Case: Surjit Singh Alias Gurmit Singh Vs. State Of Punjab

no specific grudge or enmity with the deceased as he was living outside the village;(iii) there was confusion about the names. the investigation and the appellant had at one time or the other named him as gurmit singh.(iv) the prosecution evidence disclosed that there were three fire shots but jaswinder kaur pw 5 in fir statement ex.pd had not mentioned about the third fire;(v) in the fir hurts of taljit singh are not mentioned.(vi) the recovery of the crime pistol and car- tridges had been effected from gurmit singh, the brother of the appellant and not from the appellant. on these particulars the trial judge held that there was great doubt about the participation of the appellant in the occurrence and held him entitled to the benefit of doubt. 7. The high court turned down all the grounds. The high court termed the reasoning given by the trial judge as implausible. What weighed with the high court was the presence of surjit singh in the village up to 13.5.78 till 4.00 p.m., whereafter he allegedly commenced his journey to join his unit.The high court viewed that it was for the appellant to prove that he left the village at 4.00 p.m. on may 13, 1978 so as to be absent at the time of the occur-rence and then having reached his unit on may 16,1978. the appellant had cited one naib subedar waryam singh as defence witness but gave him up. The two defence witness cited by the defence were merely formal with regard to the sending of certain complaints in the office of senior superintendent of police, jullundur.The evidence of these defence witnesses did not even remotely touch the alibi of the appellant. With regard to the confusion about the name, the high court observed that it would be uncommon and unreasonable for two brothers to be having the same name. the appellant does have a brother named as gurmit singh and yet strangely the appellant assumes his brothers name to be gurmit singh. taljit singh pw 2 had deposed that the appellant has read only up to 4th or 5th class whereas gurmit singh was a matriculate and that when the appellant sought recruitment in the army he gave his name as gurmit singh and utilised the matriculation certificate of his brother gurmit singh. he also de- posed that later when papers for verification had come to the village the appellant had approached mohinder singh deceased that he should help him by telling the enquiry officer that his name was gurmit singh and he was a matriculate. this evidence was totally overlooked by the trial judge for reasons we cannot understand.The high court used this evidence against the appellant.The high court had gone on to observe, and in over view rightly, that the appellant was known as surjit singh and was known as such even for the purpose of army records. he went with the assumed name gurmit singh, for the reasons explained by the prosecution in the statement of taljit singh pw 2.It is noticeable that in the appeal against his acquittal, service of the appellant was effected in the name of surjit singh alias gurmit singh through the military authorities. The high court observed that this particular was suggestive that in the force as well he was known as surjit singh. the appellant having taken up a positive plea of alibi, he could prove it from his travel papers which have been checked and suitably endorsed upon by the railway authorities and/or the army authorities on his joining his unit.the appellant miserably failed to discharge that burden. In this situation the aforesaid misdescription/ omissions in the fir about the number of shots fired and the absence of taljit singhs injuries or the appellant being not described as a military man become of lesser importance. First information report is not an encyclopedia of the entire case and is even not a substantive piece of evidence. It has value, no doubt, but only for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting the maker. Here the maker was a young woman who had lost her husband before her very eyes. The omission or misdescription of these details in the fir which was recorded most promptly, within three hours of the occurrence, would not tell on the prosecution case or the statements of the eye- witnesses with regard to the participation of the appellant in the crime.He had taken a leading and prominent part in spearheading and committing it. For these reasons, we are of the view that the high court was right in convicting the appellant on giving cogent reasons to demolish the reasoning of the trial judge and adding thereto reasons of its own. 8. To be fair to the learned counsel for the appellant, we may mention that he ventured to argue that the evidence regarding the matching of the crime bullet shells with the pistol recovered was not convincing, more so when the .303 pistol, the alleged crime weapon, was recovered from gurmit singh, co-accused. it is noteworthy that gurmit singh, co- accused, stands convicted under the arms act for being in possession of that pistol. this aspect of the case cannot be a substitute to the eye-witness account or the plea taken by the appellant. had the presence of the two witnesses, that is, jaswinder kaur pw-5 and taljit singh pw-2 at the scene of the occurrence been doubted, the recovery of the weapon of offence and its connection with the empty shells recovered at the spot would have assumed some significance. when the two eye-witness are natural witnesses of the crime, one being the young wife who would normally be in the company of the husband at 10.30 p.m. on a summer night and the other the nephew of the deceased who had suffered grevious in- juries in the occurrence and was thus a stamped witness, not much importance is to be attached to this aspect of the case. the venture is futile. 9. th

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]7. The high court turned down all the grounds. The high court termed the reasoning given by the trial judge as implausible. What weighed with the high court was the presence of surjit singh in the village up to 13.5.78 till 4.00 p.m., whereafter he allegedly commenced his journey to join his unit.The high court viewed that it was for the appellant to prove that he left the village at 4.00 p.m. on may 13, 1978 so as to be absent at the time of the occur-rence and then having reached his unit on may 16,1978. the appellant had cited one naib subedar waryam singh as defence witness but gave him up. The two defence witness cited by the defence were merely formal with regard to the sending of certain complaints in the office of senior superintendent of police, jullundur.The evidence of these defence witnesses did not even remotely touch the alibi of the appellant. With regard to the confusion about the name, the high court observed that it would be uncommon and unreasonable for two brothers to be having the same name. the appellant does have a brother named as gurmit singh and yet strangely the appellant assumes his brothers name to be gurmit singh. taljit singh pw 2 had deposed that the appellant has read only up to 4th or 5th class whereas gurmit singh was a matriculate and that when the appellant sought recruitment in the army he gave his name as gurmit singh and utilised the matriculation certificate of his brother gurmit singh. he also de- posed that later when papers for verification had come to the village the appellant had approached mohinder singh deceased that he should help him by telling the enquiry officer that his name was gurmit singh and he was a matriculate. this evidence was totally overlooked by the trial judge for reasons we cannot understand.The high court used this evidence against the appellant.The high court had gone on to observe, and in over view rightly, that the appellant was known as surjit singh and was known as such even for the purpose of army records. he went with the assumed name gurmit singh, for the reasons explained by the prosecution in the statement of taljit singh pw 2.It is noticeable that in the appeal against his acquittal, service of the appellant was effected in the name of surjit singh alias gurmit singh through the military authorities. The high court observed that this particular was suggestive that in the force as well he was known as surjit singh. the appellant having taken up a positive plea of alibi, he could prove it from his travel papers which have been checked and suitably endorsed upon by the railway authorities and/or the army authorities on his joining his unit.the appellant miserably failed to discharge that burden. In this situation the aforesaid misdescription/ omissions in the fir about the number of shots fired and the absence of taljit singhs injuries or the appellant being not described as a military man become of lesser importance. First information report is not an encyclopedia of the entire case and is even not a substantive piece of evidence. It has value, no doubt, but only for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting the maker. Here the maker was a young woman who had lost her husband before her very eyes. The omission or misdescription of these details in the fir which was recorded most promptly, within three hours of the occurrence, would not tell on the prosecution case or the statements of the eye- witnesses with regard to the participation of the appellant in the crime.He had taken a leading and prominent part in spearheading and committing it. For these reasons, we are of the view that the high court was right in convicting the appellant on giving cogent reasons to demolish the reasoning of the trial judge and adding thereto reasons of its own.To be fair to the learned counsel for the appellant, we may mention that he ventured to argue that the evidence regarding the matching of the crime bullet shells with the pistol recovered was not convincing, more so when the .303 pistol, the alleged crime weapon, was recovered from gurmit singh, co-accused. it is noteworthy that gurmit singh, co- accused, stands convicted under the arms act for being in possession of that pistol. this aspect of the case cannot be a substitute to the eye-witness account or the plea taken by the appellant. had the presence of the two witnesses, that is, jaswinder kaur pw-5 and taljit singh pw-2 at the scene of the occurrence been doubted, the recovery of the weapon of offence and its connection with the empty shells recovered at the spot would have assumed some significance. when the two eye-witness are natural witnesses of the crime, one being the young wife who would normally be in the company of the husband at 10.30 p.m. on a summer night and the other the nephew of the deceased who had suffered grevious in- juries in the occurrence and was thus a stamped witness, not much importance is to be attached to this aspect of the case. the venture is futile.