CASE BRIEF: SUCHA SINGH AND ANR v. STATE OF PUNJAB, 2003 (7) SCC 643

CASE NAME	Sucha Singh and Anr v. State Of Punjab,  2003 (7) SCC 643
CITATION	AIR 2003 SC 3617, 2003 AIR SCW 3984, 2003 (6) SCALE 34, 2003 SCC(CRI) 1697, 2003 ALL MR(CRI) 2346
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice  Doraiswamy Raju and Justice Arijit Pasayat
PETITIONERS	Sucha Singh and Another
RESPONDENT	State Of Punjab
DECIDED ON	decided on 31st July, 2003

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court of India rendered a significant ruling in the criminal law case of Sucha Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, which addresses issues related to the validity of witness testimony, the idea of dying declarations, and the appellate courts' role in reevaluating evidence. In this instance, the Punjab and Haryana High Court confirmed the trial court's conviction of Sucha Singh and another appellant for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Whether the appellants may be found guilty based on the deathbed declarations of the deceased that implicated them was the main question in the Supreme Court appeal. The dying declarations were contested by the appellants, who claimed that they were inconsistent and untrustworthy. In this decision, the Supreme Court reexamined the legal requirements pertaining to dying declarations and the significance of these words as evidence. The Court also discussed more general criminal jurisprudential concepts, such as the need for appellate courts to thoroughly review the evidence, particularly where convictions are predicated only on the testimony of dying people. The significance of this case lies in the precedents it sets for how these legal concepts should be interpreted and applied in criminal cases.

FACTS OF THE CASE

On 4.2.1986, approximately 9.30 a.m. Returned from their fields were Lakhvinder Singh (PW9), his brother Sukhvinder Singh, and a relative, Pritam Singh (PW10). On their way to the fields, they encountered the late Surjit Singh when they came to a turn in the street close to the residence of one Rattan Singh. Abruptly, they discovered the deceased surrounded by the accused-appellants Satnam Singh, Sucha Singh, and Rachpal Singh, who were all carrying lethal weapons, as well as Gurdip Singh and Rattan Singh, who had been ruled not guilty by the High Court. Raising a "lalkara," Rattan Singh said that the deceased should be disciplined for failing to clear a plot. A similar lalkara was constructed by Gurdip Singh.  The dead were surrounded by all of the accused individuals when Sucha Singh delivered two gandasa blows, striking the victim in the right temple and on the neck just below the right ear, causing the victim to fall to the ground. Satnam Singh struck himself with a kirpan on his left hand, right cheek, nose below the chin, and deltoid. He also thrust his back with the kirpan. Rachpal Singh struck Datar in the neck and head. It was there where the dead took his final breath. After that, all of the accused carried the deceased person's body to Rattan Singh's home and hoisted a lalkara, promising to watch to see if anyone came to claim the body.  Lakhvinder Singh (PW9) and Pritam Singh (PW10) saw these heinous deeds. Lakhvinder Singh filed a report at the police station (PW9). Previous security procedures were started under Sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (often known as the "Cr.P.C.") because of the animosity between the parties. After an investigation was conducted, a charge sheet was submitted. The accused-appellants were prosecuted for alleged offenses punishable under Sections 302, 148, 149, and 201 of the IPC, together with two accused persons who were found not guilty. 

ISSUES RAISED

• Whether the accused are liable for the death of the deceased?
• Whether the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the appellant

• The prosecution version was weak due to a number of flaws, yet the Trial Court and the High Court failed to see these important details. There would have been no basis for convicting the accused-appellants if these factors had been taken into account. Among other things, it was claimed that no independent witnesses were questioned. The deceased's son and a close relative have been the only ones probed. It is uncommon that no co-villager showed up to provide a deposition to the prosecution. It is a supposition that independent witnesses are hard to come by in a village where factions run rampant. 
• One reason that works in favor of the accused is the judgment that the Panchayat was supporting them. It suggests that Rattan Singh's defense version was accurate and ought to have been accepted. The son of Sukhvinder Singh, who passed away, and one of the alleged eyewitnesses were not questioned. The discovery of the body within Rattan Singh's home raises the likelihood of the defense version. According to the prosecution, the body was moved from the scene of the incident to Rattan Singh's home. However, the site where the body was allegedly removed showed no signs of bloodstains. It is highly unusual for PWs 9 and 10 to act in this way—not even raising an alarm, let alone going to the deceased's aid. 
• Despite claiming to be present during the inquiry, PW10, a resident of a different village, has not even signed the report. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was not there. The reasons for the accused's injuries are unknown. It would not be appropriate or lawful to find the remaining accused parties guilty based on the identical collection of evidence, given that two of the accused individuals against whom similar evidence was presented have been found not guilty. 
• In light of the co-accused's acquittal, the benefit of the doubt should be granted. 
• It was argued that since there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt, the prosecution cannot be deemed to have proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Arguments on behalf of the respondent After carefully examining the numerous arguments that are currently being made, the trial court and the high court have correctly concluded that the accused applicants were guilty. It would be unrealistic to expect impartial testimony in light of the acknowledged fact that the hamlet was rife with factions and animosity.

JUDGMENT

The Court observed that the appeal was without merits and was set aside. The prosecution's version of events is not undermined in the slightest by the absence of PW10's name from the inquest report or Pritam Singh's name from the DDR entry. This is especially true when the witnesses have provided a credible explanation for their absence from the pertinent documents, which the trial and high courts have acknowledged. The Court further observed that if the accused's injuries are minor and superficial, or if the evidence is so convincing, independent, and disinterested—that is, so probable, consistent, and creditworthy—that it outweighs the impact of the prosecution's failure to explain the injuries, then the prosecution's failure to explain the injuries will not affect the case.

CONCLUSION

It is not always the case that the prosecution must provide an explanation for the harm the accused person suffered in the same incident. The prosecution's duty to provide an explanation for the accused's injuries won't come up if the court finds that the witnesses called by the prosecution prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is rarely required for the prosecution to repeat its explanation of how and under what circumstances the accused's injuries were inflicted once it has established a firm case that the accused committed the crime and can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is especially true for minor or superficial injuries. In this instance, minor and superficial injuries to the accused do not help them to cast doubt on the validity of the prosecution's case, especially if the accused who claimed to have been hurt has been found not guilty. According to what this Court noted in State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram and Ors. Excessive emphasis on witnesses who are unrelated to the victims frequently leads to the elimination of criminal justice. The residents of the dwelling are the most likely witnesses to any occurrence that occurs there or nearby. Ignoring such natural witnesses and relying instead on strangers who might not have observed anything would be pragmatistically incorrect. It is acceptable to make negative remarks about the non-examination of a witness who has not been called by the prosecution if the court has determined from the evidence or even the investigation records that another independent person saw an occurrence that connected to the incident in question. Otherwise, the prosecution should not be chastised by the court for not calling additional neighborhood residents as prosecution witnesses based only on conjecture. Even though there may be many more inhabitants in the neighborhood, the prosecution should only question those who have direct eyewitness testimony. This case deals with the case of murder where the appeal is filed before the Supreme Court against the conviction of the High Court. The main issue dealt with is the interest of the witness. The appellant has claimed the lack of witness and has discredited the credibility of the witness. This is a landmark judgment in examining the credibility of the witness. The Court has further observed and discussed the merits of the case to declare that the case does not have any merits, and hence, the High Court's decision stands.