of Finance in a Class IV post as Peon on 22nd February 1956
At the time of entry his service book was prepared and the date of birth was recorded as 20th May 1934 and since he failed in the matriculation examination against the column of educational qualification matric failed  was recorded
The respondent later on again appeared in the matriculation examination passed the said examination in May 1956 was appointed as LDC in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 9th May 1957 and in his service book an entry was made showing his educational qualification as Matric  underneath the earlier entry matric failed  and this changed entry was signed by the Section Officer of the Ministry of Home Affairs on 7th September 1957
Though the date of birth of the respondent as recorded in the matriculation certificate was 741938 while amending the entry about his educational qualification the entry relating to his date of birth was not altered to correspond to the date given in the matriculation certificate and continued to be recorded as 20th May 1934
The respondent was later transferred to the Ministry of Human Resources Development and on being notified about his date of superannuation as 3151992 he realised that he was being retired on the basis of his date of birth as originally recorded in the service record as 2051934 ignoring the date of birth as reflected in the matriculation certificate
In view tot the aforesaid position the respondent made a representation in September 1991 for alteration of his date of birth but the 863 same was rejected on 4121991
He submitted another representation on 311992 for correction on the basis of the date of birth as recorded in the matriculation certificate but this request was also turned down by the appellant in view of the Ministry of Home Affairs OM dated 2911992
Yet another representation dated 26th March 1992 was submitted by the respondent wherein he had drawn the attention of the Department to the order of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the case of Darshan Singh vs Union of India wherein the Tribunal had directed that the date of birth should be corrected on the basis of the matriculation certificate
This representation was also rejected by the appellant on 22A1992
Being aggrieved the respondent challenged the aforesaid order by an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal and this was contested by the appellant on various grounds including the plea of limitation
It was also urged that the application was barred by FR 56 Note 5 and the General Financial Rules 1979 and therefore did not merit and consideration
It was submitted that the respondent knew about the entry of his date of birth as 2051934 since he had signed his service book on various occasions ever since he joined service but his representation for correction of the date of birth was made only in September 1991 much belatedly and even beyond the period of five years from the date of entry into Government Service as envisaged by SO 3997 dated 30th November 1979
The Tribunal did not agree with any of the aforesaid contentions of the appellant allowed the application flied by the respondent and directed the appellant to correct the date of birth in the service record as per the date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate
In the appeal by the Union of India to this Court it was contented that in view of the law laid down in Amulya Chandrakalita vs Union of India  Ors the judgment rendered by only a single member of the Tribunal is invalid and therefore the order deserves to be set aside and the case remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal
The arguments raised before the Tribunal were also reiterated before this Court
Allowing the appeal this Court HELD  1
A Government servant after entry into service acquires 864 the right to continue in service till the age of retirement as fixed by the State in exercise of its powers regulating conditions of service unless the services are dispensed with on other grounds contained in the relevant service rules after following the procedure prescribed therein
869G 2
The date of birth entered in the service records of a civil servant is of utmost importance for the reason that the right to continue in service stands decided by its entry in the service record
869H 3
A Government servant who has declared his age at the initial stage of the employment is of course not precluded from making a request later on for correcting his age
It is open to a civil servant to claim correction of his date of birth if he is in possession of irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth as different from the one earlier recorded and even if there is no period of limitation prescribed for seeking correction of date of birth the Government servant must do so without any un reasonable delay
869H 870B 4
A Government servant who makes an application for correction of date of birth beyond the time fixed by the Government cannot claim as a matter of right the correction of his date of birth even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous
870C 5
Unless altered date of birth as recorded would determine date of superannuation even if it amounts to abridging the right to continue in service on the basis of actual age
870D State of Assam  Anr
vs Daksha Prasad Deka  Ors   referred to
Note 5 to Fundamental Rule 56m governing correction of date of birth in the service record as amended by Government of India with effect from 30111979 limits the exercise of the right by the Government servant to seek alteration of his date of birth only within the specified period viz five years of entry into government service
871A B In the instant case the CAT was of the opinion that the bar of five years could only apply to such Government servants who joined service after 1979 when the amendment came into force and that the said period of limitation would not apply to Government servants who were in service 865 for more than five years prior to 1979
The approach of the Tribunal tends to create an invidious discrimination unsustainable in law by creating two artificial classes of government servants between those who joined service before and after 1979
It is too simplistic a way of looking at the issue ignoring the ground realities and the intention of the rule making authority to discourage stale claims and non suit such government servants who seek alteration of their recorded date of birth belatedly and mostly on the eve of their superannuation
872C 873E 7
It would be appropriate and in tune with the harmonious construction of the provision if in the case of those government servants who were already in service before 1979 for a period of more than five years and who intended to have their date of birth corrected after 1979 may seek the correction of date of birth within a reasonable time after 1979 but in any event not later than five years after the coming into force of the amendment in 1979
This view would be in consonance with the intention of the rule making authority
874C D New India Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt
Shanti Misra  and Vinod Gurudas Raikar vs National Insurance Co   referred to
In the instant case the date of birth recorded at the time of entry into service as 20th May 1934 had continued to exist unchallenged between 1956 and September 1991 for almost three and a half decades
The respondent had the occasion to see his service book at different places at different points of time
Never did he object to the recorded entry
The same date of birth was also reflected in the seniority lists of LDC and UDC which the respondent had admittedly seen
He remained silent and did not seek alteration till September 1991 just a few months prior to the date of his superannuation
Inordinate and unexplained delay or laches on the part of the respondent to seek the necessary correction would in any case have justified the refusal of relief to him
Even if the respondent had sought correction of the date of birth within five years after 1979 when Note 5 to FR 56 was incorporated the earlier delay would not have non suited him
His inaction for all this period of about thirty five years from the date of joining service therefore precludes him from showing that the entry of his date of birth in the service record was not correct
The Tribunal therefore fell in error in issuing the direction to correct his date 866 of birth
876C F 876H 877A Darshan Singh vs Union of India decided by Principal Bench of CAT on 981990 over ruled