IMPORTANT POINT
The challenge of the appellants in this appeal to their conviction under Sections 302/149 IPC and sentence is rejected but High Court s order of compensation payable by them under Section 357 Cr.P.C. is reduced from Rs. 4 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs according to assessment of accused s capacity to pay the same.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302 r/w 149-Offence of murder with common intention-Civil dispute between parties-Deceased getting stay on disputed land-Appellants attacking with fire arms on roof of the house of deceased-Incident seen by deceased s son and relative-Whether their conviction and sentence need any interference on alleged non-intervention by deceased s son and alleged doubtful presence of other witness? (No).
       Held, we reject this argument of the learned counsel and accept the evidence of the prosecution that the casings sent by the Investigating Officer are of the bullets discharged from the weapons in question. (Para 8)
       Held also, that though it is true that the witnesses have stated that they went to the roof from a different direction they were specific in their evidence as to the visibility of the place of the incident from the place where they were standing. The fact that they were trying to hide themselves from the assailants would not conclusively establish that they were not able to see the assailants. (Para 9)
       Held consequently : Having carefully considered the evidence produced by the prosecution and the reasoning of the court below, we do not find any ground to differ from the same, hence, we reject the challenge of the appellants made in this appeal as to their conviction and sentence. (Para 10)
       (ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 357(1)(b)-Compensation to relatives of deceased victim-Murder-Death penalty-Reference case as well as appeal-Revision by complainant for compensation-Whether permissible in view of no actual admission of revision and notice to accused? (Yes, as it was heard with reference and appeal) (Para 9)-High Court awarding compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs-Whereas Sessions Court imposed fine of only Rs. 5,000/--Whether compensation was reasonable? (No)-Result-Compensation reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs instead of Rs. 4 lakhs-Appeal dismissed with this modification.
       Held, that it is clear that the jurisdiction of the court to grant compensation is accepted by this Court. It is true that the High Court in the instant case did not have sufficient material before it to correctly assess the capacity of the accused to pay the compensation but then keeping the object of the Section in mind as seen from the reasoning of the High Court we think it is a fit case in which the court was justified in invoking Section 357. The question then will be: is the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs per accused too exorbitant a figure ? Since the material on record is scanty, the court will have to assess this monetary figure from material available and also taking into consideration the facts, judicial notice of which the court can take note of. We have perused the records to find out the reasonable amount which would befit the facts of this case as also the capacity of the appellants to pay. It is on record that the appellants are owning agricultural land though the extent and fertility of the same is not available. It is also seen that they own a tractor and a trolly which we can assume are normally owned by farmers having large extent of land. We also notice that they own a Maruti car which also indicates that appellant are reasonably affluent. On this basis, we think it is reasonable to conclude that the appellants are capable of paying at least Rs.1 lac per head as compensation. Therefore, we modify the order of the High Court by reducing the compensation payable from Rs. 2 lakhs each to Rs.1 lakh each and direct the appellants to pay the said sum, totalling Rs. 2 lakhs, as directed by the High Court. With this modification the substantive appeal of the appellants in regard to their conviction and sentence is dismissed and their challenge to the grant of compensation is accepted partly and the compensation granted by the High Court is modified, as stated above. (Paras 12, 13, 14 & 15)

JUDGMENT

Santosh Hegde, J.-The above criminal appeals are preferred by the appellants against the common judgment delivered by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Murder Reference No. 2/99, Crl.A. 130-DB to 132-DB/99 and Criminal Revision No. 443/99.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these cases are as follows :

There was a civil dispute pending between the deceased Virsa Singh and his family on the one hand and Kuljinder Singh on the other in regard to a small plot of land which was abutting the residence of the said parties in the village of Srawan Bodla at Police Station Sadar Malout. In the said dispute, appellant No. 2 and his family were supporting Kuljinder Singh. On 11.10.1996 the civil case pertaining to the said dispute was listed before the concerned court and in the said proceedings the deceased Virsa Singh had obtained an interim order against the said Kuljinder Singh. On the date of the incident at about 3.30 p.m. there was a verbal fight which also led to the parties grappling with each other but that did not culminate in any serious incident due to the timely intervention of some ladies in the families. It is the prosecution case that thereafter at about 8 p.m. the appellants herein along with 3 other accused persons came in a white Maruti car driven by the second appellant and the said accused persons got down from the car, raising a Lalkara (challenge) that they would teach the complainant party a lesson for obtaining stay in regard to the land in question. Thereafter, it is stated that the first appellant herein who was armed with a .12 bore double barrel gun and the second appellant who was armed with a rifle along with 3 other accused persons who were armed with dangs attacked the deceased Virsa Singh and his younger son Kulwant Singh on the roof of their house. It is stated that during the said attack the first appellant -- Rachhpal Singh - and the second appellant Gurmit Singh fired shots from their respective weapons at Virsa Singh and Kulwant Singh, consequent upon which each one of them received two bullet injuries and died on the spot. This incident in question was witnessed by Ravinder Singh, PW-3, who is the son of the deceased Virsa Singh and the brother of deceased Kulwant Singh and Darbara Singh, PW-4, who is the mother s sister s husband of PW-3 who resides about a kilometer and a half away from the house of the complainant and was visiting the complainant and his family for returning a trolley which he had borrowed from them. It is the further case of the prosecution that thereafter PW-3 went to the Police Station at Malout which is about 9 kms. from the place of the incident and lodged a complaint at about 11 p.m. with SHO Ranjit Singh which complaint was registered and forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate who received the same by 2.45 a.m. on 12.10.1996. Immediately after registering the crime under Sections 302, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act against the named accused, the said SHO took up the investigation of the case and proceeded to the place of the incident along with PW-10, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Bohar Singh and others. During the course of the said investigation, the said Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses and at the time of the spot inspection he also collected the blood-stained earth which was found underneath the dead bodies of Virsa Singh and Kulwant Singh in the presence of local Panchas. The Investigating Officer also found two empty .12 bore cartridge casings which were sealed as also 3 empties of 44.40 of the bore rifles found near the dead bodies which were also sealed separately. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer arrested the said accused persons (except appellant No.1) on 25.10.1996 while they were travelling in a white Maruti car bearing No. CHK 8320 driven by the second appellant near the village of Punnu Khera. During the said arrest they found Gurmit Singh, appellant No

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 711

Cases Referred (2)