STATE OF PUNJAB versus BITTU &ANR. ETC. ETC.
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 1121, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
(2015] 10 S.C.R. 1121 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
BITTU &ANR. ETC. ETC. 
(CriminalAppeal Nos.548-551 of2013) 
DECEMBER 16, 2015 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.) 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860- ss.1208, 302 and 201 rlw. s.34 -
Prosecution under - Of five accused - Conviction by trial c 
court relying on testimony of the eye-witnesses (PWs 5, 6 
and 7), the medical evidence and the motive as established 
by PW7 - High Court acquitted the accused - On appeal, 
held: The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond 
reasonable doubt - the testimonies of PWs 5 and 7 as eye-
D 
witnesses are highly doubtful -
Though the motive is 
established by PW7, but the motive alone cannot be sufficient 
to convict the accused - Even the medical evidence does 
not support the prosecution version - The accused are 
entitled to be acquitted. 
E 
Evidence - Motive- Evidentiary value of- Held: Motive 
alone cannot be sufficient to convict an accused, as it is not 
substantive evidence and is merely corroborative in nature. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1. PW-2 and the complainant PW-6 were 
eyewitnesses as per the prosecution story. But they 
failed to support the prosecution case as they turned 
hostile during the trial. In cross-examination, the G 
complainant did not own up any part of the previous 
statement which led to the FIR except that part where he 
had named four of the accused persons to the Police. 
PW-2 was the real maternal uncle of the deceased and H 
1121
1122 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A was alleged to have been present as an eye-witness 
during the incident, as per the FIR. It is unnatural for him 
not to have come to the rescue of his nephew even when 
he had identified him as the victim. Thus, the two main 
eye-witnesses turned hostile and did not support the 
B case of the prosecution. [Para 9] [1126-G; 1127-C-E] 
2. The statements of PW-5 lead to an inference that 
his presence was doubtful. PW-5 was the real maternal 
uncle of the deceased and on seeing the deceased being 
C thrown by the accused, he did not even bother to check 
whether the deceased was dead or alive. Also, the fact 
that he did not meet the police for 3 hours is a strange 
fact considering that his n~phew had died. [Para 10] 
[1128-A-B] 
D 
3. Even if the motive is clearly established, PW-7 was 
admittedly the friend of the deceased. Neither he was 
named in the FIR nor did he care to warn the deceased 
or tiis family members of the conspiracy that he had 
E overheard. This makes his conduct highly unnatural and 
his presence doubtful at the place of incident. [Para 11] 
[1128-E-G] 
4. The prosecution failed to prove its case on one 
F more aspect. The prosecution alleged that the medical 
evidence corroborates their story. But the testimony of 
the doctor-PW-1, who did the medical examination of the 
deceased, does not support this fact. [Para 12) 
(1128-H; 1129-A) 
G 
5. All the circumstances lead to the inference that 
the
prosecution has failed to bring home its case. The 
testimonies of PW-5 and PW-7 are highly doubtful and 
do not inspire confidence. Though the motive has been 
H well established by the testimony of PW-7, but it alone
STATE OF PUNJAB v. BITTU &ANR. ETC. ETC. 
1123 
cannot be sufficient to convict the accused as it is not A 
substantive evidence and is merely corroborative in 
nature. Even the medical evidence fails to support the 
prosecution version. Thus, the conviction of the accused 
cannot be sustained. [Para 13] [1129-D-E] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: CRIMINAL 
APPEAL Nos. 548-551 of2013 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.08.2011 of the 
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in D-341, 407, 
607 & 772-DB of 2004 
C 
Jayant K. Sud, Addi. AG, Punjab, Jasleen Chahal, Asstt. 
AG, Punjab, Huney Khanna, Kuldip Singh for the Appellant. 
S. K. Bhattacharya, Niraj Bobby Paonam, Th. I. B. Singh, 
Satyajeet Kumar, Rajat Sharma, Subhasish Bhowmick for the D 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1.These appeals by 
special leave have been directed against the judgment and E 
order dated 11.8.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab 
and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. D-341, 
407, 607 and 772 of 2004 whereby the High Court allowed 
the criminal appeals filed by the respondents herein and 
acquitted them from offence punishable under Section 302, 
F 
364, 201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter 
referred to as "IPC"]. 
2. The brief facts necessary to dispose of these appeals 
are that on 9.10.2002, a police party headed by SHO G 
Jaswinder Singh, along with other police officials, was on 
patrolling duty in
the area of truck union, Bhawanigarh. The 
complainant Gurdip Singh son of Arjan Singh, resident of 
Village Kasba Bharawal, Police Station Malerkotla came there 
and got his statement recorded with the SHO Jaswinder Singh, 
H
1124 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
to the following effect: That on the preceding night at about 
2:00 a.m., when he was performing his duty at the Dera Kar 
Sewa, Balad Crossing, Bhawanigarh, he saw the accused 
persons Bittu, Neetu, Tony, Jagdeep @ Michu and Ashok 
Kumar@ Rocky (deceased), who were known to him, coming 
B towards the Dera from Bhawanigarh side. In the meantime, 
Harkesh Kumar (PW-2) who was a resident of Bhawanigarh 
also came there. Bittu, Neetu, Tony and Michu threw Ashok 
Kumar (the deceased) on the floor and placed a big stone on 
his chest. They forcibly closed his nose and mouth after which 
C Ashok Kumar became unconscious. Thereafter, the accused 
persons dragged him towards the main road, where his clothes 
were removed and they stuffed his mouth with soil. The 
complainant and Harkesh Kumar asked the accused persons 
0 
not to do so. Shortly after that, accused Jaswant Singh also 
came there on a Maruti Car bearing No. PB-34/1110. He along 
with other accused, loaded the body of Ashok Kumar in the 
car on the pretext that they were going to admit him in the Civil 
Hospital, Bhawanigarh. They threatened the complainant and 
E Harkesh Kumar with dire consequences, if they disclosed the 
incident to anybody. In the next morning, the complainant and 
Harkesh ~umar came to know that the dead body of Ashok 
Kumar and his clothes were lying on the road near the Dera of 
Baba Sham Giri. Upon this statement of the complainant, a 
F formal
FIR w~s recorded. 
3. After investigation the Police filed its report and the 
prosecution presented the challan against the accused persons 
in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, 
G on 2.1.2003. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court 
of Sessions Judge, Sangrur. After considering the material on 
record and hearing the prosecution and defence, charges 
under Sections 120-B, 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal 
Code were framed, read over and explained to the accused 
H persons who pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
STATE OF PUNJAB v. BITTU &ANR. ETC. ETC. 
1125 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 
4. The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated A 
19.3.2004, convicted the accused/respondents and sentenced 
them as follows: Bittu, Neetu, Tony and Jagdeep Singh were 
convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo 
life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-each, in default 
whereof they were directed to undergo further R. I. for one year B 
each. They were further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years 
and R.I. for 5 years under Sections 364 and 120-B of the IPC, 
respectively, and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-and Rs.1,000/-each, 
with default clauses. They were further sentenced to undergo 
R.I. for 3 years under Section 201 IPC and to pay a fine of C 
Rs.1,000/- each, in default whereof each of them were to 
undergo R.I. for 3 months. Accused Jaswant Singh was 
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years under Section 120-B of 
IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default whereof he was 0 
to undergo further R.I. for 3 months. 
5. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19.3.2004 
passed by the Trial Court, the accused persons challenged 
their conviction by filing criminal appeals before the High Court 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, being Criminal Appeal 
E 
Nos. D-341, D-407, D-607 and D-341 of 2004. The High Court 
by the impugned judgment and order allowed the appeals on 
the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of 
circumstances enough to connect all
the accused with the 
F 
alleged offence and, consequently the respondents were set 
at liberty. The State of Punjab is, thus, before us in appeal 
against the acquittal of the accused persons, who are 
respondents in the present appeals. 
G. Mr. Jayant K. Sud, learned Additional Advocate ~eneral G 
appearing for the State of Punjab, has inter alia submitted that 
the judgment of the Trial Court is well reasoned and well 
considered. He has submitted last seen theory, motive, recovery 
and corroboration by medical evidences as the grounds for H
1126 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
proving the guilt of the accused. He assailed the reasoning 
given by the High Court in coming to a wrong conclusion i.e. 
the innocence of the accused. The Learned counsel appearing 
for the accused-respondents has vehemently rebutted the 
B 
c 
D 
grounds argued by the learned Additional Advocate General. 
7. The Trial Court convicted the accused respondents on 
the basis of the prosecution story relying upon the following 
circumstantial evidences:-
i. Testimony of eyewitnesses Narain Dass (PW-5), 
Gurdeep Singh (PW-6) and Kashmir Chand (PW-7), is 
natural and there is no enmity between them and the 
accused persons. 
ii. The medical evidence corroborates the statements of 
Narain Dass (PW-5) and Kashmir Chand (PW-7). 
iii. Motive has been proved by the testimony of Kashmir 
Chand (PW-7). 
E 
8. The High Court pointed out serious lacunae in the above 
F 
said evidences which were considered by the trial court in 
convicting the accused and hence the conviction order was 
set aside as the necessary benefit of doubt was given to the 
accused. 
9. We have perused the oral and documentary evidences · 
on record. We shall now examine each and every contention 
in light of the arguments adduced before us in the Court. 
Harkesh Kumar (PW-2) and the complainant Gurdip Singh 
G (PW-6) were eyewitnesses as per the prosecution story. But 
they faned to support the prosecution case as they turned hostile 
during the trial. Gurdip
Singh had made a statement to the 
police regarding the FIR on the basis of which the case was 
registered. But when he appeared before the Court as PW-6, 
H he testified that he heard some commotion at around 2:00
STATE OF PUNJAB v. BITTU &ANR. ETC. ETC. 
1127 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 
a.m. on the date of incident and when he came down to the A 
main road he found a crowd of about 14-15 persons. He also 
stated that he saw a person lying unconscious and did not 
know who that person was. He saw 4-5 persons putting the 
body of that person in the car and taking him towards 
Bhawanigarh. He denied of having been acquainted to the B 
accused and also stated that he could not say whether the 
accused appearing in the court were the same persons he 
saw that night. In cross-examination, he did not own up any 
part of the previous statement which led to the FIR except that 
part where he had named Bittu, Neetu, Jagdeep and Tony as C 
the accused persons to the Police. Harkesh Kumar (PW-2) 
failed to support the prosecution case and was declared 
hostile. He was admittedly, the real maternal uncle of the 
deceased and was alleged to have been present as an D 
eyewitness during the incident, as per the FIR. It is unnatural 
for him not to have come to the rescue of his nephew even 
when he had identified him as the victim. Thus, the two main 
eyewitnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of 
the prosecution. 
E 
10. The next aspect for consideration before us is the 
statement of Narain Dass (PW-5). He stated in his testimony 
that he, along with one Sita Ram, had come to Shiv Mandir, 
Bhawanigarh, for paying obeisance at around 6:00 a.m. and 
had witnessed the silver coloured
Maruti car bearing No. PB-
F 
34-1110 outside that Mandir. The said car was being driven 
by Neetu and all the five accused persons were present in the 
car and they stopped the car and threw the dead body of the 
deceased near a truck which was parked there. They also threw G 
the clothes of the deceased. He admitted that the deceased 
was his real nephew (bhanja). He also stated that after chasing 
the accused when he failed to get hold of them, he went back 
home. He did not meet the police from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. 
that day. He also stated that at 6:00 a.m. on that morning, there H
1128 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 O S.C.R. 
A 
may be some darkness. His statements thus lead to an 
inference that his presence was doubtful. PW-5 was the real 
maternal uncle of the deceased and he did not even bother to 
check whether the deceased was dead or alive. Also, the fact 
that he did not meet the police for 3 hours is a strange fact 
B considering that his nephew had died. The High Court has 
discussed in great volume the discrepancies in the evidence 
of PW-5 and the time gap between his seeing the accused 
and his meeting the police, as per his allegation. It makes the 
statement of PW-5 highly doubtful. 
c 
11. The next incriminating fact is the motive behind the 
crime as has been established by the testimony of Kashmir 
Chand (PW-7). He stated that on 8.10.2002 at about 8:00 p.m. 
he had gone to see Ram Leela in Grain Market, Bhawanigarh 
D and had seen the five accused persons conspiring with one 
another about finishing Ashok Kumar, because he was not 
agreeing to remove his fruit Rehri from the front of the meat 
shop of Bittu and Nitu. He also stated that he saw the accused 
beating and sitting upon the deceased at about 2:30 a.m. at 
E night. Even if the motive is clearly established, the fact that 
PW-7 was admittedly the friend of the deceased, he ought to 
have warned the deceased about such plans of the accused. 
PW-7 stated that he had gone to see Ram Leela and came 
back after 15-20 minutes to his house, had his meals and later 
F 
left the
house at around 2:00 a.m. Neither he was named in 
the FIR nor did he care to warn the deceased or his family 
members of the conspiracy that he had overheard. This makes 
his conduct highly unnatural and his presence doubtful at the 
place of incident. Thus, his statement merely establishes the 
G motive of the accused. 
12. The prosecution failed to prove its case on one more 
aspect. The prosecution alleged that the medical evidence 
corroborates their story. But the testimony of Dr. Sanjeev Jindal 
H (PW-1), who did the medical examination of the deceased,
STATE OF PUNJAB v. BITIU &ANR. ETC. ETC. 
1129 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 
do~s not support this fact. He stated that the internal injuries of A 
the deceased were such that they may have been caused by 
a heavy stone kept on the chest, but he did not clearly establish 
the same, in his opinion. He merely said that the possibility 
cannot be ruled out. Also, if the incident occurred in the manner 
stated in the FIR, sufficient quantity of soil should have been B 
found in the mouth of the deceased but PW-1 has categorically 
stated in his testimony that no soil was found in the mouth of 
the deceased. He had merely found some dust sticking to the 
face of the deceased which could be caused by merely 
throwing the dead body on the ground or even on a metalled C 
road which is dust free. 
13. All the above circumstances lead to the inference that 
the prosecution has failed to bring home its case. It appears 
that the testimonies of Narain Dass (PW-5) and Kashmir D 
Chand (PW-7) are highly doubtful and do not inspire 
confidence. Though the motive has been well established by 
the testimony of PW-7, but it alone cannot be sufficient to 
convict the accused as it is not substantive evidence and is 
merely corroborative in nature. Even the medical evidence fails 
E 
to support the prosecution version. Thus, the conviction of the 
accused cannot be sustained. 
14. In the light of the above discussion, we find no grounds 
to interfere with the judgment passed by the High Court.
The 
F 
appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Appeals dismissed.