Conviction Can Be Based on Related Witness If Testimony Is Natural and Trustworthy: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Life Sentence in 2000 Murder Case

Merely because the eyewitness is the brother-in-law of the deceased, his testimony cannot be discarded when his presence is natural and his account consistent with medical evidence - Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the conviction and life sentence awarded to Amar Singh for the murder of Surender Kumar, holding that the evidence of the sole eyewitness, though related to the deceased, was entirely credible. The Court emphatically ruled that “minor lapses in investigation or delay in FIR cannot override natural and convincing ocular testimony”.

The Division Bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi found the prosecution case well-established through consistent eyewitness testimony, recovery of the weapon, corroborative forensic findings, and a proven motive linked to past enmity.

“The statement of PW-10 Ram Pal cannot be discarded merely on account of the fact that he was the brother-in-law (sister’s husband) of the deceased”
The case emerged from a daylight shooting on 2 March 2000, when Surender Kumar, an employee of Sugar Mill Bhuna, was travelling by cycle with his brother-in-law Ram Pal (PW-10). Near the mill’s colony gate, accused Amar Singh, accompanied by Hanuman and Sunil, ambushed the two. Ram Pal testified that Hanuman raised a lalkara, urging Amar Singh to fire. Amar Singh then pulled out a country-made .12 bore pistol and fired two shots at Surender, striking him on the neck and temple.

Surender succumbed to injuries shortly after being taken to the hospital. The motive was clear: Amar Singh’s brother Om Parkash had earlier been murdered due to an illicit affair involving Surender’s relatives, and Surender was named in that case but later acquitted. This deep-seated grudge led to the fatal act.

“There is no delay in the registration of the FIR… this sole ground cannot falsify the entire prosecution case”
Challenging the conviction, the defence questioned the delay in filing the FIR and sending the special report to the Magistrate. However, the Court noted that the statement of the complainant was recorded at 11:00 a.m., and the special report reached the Magistrate by 4:00 p.m. on the same day. The Bench held this to be a reasonable timeline, stating:
“The occurrence took place between 8:15 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. The Special Report reached the Illaqa Magistrate at 4:00 p.m. Therefore, there is no delay in the registration of the FIR.”

The Court also dismissed doubts raised about Ram Pal’s presence, noting that although he worked at the fire brigade in Hisar and had not officially taken station leave, he was on rest on 1st and 2nd March. The Bench observed: “His leaving the station with or without permission will not falsify the story of the prosecution… His presence at the spot is quite natural and believable.”

“Deficiency in investigation does not nullify prosecution where evidence is otherwise trustworthy”
The defence had argued that since Ram Pal’s bloodstained clothes were not seized by police, his presence was doubtful. Rejecting this argument, the Court stated: “Any deficiency or irregularity in the investigation need not necessarily lead to the rejection of the entire case of prosecution when it is otherwise proved from the evidence on record.”

Addressing the alleged contradictions between medical and ocular testimony, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rachpal Singh v. State of Punjab, and noted: “Minor discrepancies regarding wound margins are not fatal when there is sufficient medical evidence to prove that the deceased died of gunshot injuries.”

“The offence stands established beyond doubt”: Forensic findings corroborate prosecution
The forensic report Ex.PL/1 confirmed that the .12 bore pistol recovered from Amar Singh had been used to fire the cartridge case and lead slug recovered from the crime scene. The Court observed: “The .12 bore fired cartridge case and lead slug marked C1 and BC/3 respectively have been fired from country-made pistol W-1 and not from any other firearm even of the same make.”

The Court also referred to Sugar Mill attendance records, noting that Amar Singh was present in the first shift and absent thereafter — matching the time of the murder.

Affirming the trial court’s decision, the High Court ruled: “In view of the aforementioned discussion, we find that the offence stands established beyond doubt.”

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and Amar Singh was directed to surrender immediately to serve out his remaining sentence.

Date of Decision: 24 March 2025