Bennett University School of Law

CASE ANALYSIS – EVIDENCE LAW- SEMESTER 4

ACHHAR SINGH v. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1140/1141 OF 2010

By- Cheerag Goel (L20BALB031)

Chinmayee Shukla (L20BALB008)

Akshat Dubey (L20BALB109)

Introduction

In this case, the appellants Achhar Singh and Budhi Singh are aggrieved by the
High Court of Himachal Pradesh's judgement and order dated 12.05.2010 and
27.05.2010, which set aside their acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Mandi, dated 24.02.1998. Achhar Singh has been sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for 5 years along with fine whereas Budhi Singh has been
sentenced to life imprisonment along with fine.

Facts of the case

 One night, the complainant’s (Netar Singh’s) wife and mother went to the
nearby village to attend the marriage function of their neighbour’s (Budhi
Singh’s) daughter’s wedding. Both of them were sent back with “Dham”
(a type of traditional wedding food).
 Netar Singh’s family had been socially boycotted by Budhi Singh and
some other villagers.
 On the same night, when the complainant’s father was about to consume
“Dham”, Budhi Singh along with Achhar and some villagers started
shouting and asking the complainant and his father to come out.
 The family members who went out could sense that the accused and the
villagers were about to kill them as they were being stone-pelted so they
rushed inside and bolted their doors. However, this did not stop the
accused and the violent villagers, they broke the door and entered the
house with weapons.
 Both the accused were allegedly carrying axes while the violent villagers
were carrying sickles, spears etc.
 Budhi Singh allegedly killed the complainant’s mother by hitting her
head with the axe and causing on the spot death whereas Achhar Singh
allegedly hit the complainant’s father causing him to faint.
  The other villagers beat the complainant who somehow managed to
escape. His wife begged the villagers for mercy after which they left.
 There were some villagers who intervened to stop the violence as well.
 The complainant escaped and reached the house of the village Pradhan
who guided him to seek the help and intervention of the police. As the
phone lines were done and no transportation service was available before
morning, the complainant travelled 24kms on foot to the nearest police
station (Jogindarnagar) wherein he lodged an FIR against 16 accused.
 Post investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against 7 out of the 16
accused under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323and 326 of the IPC.
 The case went to the sessions court wherein the Additional Session’s
judge acquitted all the accused. This was because the eye witnesses did
not corroborate the story of the prosecution and the medico-legal report
of the complainant’s was also full of inconsistencies. No evidence was
provided for the phone lines being down and it was established that delay
in FIR was harmful for the case. Furthermore, material evidence did not
corroborate the exaggerations made by the complainant.
 The appeal against the same went to the High Court, wherein Budhi
Singh and Achhar Singh were convicted under Sections 452, 326, 323
and 302, 452 respectively. The rest of the accused were acquitted.
 The accused have appealed against this decision of the High Court.

Litigation History and Position of the Courts

Trial Court

 After filing of the FIR, the Additional Session Judge of Mandi acquitted
all the accused members based on the exaggerated allegations by the
prosecution witness which aimed at including as many people as possible
in the chargesheet against the appellant. The trial court considered the
 possibility of false implication. Additional Session Judge granted
acquittal to the accused based on the mismatch between the evidence
provided in the FIR and by the witness of the prosecution. To support the
statement, the court said that in the FIR, it was stated that mother of
respondent, Swari Devi died by a single blow of the axe which was
supported by the evidence provided by the postmortem report whereas the
prosecution witnesses, Netar Singh, Meera Devi and Beli Ram suggested
that Budhi Singh hit Swari Devi twice with the axe and then Narinder
Singh also hit Swari Devi with an axe twice. Later, the court observed
that initially the complainant said that his father was hit by Achhar Singh
and Prakash on the face but in their depositions, they changed the nature
of attack which was not supported by the medical report of their father
which again resulted in mismatch of evidence due to which the court
could not prove the accused guilty.
 The court observed that Govind Ram, the eyewitness did not support the
story formulated by the prosecution as he only informed the Panchayat
Pradhan about a minor dispute due to which she advised him to inform
the police.
 The prosecution could not provide any evidence regarding unavailability
of telephone lines
 There wasn’t enough evidence regarding the spot where the incident took
place
 The court observed that due to the exaggeration of facts from the
prosecution side and delay in the filing of FIR resulted in the acquittal of
the accused by giving them the benefit of doubt.

High Court
  The High Court upheld the decision of the trial court regarding the
acquittal of the other accused parties except Achhar Singh and Budhi
Singh.
 The court stated, despite of the contradictions between the eye witness,
medical reports and FIR, substantial evidence can be derived against the
appellant by the material on record.
 There was enough evidence against the first axe blow by Budhi Singh on
the head of Swari Devi which aligns with the evidence provided by the
eyewitness, FIR and post-mortem report.
 High court noted that allegations against Achhar Singh were also
consistent as the medical evidence of the assault caused to Beli Ram
suggests it could be caused with a blow of an axe.
 High court considered unavailability of buses at night and the distance
between the house of the respondent as the reason behind the delay in the
filing of FIR and concluded that he could not have reached the police
station at the earliest.
 Trial court’s confusion regarding the spot of incident was refuted as there
was evidence of broken windows, plates with leftover food, blood etc.
 Though Achhar Singh and Budhi Singh did not have any common
intention to kill Swari Devi, they were held individually accountable for
their acts and were convicted under the section 302 and 452 (Budhi
Singh) and section 452, 326 and 323 (Achhar Singh)

Types of Evidence

 Direct Evidence is considered important for deciding the matter of the

case. It is the evidence which directly proves or disproves a fact. In the
given case, evidence regarding the infliction of injury to the head of the
deceased comes under Direct Evidence.
 Circumstantial Evidence, also known as indirect evidence refers to
evidence which proves the facts in issue by providing other facts which
prove relevance. In this case, even though the eyewitness provided with
mismatched evidence, some corroborative evidence could be incurred out
of it.
 Digital/Electronic Evidence could have been provided if the respondent
had phoned the police station and explained the event.
 Forensic Evidence/Scientific evidence played a crucial role in this case.
The post mortem report of the deceased and medical reports of her
husband proved the infliction of injury which later helped in the
judgement of the case.
 Physical Evidence was found at the spot where the incident took place
and nearby. Broken windows, spilled food, recovery of axe, blood on the
floor etc comes under Physical Evidence. Such evidence is used to
identify and compare the situation in order to derive a fair judgement.
 Judicial Evidence refers to evidence received by the court that prove or
disprove a fact. Such evidence include confessions of the accused,
statement of the eyewitnesses and facts presented for examination by the
court.
 Real Evidence is also known as material evidence. It is presented before
the court for further examination. Such evidence is not derived from a
document or a witness however it needs to be supported by a witness. In
this case, the axe and presence of blood on it was considered as Real
Evidence. It further includes photographs, weapons, out of court
inspection etc.
 Oral Evidence is the words spoken by mouth. Chapter IV of Indian
Evidence Act deals with the provisions of oral evidence. If the statement
 is contradictory, which happened multiple times in this case, the evidence
is considered dubious.
 Substantive Evidence is the evidence on the basis of which the case is
decided. It is something which has a strong base upon which the court can
rely. The accused hit the deceased on her head and there was enough
substantive evidence to prove it therefore, the judgement was delivered.

Judgment

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeals and upheld the order of
conviction set by the High Court. In the judgment dated 07.05.2021, the Apex
Court upheld Achhar Singh's convictions under Sections 452, 326, and 323 IPC,
as well as Budhi Singh's convictions under Sections 302 and 452 IPC. Their bail
bonds were revoked, and they were directed to serve the remainder of their
term.