Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
6th August 1954
BOSE, BHAGWATI and JAGANNADHA DAS JJ.
Inder Singh Bagga Singh, Appellant
Versus
State of Pepsu, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 1854
Advocates appeared
Mr B. B. Tawakley, Sr. Advocates (Messrs. Sri Narain Andley and Sardar Bahadur, Advocates, with him), for Appellant; Messrs. Porus A. Mehat, and P.G. Godkale, Advocates, for Respondents.
Held: "While agreeing with both the Courts below that it was the appellant who was responsible for inflicting the injuries which ultimately resulted in the death of the deceased, we are, however, of the opinion that even though the blows were inflicted by the appellant on the head of the deceased with force, the lathi not being iron shod and the deceased being a young man and strongly built the appellant could not under the circumstances be held to have been actuated with the intention of causing the death of the deceased, nor do we think despite the medical evidence, that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, seeing that he survived for three weeks and seeing on the doctors admission that an injury or that kind is not incurable. But he no doubt knew that he would be causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death and the offence committed by him would fall under S. :304 Part I and not under S. 302, Penal Code." (per Bhagwati J.) - Article 136-Concurrent finding of fact-Interference.
Held: "In this appeal before us the same arguments which were negatived by both the Courts below were reiterated by the learned counsel for the appellant. Further support was sought to be derived from the discrepancies to be found in regard to the date of the occurrence in the evidence as also in the report of the injuries made by Dr. Bhagwant Singh to the police on 15-3-1952 where the date and time of injury were given as the 14th March 1952 evening. It was suggested that apart from the occurrence of 13-3-1952 deposed to by the witnesses these must have been of necessity some further occurrence on the evening of 14-3-1952 which aggravated the condition of the deceased and which was really responsible for his ultimate death.
"Both the Courts below have arrived at a concurrent finding of fact that the injuries were really inflicted by the appellant, on the person of the deceased on the evening of 13-3-1952 and these were the -1njuries which were responsible for ultimate death of the deceased. We do not see our way to differ from this concurrent finding of factor(per Bhagwati J.)
Judgement
BHAGWATI J.: This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of PEPSU confirming the conviction of the Appellant under S. 302, Penal Code and the sentence of transportation for life passed upon him by the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhatinda.
2. The deceased Bachittar Singh it appears had made overtures to the sister-in-law of the Appellant and the Appellant had asked his cousin Sunder Singh to warn the deceased not to do so in the future. Sunder Singh was not on speaking terms with the deceased and he had replied that he would not do so. Three or four days after this event the marriage of the daughter of one Kartar Singh was being celebrated in the village and the marriage party was sitting in the bethak of Hakim Dewan Chand. The marriage party was broadcasting recorded music and Sunder Sigh was sitting on the platform hearing the music. One Pearey Singh came along there from his outer house with a bucket containing milk and was proceeding towards his residential house.
The deceased, who came there from the side of his house met Pearey Singh in front of the house of the Appellant. Pearey Singh engaged the deceased in some talk and at that time the Appellant rushed out of his house armed with a lathi and gave a blow with it on the head of the deceased from behind. The deceased turned his face towards his assailant when another blow descended on his head. The deceased fell on the ground and the Appellant gave another lathi blow on his neck. In all six blows were given by the Appellant to the deceased. Sunder Singh and Pearey Sigh raised an alarm and the Appellant ran away from the place of the occurrence. First aid was administered to the deceased who was lying unconscious. Some water was poured into his mouth and he revived after about 10 or 15 minutes.
Sunder Singh supported the deceased and took him to his house where he was laid on cot. These events happened on the night of 13-3-1952.
3. Nothing happened the next day but on the morning of 15-3-1952 the deceased felt very uneasy and was taken to the police station Mansa on a cart accompanied inter alia by Sunder Singh. The first information report was lodged at the police station and the deceased was got admitted into the hospital for medical treatment. Dr. Bhagwant Sing attended upon him. The condition of the deceased became gradually worse and he became absolutely unconscious on 28-3-1952 on account of compression of the brain and ultimately died on 2-4-1952.
Even though the police had taken no step on receiving, the first report of the injuries on 15-3-1952, a case was registered by them on 28-3-1952 on receiving the further report from Dr. Bhagwant Singh and after the death of the deceased the police took up investigation into the offence under S. 302, Penal Code. The appellant was arrested on 14-4-1952 in his own village and the stick Ex. P-1, the weapon of the offence was also found in his possession. As a result of the investigation the appellant was sent up by the police to stand his trial for the murder of the deceased.
4. The appellant denied the offence and pleaded alibi . He further stated that the deceased appeared as a witness against him and his brother in a civil case, and on the night of the occurrence his brother received injuries at the hands of the deceased, that next day in the "Sath" he resented that act of the deceased to him and he replied that he had not belaboured him, but he would do it thenceforth. The suggestion in fact was that the injuries were inflicted by someone upon the deceased not in the night of 13-3-1952 but the next day, that is, on 14-3-1952.
5. The prosecution relied upon the first information report made by the deceased on 15-3-1952 which was treated as a dying declaration, as also on the evidence of the two eyewitnesses Sunder Singh and Pearey Singh. Pearey Singh however gave evidence in the Sessions Court which conflicted with that which he had given earlier in the Committing Magistrate s Court and the
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
