NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY,

BHOPAL

In the partial fulfilment of the requirement for the project on the subject of Criminal Law-I
of B.A. LL.B. (Hons.), Fifth Trimester.

Submitted on 5th December, 2015

CASE ANALYSIS
Dilawar Singh v. State of Haryana

Submitted to:
Ms. Divya Salim
(Assistant Professor)

Submitted by:
Udyan Arya Shrivastava
(2014 BALLB 98)

CRIMINAL LAW-I

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
On completion of this Project Id like to thank Ms. Divya Salim, who provided me this
wonderful opportunity and guided me throughout the project work.

Udyan Arya Shrivastava

(2014 BALLB 98)

[2]
NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

Dilawar Singh v. State of Haryana

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS................................................................................................... 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................... 3
1.

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 4

2.

FACTS OF THE CASE ...................................................................................................... 4

3.

LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED ................................................................................. 5

Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 148........................................................................ 5
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 149........................................................................ 5
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 302........................................................................ 6
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 313 ..................................................... 6
Constitution of India - Article 136............................................................................... 6

4.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES ................................................................................ 7

Contention on behalf of the convicted accused ........................................................... 7
Contentions of the State & the third Appellant ........................................................... 7
Contention of the acquitted accused ............................................................................ 7

5.

JUDGEMENT .................................................................................................................... 8
Criminal Appeal No. 1362 of 2010 (Dilawar Singh v. State of Haryana) .................. 8
Criminal Appeal Nos. 826 and 830 of 2010 (State of Haryana v. Balkar Singh &
Chanda Singh v. Ranbir Singh) ................................................................................... 9

6.

CRITICAL COMMENT AND CONCLUSION .............................................................. 10

[3]
NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

CRIMINAL LAW-I

INTRODUCTION
This project paper is an attempt to study and analyse the judgement of the Supreme Court in
the case of Dilawar Singh & Ors v. State of Haryana.1 The case was decided by a division
bench of the Court, comprising of Justice T.S. Thakur and Justice R. Banumathi, with
Banumathi, J. writing for the court.
The case was a result of three Criminal Appeals which were clubbed for hearing before the
Court. These were filed by the convicted accused, challenging the legality of their sentence,
and the State along with the father of the victim, challenging the acquittal of three other accused
persons.
Senior Counsel, Mr. V. Giri, appeared for the convicted accused, Mr. Rao Ranjit appeared for
the State and Mr. Shishpal Laler for the other appellant, i.e., the father of the victim.
The judgement was delivered on 16th September 2014.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The victim, Narinder Singh, was running a shop for the sale of fertilizers at the Ladwa
Town and he was residing near Veterinary Hospital. On 22.8.1998 at about 8.45 p.m.,
while he was driving his motor cycle, he was intercepted and attacked.
The eye witnesses, including the father of the accused, Chanda Singh, identified the
assailants as the 9 accused, namely Dilawar Singh (A-1), Gurdev Singh (A-2) and Yash
Pal (A-3) and other accused persons namely Balkar Singh (A-4), Ashok Kumar (A-5)
Ranbir Singh (A-6), Shamsher Singh (A-7), Charan Singh (A-8) and Dalbir Singh (A-9).
Narinder was taken to the Ladwa Hospital, after the police arrived on the spot, where he
succumbed to his wounds without making any statement. The police registered an F.I.R.
against the 9 accused and after the investigation, charge sheeted them under Section 302
read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
The accused were questioned Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure about the
incriminating evidence and circumstances and they denied all of them.

(2015) 1 SCC 737. [hereinafter Dilawar]

[4]
NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

Dilawar Singh v. State of Haryana

Two of the accused, A-8 and A-2, took the defence of alibi, the former claiming he was in
the office of the advocate under whom he worked and the latter claiming that he was posted
as a Naib Tehsildar and in connection with his official work had gone to village Sardhaheri
on the date of occurrence.
In the trial court, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and placed reliance on documents
and material objects to convict the accused.
Upon consideration of the evidence, the trial court convicted and sentenced accused A-1,
A-3, A-4, A-6, A-7 and A-8 under Section 302 Indian Penal Code read with Section 149
Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs. 5,000/- each with default clause and also convicted them for the offence punishable
Under Section 148 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for two years. The trial court acquitted A-2, A-5 and A-9.
Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, convicted accused preferred appeal
before the High Court. The High Court confirmed the conviction of A-1, A-3 and A-7 and
acquitted A-4, A-6 and A-8.
Being aggrieved by the conviction, Dilawar Singh (A-1), Yash Pal (A-3) and Shamsher
Singh (A-7) filed Criminal Appeal No. 1362/2010. Aggrieved by the acquittal of Balkar
Singh (A-4), Ranbir Singh (A-6) and Charan Singh (A-8), State preferred Criminal Appeal
No. 826/2010. Chanda Singh (PW-6), father of the deceased Narinder Singh, filed
Criminal Appeal No. 830/2010.
The above three appeals were clubbed by the Supreme Court to be disposed of together.

LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 148

148. Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a
deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 149

149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence commit-ted in prosecution of

common object.If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in
[5]
NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

CRIMINAL LAW-I
prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly
knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time
of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 302

302. Punishment for murder.Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or
1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.

Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 313

313. Power to examine the accused.

(1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any
circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court(a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused, put such questions to him as the
Court considers necessary;
(b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on
for his defence, question him generally on the case: Provided that in a summons- case, where
the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with
his examination under clause (b).
(2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub- section (1).
(3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such
questions, or by giving false answers to them.
(4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial,
and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence
which such answers may tend to show he has committed.

Constitution of India - Article 136

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed
or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

[6]
NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

Dilawar Singh v. State of Haryana

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

Contention on behalf of the convicted accused

The counsel for the convicted accused, A1, A3 and A7, submitted that serious doubts arise as
to the presence of Chanda Singh (PW-6) in the scene of occurrence and trial court as well as
High Court ought not to have based the conviction on the evidence of PW-6 and conviction of
the aforesaid accused is not sustainable.

Contentions of the State & Chanda Singh

The counsel for the State submitted that the evidence of PW-6 is corroborated by evidence of
PW-7, recovery of weapons and Serology Report and courts have recorded concurrent findings
of fact that PW-6 is a reliable witness and the same does not warrant interference. Further,
when the courts had believed the evidence of PWs 6 and 7 qua Dilawar Singh(A-1), Yash Pal
(A-3) and Shamsher Singh(A-7), the courts ought not to have disbelieved the case of
prosecution qua Balkar Singh (A-4), Ranbir Singh (A-6) and Charan Singh (A-8) for reversal
of acquittal.
The counsel for the third appellant made the same contentions, urging the court to convict the
three acquitted accused.

Contention of the acquitted accused

The counsels appearing for the acquitted accused, the respondents in the second and third
appeals, submitted that the findings of the High Court were good in law and that the same ought
not be disturbed as there were no just and cogent reasons for doing so.

[7]
NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

CRIMINAL LAW-I

JUDGEMENT

Criminal Appeal No. 1362 of 2010 (Dilawar Singh v. State of Haryana)

After considering the arguments of all the above parties, Banumathi, J., writing for the Court,
recorded:
The prosecution case revolves around the ocular version of Chanda Singh (PW-6)
father of deceased Narinder Singh who witnessed the occurrence along with his
brother Hakam Singh and Sham Singh (PW-7). PWs 6 and 7 have spoken about the
attack on the deceased and overt act of accused Dilawar Singh (A-1), Yash Pal (A3) and Shamsher Singh (A-7) and others. Hakam Singh was not examined. Evidence
of Sham Singh (PW-7) corroborates the version of Chanda Singh (PW-6). Learned
courts below found the evidence of PW-6 trustworthy and recorded respective
findings for convicting Dilawar Singh (A-1), Yash Pal (A-3) and Shamsher Singh
(A-7) and acquitting other accused.2
The Court then went on to consider the argument of the convicted accused that Chanda Singh
(PW-6) could not have witnessed the occurrence and the lower courts erred in placing reliance
upon version of PW-6. The counsel had relied on the following threefold arguments:
(i)

PW-6 had no reason to be present in Babain Road near Veterinary Hospital, Ladwa;

(ii)

Conduct of PW-6 was not natural that on witnessing the attack on his son, as instead
of trying to save him, he is alleged to have chased the accused;

(iii)

PW-6 did not give the statement to the police immediately after the occurrence and
the delay in registration of FIR falsifies his evidence.

Answering the first contention, the court stated that there was nothing unusual about Chanda
Singhs presence in the place of occurrence and that it was unreasonable to contend that he had
no compelling reason to be present in the place of occurrence as he regularly crossed that path.
The court also failed to find any merit in the second contention, stating that Every person who
witnesses a murder reacts in his own way,3 and that PW-6 cannot be disbelieved on the ground
that he has not acted in a particular manner to save his son. The court relied on the following
cases to arrive at this conclusion:

2
3

Dilawar, para 10.

Dilawar, para 14.

[8]
NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

Dilawar Singh v. State of Haryana

Rana Partap and Ors. v. State of Haryana,4 wherein it was stated that to discard the
evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to
appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way.5

State of H.P. v. Mast Ram,6 wherein it was stated that there is no set rule that one must
react in a particular way, for the natural reaction of man is unpredictable.

The court also observed that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must
be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth.7

Criminal Appeal Nos. 826 and 830 of 2010 (State of Haryana v. Balkar
Singh & Chanda Singh v. Ranbir Singh)

The State and Chanda Singh had filed appeals against the acquitted accused, i.e., A-4, A-6 and
A-8, seeking their conviction after the High Court had acquitted them.
As for A-6, Ranbir Singh, the High Court had held that evidence of DW-6 cannot be doubted
as there was no reason to disbelieve him and plea of alibi taken by A-6, Ranbir Singh cannot
be rejected as there was no perversity in the appreciation of evidence by High Court.
Insofar as A-4, Balkar Singh and A-8, Charan Singh were concerned, the case of the
prosecution was that A-4 gave gandasi blow to Narinder Singh on his left arm and A-8, Charan
Singh gave a blow with his sword on the right leg of Narinder Singh. PW-10, Dr. Surinder
Singh stated that death of the deceased was caused by sharp edged weapon and could not have
been caused by any blunt weapon. The High Court was of the view that the overt act of A-4,
Balkar Singh and A-8, Charan Singh, do not find corroboration with medical evidence and on
those findings the High Court set aside the conviction of A-4, Balkar Singh and A-8, Charan
Singh and acquitted them.
The Court held that a court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal
unless the approach is vitiated by manifest illegality.
In Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka,8 the scope of power of appellate court dealing
with an appeal against acquittal has been considered and this Court held that there is double
presumption in favour of the accused.9 If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis
4

(1983) 3 SCC 327.

Ibid, para 6.
6
(2004) 8 SCC 660.
7
Dilawar, para 24.
8
(2007) 4 SCC 415.
9
Ibid, para 42.
5

[9]
NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

CRIMINAL LAW-I
of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal
recorded by the trial court.
It was also held in State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram10 that unless there are substantial and
compelling reasons, the order of acquittal is not required to be reversed in appeal.
On evaluation of the evidence found by the High Court while recording an order of acquittal,
the Court found, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality or manifest error.
Hence, the second and third appeals were dismissed.

CRITICAL COMMENT AND CONCLUSION

After carefully examining the judgement I could conclude that it suffers from no manifest legal
infirmity. However, the Court could have considered the contention of the third appellant,
Chanda Singh, to order a re-examination of medical evidence which had acquitted the accused,
A-4 and A-8. This would have been well within the power of the Court under Article 142 that
allows the Supreme Court to issue any order necessary for doing complete justice in any
matter.11 But this was completely at the discretion of the Court and one can assume that the
Court felt no need for it based on just and reasonable grounds.
The 30 page judgement was a thrill to read as it succinctly explained important provisions of
the law and disposed of the matter with certainty.

10
11

(2012) 1 SCC 602.

Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 584.

[10]
NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL