Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
State Of Rajasthan vs Gurmel Singh And 3 Ors. on 15 March, 1988
Equivalent citations: 1988(2)WLN147
JUDGMENT Navin Chandra Sharma, J.
1. This is an appeal by the State of Rajasthan under Section 337(1) Cr. P.C., by leave, from original order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Ganganagar by his judgment dated August 24, 1983 in favour of the respondent.
2. Facts leading to this appeal are that on September 12, 1982 Sukhjeet Singh son of Gur Bachan Singh, Jat Sikh of 9 FFB, Raisinghnagar (District Ganganagar) lodged a First Information Report Ex. P. 22 at Police Station Raisinghnagar at 10 p.m. to the effect that the daughter of his maternal uncle had been married to Gurcharan Singh son of Darbara Singh of village Thandewala and, therefore, he along with his brother Manjeet Singh deceased and one Surendra Singh (resident of Rawla Head) had gone to village Thandewala to meet Darbara Singh on a motor cycle. After meeting Darbara Singh, they were returning to their 'Dhani' at about 8 p.m. on motor cycle. Manjeet Singh was driving the motor cycle on Pucca road. When they reached near the house of Gurmel Singh respondent No. 1, they found that the road had been blocked by placing a cart as an obstruction. Reaching there, Manjeet Singh stopped the motor cycle and handed it over to Sukhjeet Singh. Gurmel Singh respondent No. 1, and his brothers Jasmel Singh and Darshan Singh (respondents Nos. 2 and 3) and Kuldev Singh son of Gurmel Singh were there. Manjeet asked them why they had obstructed the road by placing the cart. It was mentioned in the report that while Gurmel Singh respondent No. 1 had a double-barrel 12 bore gun and Jasmel Singh had a 12 bore pistol, Darshan Singh and Kuldev Singh respectively had a 'Gandasa' and a 'Dang' in their hands. These respondents thereupon abused Manjeet Singh and his associates and asked the latter as to why they had come that side. Gurmel Singh exhorted that "the enemies had met with great difficulty and they might not escape." There upon Gurmel Singh respondent No. 1 fired a gun shot on the chest of Manjeet Singh as a result of which Manjeet Singh could not retain his balance. Darshan Singh and Kuldev Singh respondents Nos. 3 and 4 then exhorted that Manjeet Singh may not remainable to give any statement and therefore, more shots may be fired to him. Jasmel Singh respondent No. 2 there upon fired a shot from his pistol which shot hit Manjeet Singh on the right side of his body while he was laying. Sukhjeet Singh, after leaving the motor cycle, began to run towards the pits and at that time Gurmel Singh fired a shot which missed to hit him. However, Darshan Singh and Kuldev Singh were able to inflict injuries on his legs. Surendra Singh managed to escape. Seeing the incident, Gurdeep Singh son of Bahadur Singh, Jat Sikh of village Thendewala, who was working on near by field, exhorted the assailants that he was coming where upon the respondents ran away leaving Manjeet Singh. When Sukhjeet Singh came back, he saw that his brother Manjeet Singh, who was shot by Gurmel Singh and Jasmel Singh respondents, had died. It was mentioned in the First Information Report that in the last Panchayat elections, Gurdev Singh, brother of Sukhjeet Singh, was a candidate. His rival contesting candidate was Daljeet Singh Sandhu. At that time Darshan Singh (respondent No. 3) opposed his brother and since then both sides were on inimical terms. On account of this rivalry, the respondents murdered Manjeet Singh and injured Sukhjeet Singh. Had Gurdeep Singh not arrived, the First Informant Sukhjeet Singh would have also been murdered.
3. Upon this First Information Report, the Station House Officer registered a case No. 140 under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and started the investigation. He prepared the site plan Ex. P. 1 and the inquest report Ex. P. 2. Empty cartridges were seized under the seizure memo Ex P. 4. A pellet was found near the dead body of Manjeet Singh which was also seized under Ex. P. 5. Arjun Singh PW 11, Circle Officer, also recovered three broken parts of 12 bore double barrel gun on the information given by Gurmel Singh respondent No. 1 from a field near the way going to Mandi Gajsinghpura after digging the earth one foot deep and seized it under the memo Ex. P 37. Respondents were arrested on September 20, 1982. Pistol, Gandasi and Lathi were recovered by the Investigating Officer or the information respectively given by respondents Nos. 2, to 4 under seizure memos Ex. P. 40, Ex. P. 39 and Ex. P. 38 from the places pointed out by them. The gun, pistol, cartridges, cartridge cases and lead buck shots were sent to the ballistic expert who gave his report Ex. P. 41. Ex. P. 42 was the report given by the Chemical Analyst with regard to detection of blood on the clothes seized and sent to him for chemical analysis. Dr. Surendra Mohan Sharma conducted the autopsy of the dead body of Manjeet Singh and also gave injury report about the injuries sustained by Sukhjeet Singh which are Ex. P. 27 and EX.P. 26 on the record. After necessary investigation, the police field a charge-sheet against the respondents in the court of Judicial Magistrate Raisinghnagar who by his order dated October 16,1989 committed the respondents for trial to the court of Sessions.
4. ALL the. respondents were charged for the offences under Section 341, 302 and in the alternative Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 307 and 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Gurmal Singh and Jasmel Singh were further charged for the offence under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. All of them PLEADED not guilty After trial, the Sessions Judge, Ganganagar by his judgment dated August24, 1983 acquitted all the respondents of all the charges.
5. Before proceeding further we may enumerate the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the Sessions Judge, Ganganagar while acquitting the respondents. It was found by the Sessions Judge that the entire genesis of the incident as given by Sukhjeet Singh in his First Information Report was considerably twisted, altered and improved upon by him and other prosecution witnesses during the trial and a new version about the incident has been,introduced. According to the given in the First Information Report, the entire incident took place on account of election rivalry. The reason assigned was that during the panchayat elections Gurdev Singh, another brother of Sukhjeet Singh Manjeet Singh deceased, had contested the election as a candidate as against Daljeet Singh Sandhu. In that election, Darshan Singh respondents No. 2 had opposed Gurdev Singh Since then,,there was rivalry between.them and owing to that the respondents conspired to murder Manjeet Singh and murdered him and. also inflicted injuries on the body of Sukhjeet Singh According to the First Information Report,opportunity was avail OF BY THE respondents to carry out their sinister intentions when Manjeet Singh along with his brother Sukhjeet Singh and associate Surendra Singh were returning on motor cycle from village Thandewala after meeting Darbara Singh. The respondents obstructed the road.by placing a cart and kept themselves ready duly armed to murder Manjeet Singh.and the first Informant. When Manjeet Singh reached near the car, he stopped the motor cycle and asked the respondents as to why they had obstructed the road. It was mentioned in the First Information Report that the respondents abused Manjeet Singh and his father and exhorted them as to how they dared to come that way. They also told that it was with difficulty that" enemies have met and they may not escape." Although the First Information Report was a detailed document, that it did not contain in it the improved version introduced evidence about the part of the incident which is stated to have happened earlier at about 6.30 p.m. or so. During the trial, evidence was given that Manjeet Singh and Surendra Singh pw 1 had gone from village Rawla on motor cycle to the 'Dhani' of sukhjeet singh PW 9. they took Sukhjeet Singh from there and proceeded for village Thandewala to meet Darbara Singh. When they reached near the house of Gurmel Singh respondent No. 1 there were two speed-breakers on the road. The motor cycle took a jump when it crossed the speed breaker and sukhjeet singh PW 9 just escaped from falling on the ground from the motor cycle and the engine of the motor cycle stopped. Due to this Manjeet Singh abused the family members of respondents Darshan Singh and Gurmel Singh and there after they again started the motor cycle and reached to the house of Bahadur Singh After about five minutes, Gurmel Singh and Darshan Singh also arrived there and complained to Bahadur Singh that Manjeet Singh deceased had abused them. Manjeet Singh when asked by Bahadur Singh narrated to the latter about the incident of motor cycle taking a jump at the speed-breaker and as a result there of about his abusing to the family members of Darshan Singh and Gurmel Singh. It was deposed that Bahadur Singh thereupon Manjeet Singh to apolozise to Dharsan Singh and Gurmel Singh which he did. Bahadur Singh also apologized with them and thereupon Darshan Singh and Gurmel Singh returned from the house of Bahadur Singh. Thereafter Manjeet Singh, Sukhjeet Singh and Surendra Singh went to the house of Gurchan Singh and met him for few minutes. Thereafter they started their return journey from village Thandewala to the 'Dhani' of Manjeet Singh's father. While returning, they found the car having been placed on the road and the respondents standing duly armed. This earlier part of the incident as put forward in evidence during the course of trial was in its entirely missing from the First Information Report.
6. The Sessions Judge was of the view that Sukhjeet did not mention the above version in the First Information Report so that he may suppress the truth that he himself had actually received the injuries as result of fall from the motor cycle while it jumped over the speed breaker and may implicate falsely Darshan Singh and Kuldev Singh as his assailants The motor cycle was coming at fast speed and when it jumped over the speed-breaker, the falling of Sukhjeet Singh from it was quite obvious and he sustained injuries on account of that. It had come into evidence that Gurmel Singh, Jasmel Singh, Darshan Singh and Kuldev Singh respondents were not there when the motor cycle jumped over the speed-breaker and yet Manjeet Singh had abused their family members on account of jump of the motor cycle over the speed-breaker as if they were responsible for effecting the speed-breaker there. The Sessions Judge drew the conclusion that the incident in which Manjeet Singh was shot at did not take place on account of any pre-existing enmity due to Panchyat elections, but it took place in the, back ground of Sukhjeet Singh sustaining injuries near the house of the respondents as result of jump of the motor cycle over the speed-breaker.
7. The Sessions Judge was of the opinion that truth and falsehood in the prosecution case have been inter-mixed to such an extent that it was not possible to dis-engage the truth from falsehood. Since Sukhjeet Singh and Surendra Singh had given unbelievable story or version regarding the injuries sustained by Sukhjeet Singh, these two witnesses, who claimed to be eyewitnesses, were held to be unreliable and unworthy of credit.
8. The Sessions Judge further disbelieved the prosecution evidence that Gurmel Singh and Darshan Singh respondents had gone to the house of Bahadur Singh and had complained to the latter that Manjeet Singh deceased had abused them and that there upon Bahadur Singh asked Manjeet Singh and his associates to apolozise for it to Gurmel Singh and Darshan Singh. Apart from the discrepancy in the prosecution evidence in this respect, this version was also not mentioned in the. First Information Report. Bahadur Singh was also an interested witness in as much as he was father-in-law of Manjeet Singh's mother's sister. It was also not correct that just after the incident Bahadur Singh had arrived at the place of the incident. In the First Information Report, it was mentioned that it was Gurdeep Singh son of Bahadur Singh, who had exhorted to the assailant that he was coming and not that Bahadur Singh had arrived at the place of the incident.
9. With regard to the injuries sustained by Sukhjeet Singh, the Sessions Judge noticed that he had mentioned in the First Information Report only five injuries as having been sustained by him and those very five injuries were also noted by the Investigating Officer in a note written by him on Ex. P 23 despite that Dr. Surendra Mohan Sharma mentioned 11 injuries as having been sustained by Sukhjeet Singh. The doctor had deposed that he had bandaged injuries Nos. 1,6,8 & 9 mentioned in his report Ex. P 26 which statement was held to be false. Had injuries Nos. 1,6,8 & 9 would have been there on the body of Sukhjeet Singh they would have also been mentioned by him in the First Information Report and that they could also not escape the notice of the Investigation Officer. Again in the First Information Report Sukhjeet Singh had not mentioned that injuries were inflicted on him by Darshan Singh respondent from reverse side of the 'Gandasi but it was only in evidence that his version was put forward for the obvious reason that Sukhjeet Singh had no injury on his body by a saw-edged weapon. The Sessions Jude held that Sukhjeet Singh had in fact sustained injuries on his body as result of fall from the motor-cycle when it took a jump over the speed-breaker and not as result of the same being inflicted by Darshan Singh and Kuldev Singh.
10. With regard to the parking of car, the Sessions Judge held that no obstruction had been caused by any of the respondents on the road by placing the car vertically on it. Darshan Singh had parked the car on the side of the road as to the alleged enmity on account of Panchayat elections, it was held that Gurdev Singh had lost the election While Daljeet Singh Sandhu an Darshan Singh had own. If any ill-will or spite was there, it ought to have been in the heart of Gurdev Singh, Sukhjeet Singh and Manjeet Singh as against Darshan Singh as against Darshan Singh and not vice versa. According to the Sessions Judge, the incident was not the result of election enmity but on account of the fact that Sukhjeet Singh had fallen down from the motor-cycle when it jumped over the speed breaker as a result of which Manjeet Singh deceased abused Darshan Singh and Gurmal Singh and fired a pistol shot at Darshan Singh.
11. As to the distance from which Manjeet Singh was fired at, the Sessions Judge stated that it might be that injury No,3 was inflicted on him from a closer distance than injury No. 5, but it could not be positively said that injury No. 5 of Manjeet Singh was inflicted by Jasmail Singh respondent by a pistol shot. The Sessions Judge noticed certain contradictions in prosecution evidence on the point as to who told Manjeet Singh and his associates that "enemies had met with great difficult and they might not escape.
12. The Sessions Judge regarded it to be highly improbable that if all the four respondents were already standing armed with deadly weapon's well prepared in advance to murder Manjeet Singh and Sukhjeet, Manjeet Singh deceased would have dared to go towards them to make grievance about the construction of the speed-breaker on the road. The version of the prosecution about a third-arm shot by Gurmel Singh respondent towards Sukhjeet Singh,when he was tying to escape, was held not to be reliable.
13. As to the seizure of empty cartridge-case, the Sessions Judge held that two empties were really found. One was near the dead body of Manjeet Singh and the other near the gate of the house of Gurmal Singh respondent. Both of them had been fired from the gun held by Gurmal Singh. The recovery of pistol at the instance of Jasmel Singh was not believed as the recovery witness Nathu Singh was held to be an interested witness and the other witnesses. Dalbera Singh was not examined. The Sessions Judge also found that it was very much doubtful that Darshan Singh was arrested by Arjun Singh, Investigating Officer on 20-9-1982 for the reason that there was clear interpolation in the date given in the arrest memo Ex.p.30. He held that it was more probable that Darshan Singh had himself gone to the police Station, Raisingnagar on the very night of the incident and had narrated to the Police his version of the incident and about the right of private defence exercised by Gurmel Singh.
14. The Sessions Judge concluded that prosecution had failed to establish that the incident took place in two parts i.e. on the first occasion while Manjeet Singh and his associates were going towards village Thandewala when the motor cycle jumped over the speed breaker and Sukhjeet Singh just escaped from falling there from and Manjeet Singh abused Dallewalas i.e., Gurmel Singh and Darshan Singh and whereupon Darshan Singh and Manjeet Singh went to the house of Bahadursingh to complain against them. This part of the story of the prosecution was held to be concocted as it did not find place in the First Information Report which was a detailed document. It was only the second part of the incident which was held to have really occurred but that also in a manner different than the prosecution version. It was held that cart was not placed by Gurmal Singh or Darshansingh on the road to obstruct the deceased. Jasmelsingh and Kuldev Singh were not present on the spot. Gurmal Singh did not fire the gun shots at Manjeet Singh without any cause. The probability of defence version was held to be more credible than the prosecution version in the First Information Report and the prosecution evidence. It was held that right of private defence of person had arisen in favour of Gurmel Singh which he exercised by firing two gun shots at Manjeet Singh and that right was not exercised because Manjeet Singh after having fired first pistol shot at Darshan Singh. was going to fire a second shot from the pistol. Sukhjeet Singh was held to have sustained injuries as a result of fall from the motor cycle when he fall down at the time when the motor cycle took jump over the speed- breaker. As to injuries sustained by Darshan Singh respondents.it was held that they were sustained as a result of pistol shot fired at him by Manjeet Singh which could not hit Darshan Singh fatally but just touched his body and caused injuries mentioned in the injury report Ex. D.5
15. The Sessions Judge examined the Probability of the correctness of the defence version. Arjun Singh, Investigating Officer, had admitted in his statement that when he arrested Darshan Singh respondent, there were marks of blackening on the left side of his shirt and also a blood spot 5" below those marks. Darshan Singh was wearing a 'Chadar which was taken from his body and it had blood stains over it. There were also spots blood on the left side of the underwear which Darshan Singh was wearing. Darshan Singh had also an injury on the left side of his back which had swelled. Arjun Singh also admitted that Darshan Singh respondent had told him that a shot from pistol passed scratching his body. Thus Darshan Singh, even at the stage of First Investigation, had put forward the case before the Investigation Officer that a pistol shot had been fired at him. Arjun Singh Investigating Officer admitted that he did not make any investigation on the point as how Darshan Singh received 2 injuries and thus the investigation was not fair and impartial. Dr. Surendra Mohan Sharma had examined Darshan Singh and he gave injury report Ex.d.5 which also showed that Darshan Singh sustained two injuries on his left buttock and left knee. Dr. Surendra Mohan also admitted that Darshan Singh might have sustained these injuries at the time when sukhjeet Singh and Manjeet Singh deceased received the injuries. The Sessions Judge held Dr. Surandra as unreliable when he stated that the injuries of Darshan Singh could not be a result of fire-arm shot the Sessions Judge held that the defence version was probably more correct than the version of the prosecution. According to him, Manjeet Singh had first fired a pistol shot at Darshan Singh. The bullet of the pistol did not enter in to the body of Darshan Singh which just passed scratching his body and causing two injuries and that thereupon Gurmel Singh in the exercise of right of private defence, fired two gun shots at Manjeet Singh resulting in the death of the latter. It was held that a right of private defence of person had arisen in favour of Manjeet Singh to save his brother Darshan Singh and he did not exceed in the exercise of that right.
16. The scope of the powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal was elucidated by the Privy Council in Sheo Swaroop v. Emperor AIR 1934 PC 227 Lord Russel observed at Page 230 .... The High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses, (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact, that he had been acquitted at his trial, (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and (4) the slowness of an appeal late court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses.... They have no reason to think that the High Court failed to take all proper matters into consideration in arriving at their conclusion of fact.
The Privy Council explained its earlier observations in Noor Mohammed v. Emperor AIR 1945 PC 151 thus at page 152.
Their Lordships do not think it necessary to read it all again, but would like to observe that there really is only one principle, in the strict use of the word, laid down these, that is that the High Court has full power to review at large all the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed.
In Satwant Singh v. State of Rajasthan his Lordship K. Subbarao, J., speaking for the Court observed:
The aforesaid discussion yields the following results:
[1] an appellate court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found;
[2] the principle laid down in Sheoswaroop's case AIR 1934 PC 227 afford a correct guide for the appellate court's approach to a case in disposing of such an appeal;
[3] The different phraseology used in the judgments of this court, Such as:
[ i ] substantial and compelling reasons, [ ii ] "good and sufficiently cogent reasons" and [ iii ] "strong reasons", are not intended to curtail the undoubted power of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal to review the entire evidence and come to its own conclusion, but in doing so it should not only consider every matter on record having a bearing on the question of fact and the reasons given by the court below in support of its order of acquittal in its arriving at a conclusion on those facts, but should also express those reasons in its judgment, which lead it to hold that the acquittal was not justified,
17. In Bheem Singh v. State of Maharashtra , decision in Satwant Singh v. State of Rajasthan (supra) was approved and reference was also made to Ramabhupala Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh where in it was added that the appellate court must bear in mind the fact that the trial court had the benefit or seeing the witnesses in the witness box while passing the order of acquittal. In Bava Hajee Hansa v. State of Kerala the law laid down in Bheem Singh's case (supra) had been quoted with approval. In Ganesh Bhawan Patel and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra , it was held that although in an appeal from an order of acquittal, the powers of the High Court to re-assess the evidence and reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against the order of the conviction yet, as a rule of prudence, the principles laid down by the Privy Council in Sheo Swamp's case (supra) should be kept in mind. Where two reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the evidence on record, the High Court should as a matter of judicial caution refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal recorded by the court below if the grounds given by the trial court are reasonable and plausible and cannot be entirely and effectively dislodged. The view in Bheem Singh's case was reiterated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Palanisamy and Ors. v. State of Tamilnadu AIR 1986 SC 593.
18. Keeping in view the above position of law and the line of approach to be adopted in appeal against acquittal, it is quite clear that the version of the incident as had been given by Sukhjeet Singh in the First Information Report Ex. P. 22 was considerably twisted and improved upon by him and other prosecution witnesses during the trial. A new version about the manner in which the incident took place was introduced. It is quite clear that Sukhjeet Singh had written the First Information Report in his own hand writing and after full deliberation after going to the home of his uncle's son Jagdish Singh. It was a detailed document. According to the version given in the First Information Report the entire motive behind the incident was election rivalry between Gurudev Singh, brother of Sukhjeet Singh, on the one Dart and Daljeet Singh Sandhu and Darshan Singh on the other. According to the First Information Report, the incident occurred in a manner as if respondents had pre-planned to murder Manjeet Singh and Sukhjeet Singh in as much as the respondents were very well awaiting for the return of Manjeet Singh & his associates and had fully armed themselves with gun, pistol, gandasi and 'dag' and had also obstructed the road by placing a cart vertically so that Manjeet Singh and his associates may not pass away on motor cycle without being hurt. The evidence adduced by the prosecution, on the other hand, reveals a different story. The different story given was that while Manjeet Singh Sukhjeet Singh and Surendra Singh were going from village Rawala to village Thandewala to meet Darbara Singh and when they reached near the house of respondent No. 1, there were two speed-breakers on the road The motor cycle took a jump when it crossed the speed breaker and Sukhjeet Singh PW 9 just escaped by chance from falling on the ground from the motor-cycle. The engine of the motor-cycle stopped. Due to this reason Manjeet Singh abused the respondents Darshan Singh and Gurmel Singh before again starting on the motor cycle to go to village Thandewala This version about the earlier part of the incident was entirely missing from the First Information Report and this was never the motive mentioned in the report as leading to the second part of the incident alleged in the prosecution evidence.
19. The theory introduced in the evidence that Manjeet Singh and his associates first went to the house of Bahadur Singh "PW 3 and that after about five minutes or so, Gurmel Singh and Darshan Singh also arrived there and complained to Bahadur Singh against Manjeet Singh deceased that he had abused them, further that Manjeet Singh was asked by Bahadur Singh to apologize to Darashan Singh and Gurmel Singh which be did and there upon Gurmel Singh and Darshan Singh returned, was also completely missing from the First Information Report. The meeting at Bahadur Singh's house was introduced in evidence simply in order to create Bahadur Singh as a false witness to support the prosecution case. As already stated, Bahadur Singh was closely related to Manjeet Singh and the falsity was carried to this extent in the prosecution evidence that, Bahadur Singh was also made a witness as if he had reached on the spot immediately after the firing incident took place. In the First Information Report, the name of Gurdeep Singh son of Bahadur Singh was mentioned as the person who came to the scene of incident after seeing it. The name of Bahadur Singh was no where mentioned in the First Information Report. It appears that the incident was divided in two parts by the prosecution witnesses with an ulterior object so that respondents Gurmel Singh and Darshan Singh may be circumvented from claiming the right of private defence being exercised by Gurmel Singh and also in order to suppress the truth that Sukhjeet Singh had in fact received injuries as a result of fall from the motor cycle, when it jumped over the speed-breaker.
20. It is sufficiently borne out that Darshan Singh had received injuries. How Darshan Singh received the injuries was not at all explained by the prosecution, Arjun Singh, Circle Officer, who had investigated the case, has admitted in his cross-examination that Darshan Singh had told him that the bullet of the pistol had passed scratching his body. It is thus clear that Darshan Singh respondent had at the very stage of investigation put forward the theory of right of private defence. The Investigation Officer has also admitted that when Darshan Singh was arrested by him, his shirt had marks of blackening of the left side. There was a big-sized stain of blood 5" below the blackening mark. There were also blood stains on the 'Chadar' which Darshan Singh was wearing and also on the underwear. Darshan Singh had also injury on left knee. Despite that the Investigating Officer made no efforts to find out as to how Darshan Singh respondent received the injury. The learned Sessions Judge also rightly noticed that interpolation was made in the date of arrest of Darshan Singh in the arrest memo Ex. P 30. He, therefore, rightly considered as probable that Darshan Singh had gone to Police Station, Raisinghnagar on the very night on which the incident took place and had narrated to the police his version of the incident and of the right of private defence.
21. Since the motor cycle on which Manjeet Singh and his associates were coming had, undoubtedly and admittedly, jumped over the speed breaker, there was every reason to infer that Sukhjeet Singh informant fell down from the motor cycle on the road and sustained injuries due to that reason and not on account of the fact that any injuries were inflicted on him by Darshan Singh and Kuldev Singh. This theory was falsely introduced in the. First Information Report by Sukhjeet Singh to give false colour to the incident.
22. The defence version appears to be quite natural when once it is discarded that the respondents were very well prepared with a pre-planned intention fully armed in order to murder Manjeet Singh and Sukhjeet Singh. Admittedly, the motor-cycle which was being driven by Manjeet Singh had jumped over the speed-breaker near the house of Gurmel Singh respondent No. 1. It was Gurmel Singh who picked up the quarrel by asking as to why the speed -breakers had been erected. The speed-breakers were not erected by any of the respondents. They were erected by those who constructed the road. The fact that Darshan Singh received injuries, which were not otherwise explained by the prosecution, goes to show that the defence version is more probable that it was Manjeet Singh deceased who had first fired a pistol shot at Darshan Singh and bullet from the pistol passed scratching the buttock of Darshan Singh. When Manjeet Singh was about to fire a second pistol shot, Gurmel Singh, brother of Darshan Singh, came to his rescue. He brought his gun and fired two shots from his gun which hit Manjeet Singh and he fell down. Jasmel Singh and Kuldev Singh respondents were not there. Darshan Singh also reached the police station but the police neither paid any heed to his version and nor to the injuries sustained by him and even manipulated falsely the date of his arrest. It was as late as on September 20, 1982 that Darshan Singh was got medically examined. The clothes which Darshan Singh was wearing were found to be blood-stained by the Investigating Officer.
23. It is also highly unnatural that Manjeet Singh would have taken the courage to go towards the respondents, who according to the prosecution witnesses, were well armed with deadly weapons. No sane person would pick up quarrel with persons who were so very well armed with a dreadful intention. Merely because the pistol with which Manjeet Singh fired the shot at Darshan Singh was not recovered, it cannot weaken the defence version for the reason that the. Investigating Officer paid no' heed to what Darshan Singh stated to him and he did not even investigate about the cause of injuries sustained by Darshan Singh.
24. It is true that the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice for the reason that hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroideries or embellishment. That makes it the duty of the Court to scrutinise the evidence carefully. The Court cannot, however, disbelieve the substratum of the prosecution case or the material part of the evidence and reconstruct a story of its own out of the rest. The prosecution witnesses in the instant case, have given distorted version of the incident and have changed the entire version by making gross improvements in the version from that which had been given in the FIR. Where truth and falsehood are so inter-mingled as to make it impossible to separate the truth from falsehood, the evidence has to be rejected in its entirety. This is very well laid down in K.K. Virji v. State of Gujarat and Bhagwan Patil v. State of Maharashtra .
25. All the important facts of the incident were known to Sukhjeet Singh who was eye-witness and yet he did not mention most of the important facts in the First Information Report which he has subsequently placed during the trial. Such omission goes to the root of the prosecution case and affect the probabilities of the case. Such conduct on the part of Sukhjeet Singh is quite relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act in judging the veracity of the prosecution case.
26. On a careful review of all the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the Sessions Judge Ganganagar rightly believed the probability of the correctness of defence version rather than of the prosecution case as set up during the trial. The Sessions Judge arrived at a right conclusion on facts and acquittal made by him of all the respondents of the offences, for which they were charged, was quite justified.
27. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal and we do here by dismiss the same.