Case Analysis: Tori Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh
Case Details
Case name: Tori Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: K.N. Wanchoo, K.C. Das Gupta, J.C. Shah
Date of decision: 12 September 1961
Citation / citations: 1962 AIR 399, 1962 SCR (3) 589
Case number / petition number: Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1961; Criminal Appeals Nos. 1310 of 1960, 1389 of 1960; Referred No. 80 of 60
Proceeding type: Criminal Appeal (special leave)
Source court or forum: Allahabad High Court
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, Tori Singh, a twenty‑five‑year‑old resident of Patrasi village in Uttar Pradesh, and his father, Budhi Singh, were alleged to have shot the deceased, Sohan Lal, on the morning of 2 December 1959. The incident occurred after sunrise while Sohan Lal was proceeding to the fields for ablution. The appellants were seated on a platform at a crossroads; Tori Singh was carrying a pistol and, according to the prosecution, Budhi Singh instigated his son to fire. Tori Singh discharged the pistol, striking Sohan Lal in the lumbar region. The victim fled toward his house, later lodged a police report, gave a statement to the investigating officer, and made a dying declaration before a magistrate before dying on 3 December 1959.
Following the shooting, the appellants absconded, were later arrested, and were tried before an Additional Sessions Judge. The trial court relied on the dying declaration and the testimonies of three eyewitnesses—Babunath, Itwari and Khamani—while disregarding the statement of a fourth witness, Chhannu. It convicted both appellants under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing Tori Singh to death and Budhi Singh to life imprisonment.
The appellants appealed to the Allahabad High Court. The High Court admitted the previously excluded testimony of Chhannu, examined an additional witness, Chhiddu, who alleged a confession, and upheld the convictions and the death sentence, making a minor modification to the sections under which the convictions were recorded.
Special leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court of India. The appeal, Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1961, was filed by the appellants seeking reversal of the conviction and, alternatively, reduction of the death sentence on the ground that the shooting had been committed under the influence of the father.
Issues, Contentions and Controversy
The Supreme Court was asked to determine:
Whether the sketch‑map (Ex. Ka‑9) prepared by a Sub‑Inspector on the basis of witness statements was admissible under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Whether the position of the deceased, as narrated by the eyewitnesses, rendered the injury to the left lumbar region “extremely improbable,” thereby affecting the reliability of the eyewitness testimony.
Whether the medical evidence showing that the exit wound was higher than the entry wound necessarily indicated a trajectory inconsistent with a shot fired from the platform.
Whether the dying declaration of the deceased and the testimonies of the three primary eyewitnesses could be relied upon despite the defence’s claim of partisanship.
Whether the conviction under section 302 read with section 34 and the death sentence imposed on Tori Singh should be affirmed or, alternatively, reduced to life imprisonment.
The appellants contended that the sketch‑map was inadmissible, that the eyewitness accounts did not establish improbability of the injury, that the medical evidence did not prove a low firing position, that the witnesses were partisan, and that the confession of Chhiddu was unreliable. They further argued that Tori Singh acted under his father’s influence and therefore deserved a lesser punishment.
The State maintained that the sketch‑map was inadmissible but that its exclusion did not affect the case, that the eyewitness testimonies placed the deceased within a range from which a shot could strike the lumbar region, that the dying declaration was reliable, that the medical evidence did not negate the prosecution’s theory, and that the death sentence was appropriate.
The precise controversy therefore centered on the admissibility of the sketch‑map, the credibility and sufficiency of eyewitness and medical evidence, and the appropriate quantum of punishment.
Statutory Framework and Legal Principles
The Court referred to the following statutory provisions:
Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – which bars the admission of statements made to the police during investigation, including sketches prepared on the basis of such statements.
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code – which defines murder and imposes liability on persons acting with a common intention.
Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – which governs the admissibility of dying declarations.
The Court reiterated that a sketch or map prepared by a police officer that incorporates the statements of witnesses is inadmissible because it constitutes a statement made to the police, not a direct observation. It affirmed that a dying declaration made voluntarily before a magistrate is admissible and may be relied upon as substantive evidence. Regarding common intention, the Court applied the test that liability attaches to each participant when a pre‑arranged plan to cause death is established, and the prosecution need not prove the participation of each accused beyond a reasonable doubt once common intention is proved. The Court also emphasized that the assessment of eyewitness credibility rests with the trial court and may be interfered with only if the assessment is perverse or unsupported by the record.
Court’s Reasoning and Application of Law
The Court first held that the sketch‑map was prepared by the Sub‑Inspector on the basis of witness statements and, in accordance with section 162, such a map could not be admitted as substantive evidence. It observed that the map was a rough, non‑to‑scale drawing and therefore could not be used to infer the exact position of the deceased.
Turning to the eyewitness testimony, the Court noted that the accounts of Babunath, Itwari, Khamani and the subsequently admitted Chhannu placed the deceased a few paces east or north‑east of the platform. From such positions, the Court concluded that it was a matter of chance whether the bullet struck the left side of the lumbar region; consequently, the contention that the injury was “extremely improbable” was untenable.
Regarding the medical evidence, the Court accepted the expert’s description of a “very zig‑zag” trajectory, stating that deflection by tissues or bone could alter the path and that the higher exit wound did not compel an inference of a low firing position.
The Court affirmed the admissibility of the dying declaration under section 32, finding that it had been made voluntarily before a magistrate and identified the appellants as the assailants. It rejected the appellants’ claim that the witnesses were partisan, observing that the lower courts had not disbelieved them and that no reason was shown to overturn their credibility.
Applying section 34, the Court found that the father and son acted with a common intention to kill Sohan Lal, as evidenced by the instigation alleged and the coordinated act of shooting. The Court held that the prosecution had satisfied the elements of murder under section 302 read with section 34.
Finally, the Court considered the plea for mitigation on the ground of paternal influence. It held that Tori Singh, being a mature adult of twenty‑five years, voluntarily participated in the planning and execution of the murder, and therefore the death sentence remained appropriate.
Final Relief and Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It upheld the convictions of Tori Singh and Budhi Singh under section 302 read with section 34, affirmed the death sentence imposed on Tori Singh, and confirmed the life imprisonment awarded to Budhi Singh. No relief was granted to the appellants.