This Case analysis is submitted as part of course curriculum in the V Semester

of B.A. /L.L.B. (Hons.) Program.

ON

Appellants: Ravinder Singh

Vs.

Respondent: State of Haryana

Submitted By:

Shivam Jain (16BAL111) Himanshu shekhu (16BAL079)

B.A. / L.L.B. Batch 2016-2021

Institute Of Law, Nirma University

Submitted to

Prof. Aishwarya Sharma

Law of Evidence
Case Analysis
Name of the case: Ravinder singh v State of Haryana
Citation: MANU/SC/0199/1975
Bench: P.K. Goswami, R.S. Sarkaria and V.R. Krishna Iyer.
Decided by: Supreme Court of India.
Decided on: 07.02.1975

RAVINDER SINGH V STATE OF HARYANA: REVISITING THE RELEVANCY,

ADMISSIBILITY AND APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
MANU/SC/0199/1975

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

In Ravinder singh v state of Haryana, On July 30 1968, Bimla (Deceased), Age (19), wife of
accused, Ravinder singh (23), Found nearby a wayside distant railway station with acid burns
on her face and on other parts of the body with multiple injuries. On July, 30 1968, the deceased
accompanied on a Rail journey with her Husband (accused). On the very next day the deceased
was found lying nearby the railway station. On July 31, 1968, at 8.45 PM, she was pronounced
dead in a hospital.

The sole question that was put forward before the hon’ble Court was, did the husband cause
the murder of the wife in light of the evidences produced by the prosecution. The prosecution
is highly relied on the testimony of one of the accused. The defense time and again challenged
the admissibility of the testimony of approver. The appellant, in the present case was charged
under section 302/24, along with some others of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). The accused
obtained an acquittal from the Trial judge on the grounds that the statement made by approver
are not corroborated by other evidences also the testimony by the ticket collector was not taken
as credible by the trial court. However the High court of Chandigarh in an appeal filed by state
convicted the accused under section 302 of IPC that shall be dealt by the author later under
different heading. Later the appeal went to Supreme Court of India under section 2 of Supreme
Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act 1970.

This case deals with Law of Evidence which is very fascinating branch of law revolving around
relevancy, admissibility and reliability of facts and fact in issue of any case. Facts in general
may be logically relevant or irrelevant. Not every fact asserted by the parties can be made
admissible in court. This lead to some exclusionary rules like that of making what is logically
irrelevant is never admissible and the concept of legal relevancy which establishes minimum
probative value of admissibility.1 “In India we take into account only legally relevant facts
which have been defined precisely by legislature under the provision of IEA from Section 5 to
55. This is rule of relevancy which is followed by theory of admissibility which makes all those
facts that are legally relevant are admissible.”2

ISSUES
Whether the court can convict the accused on the basis of approver’s statement with
corroborated evidences.

OPINION OF THE COURT IN LIGHT OF ASSERTION AND DENIAL BY

PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE

The Trial court disbelieved the approver and also held that approver’s statement was not
corroborated as beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that motive in the present case was
not established also the dying declaration by the deceased is not proved beyond reasonable
doubt. “The High Court, however, found that the approver, who was admittedly a friend of the
accused, was a reliable witness and his statement did not suffer from any defect whatsoever”.
The High Court further held that the approver’s statements was corroborated by various other
evidences that helped the court to reach the conclusion of connection of Appellant with the
crime.
In the present appeal the Supreme Court reached to the conclusion that the High Court has not
committed any in deciding the matter. Therefore upheld the conviction of appellant. The relied
their conviction on following grounds are as follows:

1
RAYMOND EMSON, EVIDENCE 38 (4th ed. 2008).
2
DR. V. KRISHNAMACHARI, LAW OF EVIDENCE 37 (7th ed. 2014).
1) The accused accompanying the deceased in the train on July 30, 1968. The court reached
this conclusion not only on the basis of the statement by the victim but also is corroborated by
evidence suggested. While the defence portrayed a different story arguing the wife followed
the accused wearing gold and silver ornaments and on the way out she was robbed and killed.
This argument is rejected by the Court by saying as most unnatural and improbable and safely
be characterised as false.

Independent witness: The term “independent witness” has nowhere defined in the Evidence
act, 1872. In fact the term “witness” is not defined in the act. In general an independent witness
would mean any witness who is not interested with the outcome of the case. He/she just there
to provide the assistance to the court in reaching the truthiness of the fact of the case. Also is
not associated with a party in a case, and does not hold any personnel interest against the party.

2) The court highly relied on the evidence of Miss V.K. Sharma on the basis that she is an
independent witness who had no personal grudge against the appellant, also supporting their
argument court further emphasized that no counter claim against the talk between the witness
and the deceased by the defendants. Therefore is a reliable witness in this case.

Accomplice evidence: Under section 133 of Indian Evidence Act, “An accomplice shall be a
competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it
proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice”. However with passing of time
the courts in India has changed its view on the conviction of accused solely on the basis of
accomplice. In case of Abdul Sattar v. Union territory, Chandigarh, the court opined the view
that conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of the approver would be risky, particularly in
respect a serious charge like murder.

In this case also court acted carefully and went on defining the prerequisite of the approver
itself and gave two test of identifying whether an approver can be considered as credible
witness or not.
This test is fulfilled,
“Firstly, if the story he relates involves him in the crime and appears intrinsically to be a natural
and probable catalogue of events that had taken place. The witness must be a party to the
commission of the crime.
Secondly, once that hurdle is crossed, the statement given by an approver so far as the accused
on trial is concerned, must implicate him in such a manner as to give rise to a conclusion of
guilt beyond reasonable doubt”.
In rare circumstances the court may convict on the basis of
uncorroborated statement of the approver ordinarily, however, an approver's statement has to
be corroborated in material particulars bridging closely the distance between the crime and the
criminal3. The court in this case has stated in light of the evidences produced before it that the
approver in this case is a co companion in the crime with the accused and there is nothing to
show that at any point of the proceeding that approver has contradicted on any material point.
The court has to see if his evidence is corroborated in material particulars connecting the
accused with the crime.

The principle of issue-estoppel: The principle of issue estoppel is also known as ‘cause of
action estoppel’. This principle only applies where the issue in fact has already been tried by
a competent court on former occasion and the outcome turned out to be in favour of the accused.
Such finding shall then act as an estoppel against the prosecution but shall not act as bar to the
trial and conviction of accused for the different charges.
Suppose if in a trial, one accused is acquitted and another trial with respect to the another
offence alleged to arise out and for that trial the court requires to arrive at a conclusion contrary
with the conclusion reached at an earlier trial, is prohibited by the rule of issue estoppel. In
order to invoke the rule of estoppel, the parties to the earlier trial and the subsequent trial need
to be same, Ravinder Singh v. Sukhbir Singh, 2013 (80) ACC 950.

3) In the present case the learned counsel for the appellant then argued that in separate trial
Bhanu parkash singh was acquitted by the High court. Since there the approver’s evidences
was not found to be corroborated in material particulars. Therefore should be taken in to
consideration and took the defence of issue estoppel. The court in present case argued
negatively saying that in this case the approver’s evidence is amply corroborated in material
particulars against the accused. The court further clarified to take the defence of issue estoppel
one must need to prove that the parties in both the trial is same which is not the case here. One
case is against ravinder singh while another is against bhanu prakash singh which makes the
parties in both the trial as different. Also in the earlier trial the approver was not held to be

3
Ram Narain v. State of Rajasthan, (1973) 3 SCC 805.
unreliable in that case while decilding the case of bhanu pratap singh. In the previous trial the
approver’s statement was not materially corroborated by the approver while in this case the
approver’s statement are cautiously corroborated against Ravinder singh.

CONCLUSION
To summarize, the author has analysed this case with respect of law of evidence. It is difficult
for any jury to quote each and every case and important provision in one judgement. The author
is of view Justice P.K. Goswami, R.S. Sarkaria and V.R. Krishna Iyer have tried to give the
most correct view to the case. This judgement will really be helpful for subsequent legal
practisionaers to understand the concept of accomplice as well as the concept of issue estoppel.
This case leaves very important stand on section 133 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by
emphasising on corroborating of evidence with approver’s statement is to be done in normal
circumstances. Overall the author is of view that this case was rightly decided and conviction
of accused was necessary for setting deterrent in the society.