Case: Pala Singh &amp; Anr Vs. State Of Punjab

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly are that Atma Singh, resident of Basti Danish Mandan, Jullunder-City had purchased a plot of land measuring 58 kanals and 10 marlas in the aforesaid Basti in the year 1959 for a sum of about Rs. 16,000 from the Government at a public auction. This piece of land was at that time being cultivated by Hazara Singh, one of the five co-accused in the trial court and his associates. As they were disinclined to give up possession Atma Singh appointed Ram Singh (P. W. 14) and Sham Singh (deceased) as his attorneys to represent him in the litigation concerning the said land. These two attorneys obtained possession of the plot with the help of the police and through the intervention of the revenue authorities in June, 1963. A few days later Hazara Singh and 7 or 8 other persons including Trilok Singh son of Surain Singh, accused no. 1 and Trilok Singh son of Inder Singh, accused no. 5, threatened the two attorneys with death unless they dissociated themselves with the litigation relating to this land. Sham Singh, deceased, thereupon applied to the City Inspector of Police complaining against this threat as a result of which Hazara Singh and Trilok Singh son of Inder Singh were proceeded against under S. 107, Cr. P. C. The two attorneys, it appears, wanted to plough the land in question but were afraid of the accused persons. They approached the Superintendent of Police for help which was made available to them against payment of the prescribed fee. The land in question was actually ploughed by the attorneys in the presence of the police on June 26, 1963 when Hazara Singh, Trilok Singh son of Inder Singh and Harnam Singh, father of Pala Singh, came there armed with lathis but were apprehended. The police stayed on the land in question for about 5 or 6 days. On August 9, 1963 the crop standing on the said land was found damaged. At the instance of Ram Singh (P. W. 14) the police prosecuted Hazara Singh, his brother Tara Singh, his employee Channan and Trilok Singh son of Inder Singh, all of whom were found guilty and convicted. In November, 1963 Hazara Singh, Harnam Singh, Bulkar Singh (brother of Pala Singh) and other persons were prosecuted for ploughing the said land but were acquitted. On 15-12-1963 Hazara Singh and 17 or 18 other persons attacked Sham Singh, deceased, and Ram Singh (P. W. 14). The police proceeded against Hazara Singh, his wife Piar Kaur and his brother Mahal Singh, wife of Tara Singh, brother of Hazara Singh and Mangal Singh, brother of Trilok Singh son of surain Singh under S. 107, Cr. P. C. During the pendency of these proceedings Sham Singh, deceased, and Ram Singh (P. W. 14) were attacked by six persons including Hazara Singh, the two Trilok Singhs (Trilok Singh son of Surain Singh, accused no. 1 appellant no. 2 in this Court and Trilok Singh son of Inder accused no. 5 in the trial court) Channan Singh, Harnam Singh and Mangal Singh who were committed to the sessions court to stand their trial for an offence under Section 307 I. P. C. and other offences. Sham Singh deceased, and Ram Singh (P. W. 14) were to appear as prosecution witnesses in that case which was adjourned to June 3, 1966 because of the absence of Trilok Singh, appellant. On May 23, 1966 at about 7.30 a.m. Laxman Singh (P. W. 2) was coming from his coal depot in Basti Danishmandan, to his residential house situated in a lane in which Sham Singh, deceased, also resided. The deceased was at that time going ahead of Laxamn Singh and Narinder Singh, brother of the deceased was following Laxman Singh about 3 or 4 yards behind. When Sham Singh reached near the shop of Babu Ram, barber, Trilok Singh, appellant, and Dhira (accused no. 2 in the trial court) each armed with a kirpan and Pala Singh, accused, and Trilok Singh son of Inder Singh armed with a lathi each, appeared at the spot. Trilol Singh son of Inder Singh shouted that the enemy had come and should be murdered. Dhira aimed a kirpan blow at the head of Sham Singh, deceased, who caught hold of the kirpan but the same was pulled away by Dhira. Pala Singh thereupon gave a lathi blow on the head of the deceased as a result of which he fell on the ground face dwonwards. This was followed by three or four kirpan blows by the appellant Trilok Singh on the back of the neck of the deceased. The occurrence was witnessed by Gokal Chand (P. W. 3) who practises in Ayurvedic system of medicine and has a shop nearby and Trilochan Singh (P. W. 9) a tractor driver who happened to pass that way to attend to his duties as such3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused persons holding that the Assistant Sub-Inspector, Kashmiri Lal, who had investigated the offence had not performed his duties ina fair and straightforward manner and that the prosecution evidence was not trustworthy so as to bring home the offence to the accused beyond the possibility of a reasonable doubt. The trial court expressed the view that the first information report had been recorded after great delay and after there had been consultation with the interested persons. The special report had also not reached the duty magistrate till after the expiry of 8 or 9 hours though the duty magistrate lives in the same town. The inquest report prepared by A. S. I. Kashmiri Lal had also been tampered with inasmuch as there were interpolations in the statements of at least two witnesses recorded herein. Gokal Chand (P. W. 3) was also disbelieved by the trial court and so was Trilochan Singh (P. W. 9). The recovery of blood-stained sword at the instance of Trilok Singh, appellant, was also discarded as unreliable. The site plan prepared by A. S. I. Kashmiri Lal was also held to have been prepared not, as it purported to be, before 9.45 a.m. but long thereafter when he had decided to implicate Hazara Singh also as a party to the conspiracy under S. 120B, I. P. C. As observed earlier, all the accused were acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions JudgeOn appeal by the State the High Court considered the entire evidence in great detail and examined all the material circumstances which had weighed with the trial Court in disbelieving the prosecution story, and in disagreement with the trial Court, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had fully proved the case against the two appellants in this Court.

Reasoning: This, in our view, correctly summarises the legal position as finally settled by this Court, The submission urged by Shri Kohli, therefore, that merely because the judgment of the trial court prima facie seems reasonable there is no scope for reassessment of the evidence by the appellate court is unacceptable. The court of appeal has full power under the statute to go into the entire evidence and all the relevant circumstances of the case for coming to its own conclusion about the guilt or innocence of the accused bearing in mind the initial presumption of the innocence of an accused person. We do not think that the High Court committed any error in the appraisal of the evidence on the record and in arriving at its own conclusion as to the guilt of the appellants. The criticism about the insertion of S. 120B in the plan Ex. PH/1, in our view, may raise slight suspicion but in view of the trustworthiness of the prosecution evidence led in the case we do not think that in any way justifies any grave suspicion of the prosecution story9. Besides, the case is now before us under Art. 136 of the Constitution, We allowed Shri Kohli not only to state the case broadly and to take us through the judgments of the two courts below but also to take us through such evidence as he considered proper for persuading us to hold that the High Court had not followed the principles laid down in Sanwant Singhs case, (1961) 3 SCR 120   = (AIR 1961 SC 715  ) (supra) or that its conclusions were otherwise so erroneous as to justify interference by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. We are not persuaded to hold that there is any ground for differing with the conclusion of the High Court.