In dealing with confirmation cases, the High Court should consider the evidence carefully and record its conclusions clearly after dealing with all the points urged before it by the counsel for the defence.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - Murder - Conviction and sentence - Confirmation - High Court's judgment - Scrutiny by Supreme Court - Scope - Duty of High Court in dealing with confirmation cases - Necessity for careful consideration of evidence and clear recording of conclusions - Failure to consider important points urged by defence - Effect.
Fact of the Case:

Two appellants, Gurcharan Singh and Surjit Singh, along with three others, were convicted of murder under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellants, while acquitting the other two accused. The appellants challenged their conviction and sentence before the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court found that the High Court's judgment suffered from some infirmities and was not as satisfactory as it should have been. The Court noted that the High Court had not properly considered the plea of self-defense raised by Gurcharan Singh and had relied on a prior statement of Gurcharan Singh which had been excluded from evidence by the trial court. The Court also found that the High Court had not considered the injuries on the person of Gurcharan Singh when dealing with the plea of self-defense.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the plea of self-defense raised by Gurcharan Singh? 2. Whether the High Court erred in not considering the injuries on the person of Gurcharan Singh when dealing with the plea of self-defense? 3. Whether the High Court erred in not examining a ballistic expert to ascertain whether the gun surrendered by Daljit Singh had been used?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court erred in rejecting the plea of self-defense raised by Gurcharan Singh because it relied on a prior statement of Gurcharan Singh which had been excluded from evidence by the trial court and did not consider the injuries on the person of Gurcharan Singh. 2. The High Court erred in not considering the injuries on the person of Gurcharan Singh when dealing with the plea of self-defense because the injuries were relevant to the question of whether Gurcharan Singh had acted in self-defense. 3. The High Court did not err in not examining a ballistic expert to ascertain whether the gun surrendered by Daljit Singh had been used because there was no evidence to suggest that the gun had been used in the incident.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentences passed against the appellants.

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.: The two appellants Gurcharan Singh and Surjit Singh along with three others, Baland Singh, Daljit. Singh and Ajit Singh, were tried before the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge Ferozepore, for offences under S. 148 and S. 302/ 149 I. P. C. The prosecution case against these five persons was that on, or about the 18th May, 1961, they formed an unlawful assembly at the village Jhete with the common object of killing Arjan Singh, Sukhjit Singh, Gurdial Singh and Piara Singh alias Balo, and that in prosecution of the said common object, they committed the offence of rioting when they were armed with deadly weapons. That is the essence of the charge under S. 148. It was further alleged that on the same day and at the same time and place the said members of the unlawful assembly carried out its unlawful object and in so doing the appellant Gurcharan Singh murdered Gurdial Singh and Sukhjit Singh, while the appellant Surjit Singh murdered Arjan Singh and Piara Singh. That is how all the five accused persons were charged under Section 302 / 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The trial Judge held that the charges against Daljit Singh had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt and so, according to him, the prosecution case under S. 148 had nor been proved and that charge under S. 149 had not been sustained. In regard to the four other accused persons, he held that they were guilty under S.302/34 I.P.C. Having thus convicted them of the said offence, the learned Judge sentenced Gurcharan Singh, Baland Singh and Surjit Singh to death and directed that Ajit Singh should suffer imprisonment for life. The sentence of death imposed by the learned trial Judge was submitted to the, Punjab High Court for confirmation, while all the four convicted persons preferred an appeal challenging their convictions and sentences imposed on them. The High Court considered both the matters together and has come to the conclusion that the charge under S. 302/34 had not been proved against Baland Singh and Ajit Singh. That is why the said two accused persons have been acquitted, whereas the conviction of the appellants Gurcharan Singh and Surjit Singh as well as the sentence of death imposed on them have been confirmed. It is against this order that the two appellants have come to this Court by special leave.

3. The incident which has given rise to the present criminal proceedings against the appellants took place on the 18th May, 1961, and as a result, four persons have been murdered they are Arjan Singh, Sukhjit Singh, Gurdial Singh and Piara Singh. The prosecution case is that on the 18th May, 1961, at about 6.30 a.m., the appellant Gurcharan Singh was proceeding to the house of his friend, Ajit Singh. Gurcharan Singh, Surjit Singh and Daljit Singh are the sons of Baland Singh. Whilst Gurcharan Singh was thus proceeding to the house of Ajit Singh, he had to pass by the house of Saudagar Singh. Saudagar Singh objected to Gurcharan Singh passing by his house and that led to an altercation. In this altercation, Saudagar Singh and his two sons Kulwant Singh and Darshan Singh inflicted some injuries on Gurcharan Singh as well as on Ajit Singh who came on the scene. Gurcharan Singh and Ajit Singh thereupon ran away. This is the first incident which took place on that day.

4. About half an hour after this incident another incident took place. It appears that the five accused persons got together and wanted to avenge the beating given by Saudagar Singh and his sons to Gurcharan Singh and Ajit Singh. Gurcharan Singh and Daljit Singh armed themselves with gandasas, Surjit Singh carried a gun for which his brother Daljit Singh had a licence, Ajit Singh carried a dang while Baland Singh, the appellants father, headed the party but was not armed. This party came across Arjan Singh near the house of Jarnail Singh. It appears that Arjan Singh was afraid of these men and so, he used to carry with him a licensed gun. As soon as Arjan Singh was sighted, Bal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document