- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of Punjab v. Balraj Singh Alias Chhajju .
Factual and Procedural Background
The State appealed by special leave against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 10 September 1974, which had acquitted Balraj Singh alias Chhajju of all charges. Two men—Balraj Singh alias Chhajju and Balkar Singh alias Khola—had originally been tried before the Sessions Judge. Balkar Singh was acquitted, but Balraj Singh was convicted under Section 302 IPC (sentenced to death), Section 307 IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
The prosecution alleged that on 14 April 1973 Balraj Singh confronted Swaran Singh (the deceased) in a wheat field at Village Patti, accused him of informing the police about a tractor theft, and shot him, killing him on the spot. Surat Singh (PW 3, the deceased’s brother) and Harjit Singh (PW 4, the deceased’s minor son) were following and were also fired upon and injured while fleeing. A First Information Report was lodged at 11:55 p.m. that night, leading to Balraj Singh’s committal and conviction. The High Court, upon appeal and reference for confirmation of the death sentence, found the evidence insufficient and acquitted the accused. The State therefore sought reversal of the acquittal in the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court’s order of acquittal in light of the settled standard requiring “special reasons” or a “substantial error.”
- Whether the evidence—principally the identification testimony of PW 3 Surat Singh and PW 4 Harjit Singh—proved Balraj Singh’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant-State’s Arguments
- The Sessions Judge correctly relied on PW 3’s testimony; even if PW 4’s evidence were excluded, PW 3’s statement sufficed for conviction.
- The High Court’s reasons for doubting the prosecution case—such as disbelief in a “lalkara” (challenge) before the assault and the view that the pellet injuries on PW 3 and PW 4 were fabricated—were speculative and unsupported by medical testimony.
Respondent-Accused’s Arguments
- The accused had no knowledge that the deceased and witnesses would pass through the field at the relevant time, undermining the theory that he lay in wait.
- Identification was unreliable: PW 3 and PW 4 viewed the assailant from roughly 150 feet away in a standing wheat crop, and PW 4 had earlier confused the assailant’s identity in the committing court.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court reiterated the well-settled principle that interference with an acquittal is warranted only for special reasons or grave error. While the Court disagreed with some specific findings of the High Court—such as its skepticism toward the “lalkara” and the suggestion that pellet injuries were fabricated—it ultimately held that:
- The prosecution case depended mainly on PW 3’s uncorroborated testimony. PW 4’s evidence was weakened by earlier confusion in identifying the accused.
- Given the physical setting (night-time, a ready-for-harvest wheat field, witnesses approximately 150 feet away), a possibility of mistaken identity could not be ruled out.
- The High Court’s conclusion that guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, although based partly on speculative observations, did not constitute such error as to justify reversal.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s acquittal of Balraj Singh and ordered his immediate release.
Implications: The decision underscores the Supreme Court’s restrained approach in appeals against acquittal, emphasizing that unless the High Court’s view is manifestly unreasonable or perverse, its acquittal will stand. No new legal precedent was created, but the ruling reinforces the high threshold for overturning acquittals in criminal cases.
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.— This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated September 10, 1974 by which the appellant Balraj Singh alias Chhajju has been acquitted of the charges framed against him.
2. The facts of the case have been succinctly stated in the judgment of the High Court as also that of the learned Sessions Judge. It appears that two accused Balraj Singh alias Chhajju Ram and Balkar Singh alias Khola were prosecuted before the Sessions Judge who acquitted Balkar Singh alias Khola but convicted the respondent Balraj Singh alias Chhajju under Section 302 and sentenced him to death and also convicted him under Section 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The respondent filed an appeal to the High Court and a reference was made by the Sessions Judge for confirmation of his death sentence. The High Court after careful consideration of the evidence held that the case against the appellant was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted the appellant of all the charges framed against him. Hence this appeal before us.
3. It is alleged that on April 14, 1973 deceased Swaran Singh accompanied by his brother Surat Singh, PW 3 and son Harjit Singh, PW 4 was passing through the wheat field in Village Patti when he was accosted by the accused, who challenged Swaran Singh deceased to get ready for being taught a lesson for his acting as an informer against him by supplying information to the police regarding the theft of a tractor belonging to Kritpal Singh. The witnesses PW 3 and PW 4 were following the deceased. The respondent is said to have fired a shot at the deceased which injured him in his chest and abdomen and resulted in his death. PW 3 and PW 4 on seeing the incident turned their back and ran away raising an alarm. The respondent then fired his pistol at them and injured both of them. A FIR was lodged at about 11.55 p.m and, after usual investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the respondent and he was committed for trial before the Sessions Judge who ultimately convicted and sentenced him as indicated above.
4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment of the High Court and of the Sessions Judge and perused the evidence on the record. This being an appeal against acquittal, it is well-settled that this Court would ordinarily interfere only when there are special reasons or a substantial error has been committed by the High Court in acquitting the accused. It appears that the conviction of the appellant rests mainly on the evidence of PW 3 Surat Singh and Harjit Singh PW 4. PW 4 Harjit Singh a boy of tender years had in fact committed some “confusion” in identifying the accused before the committing court. Later on when he was again asked to identify the respondent Balraj Singh, he did so. Nevertheless even the trial court had come to a clear finding that there had been some confusion in the mind of the child regarding the identification of the respondent and it was not prepared to place implicit reliance on his testimony as it observed that even if evidence of PW 4 was excluded the statement of PW 3 was sufficient to sustain the conviction of the respondent.
5. The High Court thought it rather unsafe to base the conviction of the respondent on the uncorroborated testimony of PW 3, Surat Singh. The High Court has also given reasons for not relying on the testimony of PW 3. We may not approve of some of the reasons given by the High Court, and perhaps if we were sitting in appeal we may have taken a different view of the matter, but that is no ground for reversing an order of acquittal. The High Court thought that it was difficult to believe that the respondent would have raised any “lalkara” so as to facilitate his identification. This finding is based purely on speculation and we find no inherent improbability in this circumstance. We have come across many cases where we found that in Punjab a “lalkara” preceded an assault. Secondly the High Court held that the pellet injuries on PW 3 and 4 appear to be fabricated. Having regard, however, to the nature of the pellet injuries received by PWs 3 and 4 it is not possible for us to hold that the injuries could be fabricated. When a suggestion was made to the doctor that the injuries could have been caused by a “sua” it was emphatically denied by Dr Khera, PW 1 on the ground that such fabricated injuries would have been of a larger dimension. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that there was no justification for the High Court to have drawn an inference that the injuries on the person of PWs 3 and 4 were fabricated.
6. Mr Mukherjee appearing for the respondent has drawn our attention to two circumstances which raise a doubt regarding the identification of the respondent by the witnesses. In the first place he submits that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the respondent knew that the deceased and the witnesses would be passing through the fields at that particular time of the night so as to enable the accused to lie in wait for them. There is no suggestions at all that it was a part of daily routine of the deceased or the witnesses to pass through the field at about 8.30 to 9.30 p.m so that the accused being aware of the same would try to select a particular time for the assault. Secondly it was submitted that having regard to the distance from which PW 3 and PW 4 identified the respondent and the circumstances in which they did so raises a possibility of doubt. It is the admitted case of the parties that the occurrence had taken place in a wheat field which was ready for harvesting. It is but natural that standing crop would to some extent obstruct the view of the witnesses. According to Patwari PW 6 he had prepared the site plan after proper measurements and the scale, according to him, was 1 inch = 60 karams. On the basis of this measurement it would appear that PW 3 and PW 4 would be at a distance of about 150 ft. when they saw the respondent. In view of these circumstances therefore, although it may have been possible for the witnesses to identify the respondent, the possibility of mistake in identification cannot be excluded. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the High Court.
7. For the reasons given above we find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. The respondent who is in custody is directed to be released forthwith.
Alert