Back
1996 SUPREME 642
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. Anand and K.S. Paripoornan, JJ.
Raghubir Singh & Ors. -Appellants
versus
State of Punjab -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 283 of 1985
(with Criminal Appeal No. 436 of 1985)
Both decided on 13-3-1996
Held : Our critical analysis of the evidence on the record shows that the common object of the unlawful assembly was limited to the attack on Santokh Singh and did not extend to cover the murder of Balwant Singh. Balwant Singh apparently received the injuries when he intervened during the course of the occurrence and those injuries proved fatal. The trial court rightly found that in the established facts and circumstances of the case, the accused who had actually caused the injuries to Balwant Singh alone were responsible for the murder of Balwant Singh and that others could not be held liable either with the aid of Section 149 or Section 34 IPC. (Para 9)
Further held : There was no serious dispute either before the trial court or before us that Balwant Singh had died at the time and place as alleged by the prosecution on account of the injuries sustained by him. As per the post mortem report Ex. PA, the deceased had five injuries out of which three were contusions, one was an incised wound on the forehead another a swelling in the parital region. Injuries No. 1 and 4 were opined by Dr. Jagmohan Singh to be individually and collectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. According to the ocular testimony of PW 6 injury No. 1 is attributed to Raghubir Singh appellant while injury No. 4 is attributed to Joginder Singh appellant. Santokh Singh PW 6 has categorically deposed that Raghubir Singh had given the gandasi blow on the head of Balwant Singh from its sharp side while Joginder Singh had given a blow with the gandasi from the wrong side on the back of the head of Balwant Singh, who fell down thereafter and the other accused caused further injuries on the deceased. Indeed, in the FIR Ex. PM Santokh Singh PW 6 had specifically attributed the first blow to Raghubir Singh and had stated that the rest of the accused also caused injuries to him from the wrong and right side of their respective weapons. The injury attributed to Joginder Singh is not specifically mentioned by Santokh Singh in the statement Ex. PM. Both Harbans Singh PW 7 and Santokh Singh PW 6 at the trial, however, clearly deposed that injury No. 4 had been caused by Joginder Singh. Nothing has been suggested in the cross-examination of Harbans Singh PW 7 regarding the injury attributed to Joginder Singh appellant. The mere omission in the FIR of injury No. 4 having been caused by Joginder Singh appellant cannot in any way improve the case of the appellants and discredit Santokh Singh PW 6. We agree with the trial court that the two fatal blows to Balwant Singh had been inflicted by Raghubir Singh and Joginder Singh appellants. So far as the defence of the appellants, including the statement of Ram Prasad DW 1, the trial court has rightly considered and found the same not to be worthy of any credence. We agree. (Para 10)
Undoubtedly, Balwant Singh received the fatal blows when he intervened but the injuries inflicted on him were intentional and not accidental. The blows were given to him with great force on vital parts of his body. Keeping in view the seriousness of the injuries, the weapons used and the seat of the injuries, the offence committed by these two appellants would squarely fall under Section 302 IPC. (Para 11)
JUDGMENT
Dr. Anand. J.-Five accused, namely, Amarjit Singh, Raghubir Singh, Jagat Singh, Joginder Singh and Ranbir Singh were sent up for trial before the learned Addl. Judge, Special Courts, Hoshiarpur in connection with the murder of Balwant Singh and for causing injuries to Santosh Singh PW 6. They were tried for various offences. Raghubir Singh and Joginder Singh were convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC while their remaining co-accused were acquitted of the offence under Section 302/149 IPC. All the accused were convicted for an offence under Section 148 IPC. Joginder Singh was also convicted for an offence under Section 325 IPC while the rest of the accused for an offence under Section 325/149 IPC. Raghubir Singh was convicted for an offence under Section 323 IPC and the rest of the accused for an offence under Section 323/149 IPC. Amarjit Singh who is a law graduate and a practising advocate and had been attributed only a lalkara at the time of assault, was in view of his previous record and educational qualifications directed to be released on probation for a period of one year on furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- with one surety of the like amount undertaking to maintain peace and be of good behaviour and to appear and to receive the sentence as and when required by the court during that period. Raghubir Singh and Joginder Singh were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default R.I. for one and a half years each for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Joginder Singh was also sentenced to R.I. for one year under Section 325 IPC while the rest of the accused were sentenced to R.I. for nine months each under Section 325/149 IPC. Raghubir Singh was sentenced to three months R.I. for the offence under Section 323 IPC and the rest of the accused were also sentenced to three months R.I. under Section 323/149 IPC. All the accused were further sentenced to R.I. for six months under Section 148 IPC. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently and the fine on realisation was directed to be paid to the heirs of Balwant Singh as compensation.
2. The appellants have filed this appeal under Section 14 of the Terrorists Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act 1984 challenging their conviction and sentence as recorded on 6.3.1985. State had also filed an appeal against the acquittal of the accused of the offence 302/149 IPC, being Crl. A. No.526/85. That appeal, however, was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 27.2.1987. The complainant Santokh Singh has filed Crl.A.No. 436/85 against the acquittal of the three accused for the offence under Sections 302/149 IPC. Both these appeals are being disposed of together.
3. According to prosecution case, sometime in August 1984 Harbans Singh PW received a threatening letter allegedly from some extremist on which he moved an application to the District Magistrate for permission to carry his own weapon for self defence. Jagat Singh appellant moved an application on 14.8.84 before the District Magistrate opposing the request of Harbans Singh and on that account the relations between Harbans Singh on the one hand and Jagat Singh and Raghubir Singh who are brothers, on the other hand became strained. Because of the receipt of the letter, Harbans Singh and Balwant Singh started living together. On 11.9.1984 an agreement appears to have been arrived at between Jagat Singh appellant and Harbans Singh PW for a passage through a plot. This led to straining of relations between Joginder Singh and his brother Ranbir Singh (appellants) on the one hand and Harbans Singh on the other. It is also alleged that Santokh Singh PW 6 brought about a compromise between Jagat Singh and Dalip Singh which was resented to by the accused. These were the motives for the assault as alleged by the prosecution.
4. At about 10 p.m. on 11.9.84 Santokh Singh, Nambardar was returning from his tub
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
