Case: Harjinder Singh @ Bhola Vs. State Of Punjab

Three persons including the appellant herein, were charged for the murder of Gurpreet Singh on the night of 30th January, 1994, at village Ranguwal. The appellant together with one Manjit Singh was charged under Section 302 IPC, read with Section 34 IPC. It appears that the second accused Manjit Singh has been absconding and the trial proceeded only against the appellant. The other accused, namely Sohan Singh, who was charged under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC, died during the course of trial. The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal.2. The prosecution case, as revealed by the FIR lodged by Mohinder Singh, the father of the deceased and his deposition in Court is as under:On the crucial dated, when the informant (P.W.3) returned to his house at about 7 p.m., his wife told him that their son Gurpreet Singh left the house at about 5 p.m. in the company of the two accused as the accused wanted his presence at Jorahan Village for settling the dispute between Jarnail Singh and Ranjit Singh (P.W.4). As his son did not return till 7.30 p.m., Mohinder Singh (P.W.3) decided to search for him and he first went to village Jorahan. Ranjit Singh (P.W.4) also joined him in the search at Jorahan which according to the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W.11) is at a distance of about 1.5 kms. from Ranguwal. Not finding him there, P.W.3 and P.W.4 were coming back to village Ranguwal. It was about 10 p.m (p or 9.15 p.m as per the deposition) when they reached the Primary School at Ranguwal. They witnessed the attack on the deceased by the two accused in front of the Primary School building. The appellant placed a pharna (scarf) around the neck or the deceased after pushing him down to the ground and he continued to press the neck with pharna. The other accused namely, Manjit Singh took out knife from his pocket and inflicted injuries on the face of the deceased. At that stage P.Ws. 3 and 4 raised hue and cry. They were warned threatened to leave the place. Soon after the accused left the place, P.Ws. 3 and 4 were able to go to the spot and noticed that Gurpreet Singh succumbed to the injuries. P.W. 3 claimed to have witnessed the occurrence in moonlight and also with the aid of a torch. Some persons including Chowkidar Nahar Singh and his servant Pritam Singh came to the spot immediately after the occurrence. Leaving them with the dead body, P.Ws. 3 and 4 set out to the police station on motorcycle (moped) for reporting the matter.3. The motive is said to be that the deceased was helping Ranjit Singh (P.W.4) and the appellant was helping his cousin Jarnail Singh in a dispute relating to a plot in Village Joharan.4. It comes out in evidence that P.W.11 Sub Inspector of Police was found at the Nakabandi at a distance of about 2.5 kms. from the village Ranguwal and he recorded the statement of P.W.3 at 11.20 p.m. and sent the same to the Police Station through the Constable and the FIR was drawn up at 11.45 p.m by the Head Constable. The inquest was held on the dead body on the same night at about 2 a.m. In the course of inquest it was found that there was a bluish mark on the neck apart from the injuries on the eyebrows and cheeks. The Pharna wrapped around the neck was also noticed, but it was not produced before the Court. The post mortem was conducted on 31.1.1994 at 10.30 a.m. by the Medical Officer (P.W.10) attached to S.S.C. Khatran. He noticed five lacerated wounds and two incised wounds on the dead body. The Medical Officer (P.W.10), who was examined, stated that there was a bruise-reddish brown in colour on either side of the neck in the front. The neck was found tilted towards the left side, faecal matter was present in the Pyjama, hyoid bone was found fractured and the cartilage was broken. He stated that the deceased could have received injuries at about 5 p.m. the previous day. He gave the opinion that the death was on account of strangulation. However, he did not notice any ligature mark or any sort of injury on the back of the neck.

Court's reasoning:
6. P.Ws. 3 and 4, apart from being close relatives of the deceased, happen to be the chance witnesses. It looks as though the assailants were all the while waiting for P.Ws. 3 and 4 to reach, the spot and witness the incident. Or course, for the mere reason that they are chance witnesses, their evidence cannot be discarded if we find assurance from the prosecution evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused. We, however, feel that their evidence should have been more carefully analysed and evaluated, which the High Court failed to do.Why P.W. 3 should weave a story that he came to know that his son was missing only after he went home at 7.00 p.m. is an unansweredthey are not illiterate persons, though living in a village. It is difficult to assume that they will not have the idea of time.10. The time of incident assumes some importance in the instant case for the reason that the report was given to the police at about 11.20 p.m. If the occurrence had been witnessed at 7.00 p.m. as per P.W.4s version, there would then be a gap of 3 1/2 hrs. to 4 hrs. Probably to cover up this delay, P.W. 3 has come forward with the story that the incident happened between 9.00 and 10.00High Court also commented that the medical witness was not cross examined challenging his opinion. We need not probe into the correctness of the medical opinion as regards the cause of death i.e. whether the death could be by strangulation as we are of the view that the eye witnesses account is not reliable and it is not safe to act on their testimony.The foregoing discussion leads us to conclude that the Trial Court and the High Court did not consider certain material aspects apparent from the evidence and there was almost a mechanical acceptance of the evidence of the two chance witnesses whose evidence should have been evaluated with greater care and caution. As pointed out by this Court in Satbir vs. Surat Singh & Anr. [1997 (4) SCC 192 ], a "cautious and close scrutiny" of the evidence of chance witnesses should inform the approach of the Court. In these circumstances, this Court need not feel bound to accept the findings. The overall picture we get on a critical examination of the prosecution evidence is that PWs 3 & 4 were introduced as eye-witnesses only after the dead body was found.