LAW OF EVIDENCE

STATE OF HARYANA V BALKAR SINGH

2014 Cri LJ 4844 (SC)

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

Nyaya Nagar, Patna

Submitted by- Radhika Prasad Supervised By –

Roll no. – 2139 Dr.Meeta Mohini
BA LLB (2nd) YEAR
2019-2024
 INTRODUCTION
This is an appeal case before the Supreme Court of India, which was decided on 16 th
September, 2014. The appeal has been made by the State of Haryana having criminal appeal
number 826/2010.The State of Haryana has preferred this appeal by being aggrieved by the
decision of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court as it acquitted three accused namely
Balkar Singh , Ranbir Singh and Charan Singh who were convicted by the trial court under
section 302 of Indian Penal Code read with section 149 Indian Penal Code and sentenced
them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000 each and also convicted
them under 148 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for two
years.

FACTS: Briefly stated facts happen to be such that the deceased Narinder Singh who ran a
shop for fertilizers at Ladwa Town was attacked on 22.8.1998 at about 8.45 p.m. when he
turned towards Babain Road in Ladwa . He was attacked by a total of 9 accused which
include the three main accused in this criminal appeal case namely Balkar Singh(A-4), Ranbir
Singh(A-6) and Charan Singh (A-8). Three accused gave blow on head of deceased Narinder
Singh with their respective cutter and then the deceased fell down along with his motorcycle
and shouted Bachao Bachao. Charan Singh and one other accused gave sword blows on the
left and right leg of Narinder Singh . Ranbir Singh gave Gandasi blow to the right hand of
Narinder Singh whereas Balkar Singh gave Gandasi blow on the left arm of Narinder
Singh.Two other accused attacked him with hockey sticks and caused injuries to him. All
accused fled from the spot with their respective weapons in their motor-cycles. Chanda Singh
who is the father of the deceased( PW-6) , Hakam Singh and Sham Singh who happen to
have seen the deceased being attacked happen to have chase the assailants but could not
catch them.

On 22.8.1998 at about 9 pm the deceased was sent to Community Health Centre , Ladwa
from where he was referred to Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Hospital, Kurukshetra.He was from
there then referred to PGI Chandigarh immediately. He was not able to make any fit
statement throughout. The deceased succumbed to his injuries at about 5:30 am on 23.8.1998
at PGI Chandigarh. An FIR was registered on the same day . In the Post – Martem Certificate
it was opined that deceased died of severe 18 incised injuries and other injuries all over the
body.
The Trial Court convicted 6 of them under section 302 of Indian Penal Code read with
section 149 Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a
fine of Rs. 5000 each and also convicted them under 148 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo Rigorous imprisonment for two years.The Trial court however acquitted 3 of
them.Then again the High Court acquitted 3 of the 6 convicted by the trial court upon appeal.

In the instant case of State of Haryana V Balkar Singh , the appeal is against those 3 acquitted
by the High Court namely Balkar Singh, Ranbir Singh and Charan Singh. Ranbir Singh had
put forth defence plea of alibi . He was a practicising lawyer at Kurukshetra and he was
working as a junior advocate in the office of his senior advocate , Mr. S C Sharma. Yudhvir
Singh was also a junior under him and also a defence witness. He stated that Ranbir Singh
was at the office of the senior advocate at the place of occurrence. On the other hand, Balkar
and Ranbir who gave gandasi blow to the deceased were acquitted by the High Court as the
court did not find any corroboration with medical evidence.

JUDGEMENT: The appeal against acquittal as preferred by the State was dismissed by the
Supreme Court.

PROVISIONS: Section 11(1): When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant.—
Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant—
(1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact;
ILLUSTRATION:
(a) The question is, whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain day.
The fact that, on that day, A was at Lahore is relevant. The fact that, near the
time when the crime was committed, A was at a distance from the place
where it was committed, which would render it highly improbable, though not
impossible, that he committed it, is relevant.

(The burden of proving alibi lies on the accused)

 CHAPTERIZATION

1. Introduction (Facts and definitions)

2. Section 11: Principle and scope
3. Others cases: Defining importance of Alibi
4. Analysis of Judgement
5. Conclusion