JARNAIL SINGH & Ors. v. STATE OF PUNJAB

1.3. PW-18 met the informant. PW-4 before lodging the FIR and the fact of conspiracy was not disclosed by PW-18 and PW-4. The fact of conspiracy has not been F mentioned in the FIR. Another witness on this issue has not been examined by the prosecution. Thus, the High Court was justified in discarding the part of the prosecution case relating to conspiracy. However, in the fact situation of the present case, acquittal of the said two G co-accused has no bearing, so far as the present appeal is concerned. [Para 16] [786-D-F]

2.1. In the FIR, appellants' name have not been mentioned. The FIR is not the encyclopedia of all the facts H -~- -~ -\- t-- JARNAIL SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB 777 relating to crime. The only requirement is that at the time A of lodging FIR, the informant should state all those facts which normally strike to mind and help in assessing the gravity of the crime or identity of the culprit briefly. [Para 17] [786-G-H] B

2.2. In the FIR, in addition to the names of 'B' accused and 'G' name of the absconding accused, has been mentioned. The complainant (PW-4) has also mentioned that he- could identify some of the assailants if they come before him. Thus, the complainant was not aware of the c names of all the accused persons. The submission in this regard remain preposterous. The motive for committing the offence has fully been ~xplained therein that they wanted the forcible possession of the land from the complainant party. The land in dispute had also been the cause of murder of nephew of PW-4, as his nephew was killed by the vendors of the land to accused 'I'. The delay in lodging FIR has fully been explained by the prosecution and both the courts below have accepted the same. The concurrent findings recorded by the courts below on this issue do not warrant any interference whatsoever in this Court. [Para 18) [787-A-D] E D

#3. PW-6 and PW-7 had been the two independent witnesses. They had come from Bihar as migrant labourers. No explanation could be furnished as to for F what reason either of the said witnesses could depose falsely. PW-6 had been all along with the deceased and he had also witnessed the throwing of his dead_ body in the canal. The vehicle used in the offence was recovered. It belonged to accused 'l'-vendee of the land. There is full G corroboration to the prosecution case by PW-6 and PW- 7. Both of them had been cross-examined by the counsel appearing for the accused but nothing could be elicited which could shake their credibility. [Para 18] [787-D-F] H f~ -f- --1 778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A

#4. Evidence of PW-4 has rightly been relied upon by the courts below. PW-4 was an injured witness. He had been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of fhe incident as he was present at the time when the assailants B reached the tube well. [Paras 19 and 21] [787-G-H; 788- D] \ 5_hivalingappa Kallayanappa v. _ State of Kamataka 1994 Supp (3) SCC 235; State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand and Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 629; Krishan and Ors. V. State of Haryana (2006) 12 sec 459, relied on. C

5.1. The investigating officer (PW-12) has made it clear in his cross- examination that identification parade could not serve any purposEt_for the reason that the D witnesses were present at the time of arrest of the accused, rather they had been arrested on identification by the witnesses. PW-7 was present at the time of their arrest. At the tim·e of recovery of vehicle, PW-6 was present in the vehicle itself and it was recovered when . E, accused •1• was driving the vehicle and_ four other - accused were also 1sitting therein. In such a fact situation, though identification in a case like this, may be of paramount importance, but in view of the fact that the accused had been identified by the witnesses at the time F of arrest itself, holding the identification parade would have been a futile exercise/inconsequential. [Para 22] [788-F-H; 789-A-B] S. C. Bahri v. State of Bihar AIR 1994 SC 2420, relied G on.

5.2. Where the accused has been arrested in presence of the witness, accused has been shown to the wi~ness or even his photograph has been shown by the H ' JARNAIL SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB 779 Investigating Officer prior to test identification parade, A holding identification parade in such facts and circumstances remained inconsequential. [Para 24] [789- D-E] Shaikh Umar Ahmade Shaikh v. State of Maharasthra 8