Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. BHAGWATI AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.
Narpal Singh and others, Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 149 of 1976,
D/- 1-2-1977.*
Advocates appeared
Mr. Frank Anthony, Sr. Advocate (Mr. Harbans Singh. Advocate and Mr. Harjinder Singh, Advocate with him), for Appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Mr. A. N. Mulla, Sr. Advocate (Mr. Harbans Singh, Advocate with him), for Appellants Nos. 3 and 5; Mr. R. L. Kohli, Advocate, for Respondent.
Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - Sections 251 to 259 - Sentenced to imprisonment for life – Offence of murder – Injury - As a result of this incitement appellants fired their guns on and shot him dead - Fell dead on road on the side – Appellants however continued their mission and went towards the other deceased persons, namely - When the appellants noticed presence of these four deceased persons they again made a as a result of which deceased started running towards side being hotly pursued by appellants - Hardly had four deceased gone about they entered field - Accused also entered the field and ultimately fired at who died at the spot - Other deceased persons ran for their lives but as was an old man he could not run fast - As this is an appeal by special leave, this Court does not normally reappraise evidence for itself unless any striking fact is brought to its notice which itself is sufficient to entail rejection of the prosecution case – Court therefore do not propose to deal with all discrepancies and contradictions pointed out by learned counsel which have been carefully dealt with by Sessions Judge and High Court and rightly repelled – Court propose only to deal with some of important arguments that have been advanced by counsel for parties – Held, Counsel for State has drawn our attention to the fact that in some cases the accused have raised question that once case is remitted to the Sessions Judge then the accused is entitled to claim a de novo trial on the question of conviction also - In this connection reliance was placed on State of Punjab (1962) 3 SCR 328. In the first place, this case was based on an interpretation of Sections 251 to 259 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the reason why this Court held that the proceedings by a successor Judge cannot be started from stage left out by his predecessor was that a Judge who had heard the whole of the evidence before had the advantage of watching witnesses which would be lost if the successor Judge was to proceed from the stage left by his predecessor - It is true that under Section 326 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, there is a discretion given to the successor Magistrate to act on the evidence already recorded and not to hold a de novo trial and no such provision is made in case of a trial by the Sessions Judge or a Special Judge - Ratio of however, is not applicable to the present case. Once the Judge who hears the evidence delivers a judgment of conviction, one part of the trial comes to end - Second part of the trial is restricted only to the question of sentence and so far as that is concerned, when a case is remitted by us to the Sessions Court for giving a hearing on question of sentence under Section 235 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, there would be fresh evidence and principle that Sessions Judge may not act on evidence already recorded before his predecessor and must conduct a de novo trial would not be violated - In these circumstances, therefore ratio case mentioned above cannot be applied or projected into the facts and circumstances of the present case or to cases where trial has ended in a conviction but the matter has been remitted to Trial Court for hearing the case only on the question of sentence - So far as the case of are concerned as they have already been given sentences of life imprisonment and this is the minimum sentence that could be passed under Section 302, Indian Penal Code it is not necessary to remit their cases to the Sessions Judge - Ordered accordingly
Judgment
FAZAL ALI, J. :- In this appeal by special leave, three of the appellants, namely, Nirpal Singh, Gurdev Singh and Jagmohan Singh have been convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death. Appellants Devinder Singh and Maha Singh have also been convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code but they have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. The Sessions Judge who tried the case made a reference to the High Court which was heard along with the appeal filed by the appellants, and the High Court after considering the judgment of the Sessions Judge and hearing the parties upheld the convictions as also the sentences passed on the appellants and dismissed the appeal. The High Court thereafter refused to grant leave to appeal to SC against its decision and the appellants have, therefore, come up to this Court after obtaining special leave from this Court.
2. This is a most unfortunate case where the appellants are alleged to have run amuck and started killing as many as five persons, some of them with their guns. They did not leave the spot until the five deceased had been killed. There was of course some background of enmity but the prosecution case as presented reveals five brutal and ghastly murders. What is even more unfortunate is that the occurrence is said to have started on a very trivial provocation which is said to have been given by Amrik Singh who trespassed into the field of Devinder Singh appellant while taking tea for his father in the field. Devinder Singh turned out the little boy on which Nath Singh and Partap Singh deceased who were working in the field protested. The protest of these persons brought a chain of threats by Devinder Singh that he would teach them a lession. This incident had happened on May 2, 1973 at about 6 P. M. It was soon followed up by the brutal and armed attack by the appellants on the deceased who were chased and shot dead one after the other. Smt. Inder Kaur widow of deceased Tulsa Singh also happened to be in the field and she also received injuries at the hands of Maha Singh who is said to have given two gandasa blows by the blunt end of the axe. Thereafter, according to the prosecution, not content with the brutal murders, the appellants dragged the corpses of Nath Singh and Pratap Singh to a place near the field of the accused. The evidence shows that some of the deceased actually begged for mercy and entreated the accused persons to spare their lives, but the accused appear to have turned deaf ears to the human appeals made by the deceased. The deceased persons in the instant case are Pratap Singh, Nath Singh. Thulsa Singh, Jit Singh and Sewa Singh. According to the version put forward by the eye-witnesses, after Devinder Singh had administered threats to Nath Singh and others he returned along with all the other accused variously armed with axes and guns. Maha Singh, Sher Singh and Devinder Singh were armed with gandasas, whereas appellant Gurdev Singh and Jagmohan Singh with double barrel guns and Nirpal Singh was armed with a single barrel gun. As soon as the party of the accused reached near the kotha of the Harjians they raised a lalkara and shouted that Sewa Singh should be finished. As a result of this incitement, the appellants Gurdev Singh, Jagmohan Singh and Nirpal Singh fired their guns on Sewa Singh and shot him dead. Sewa Singh fell dead on the kacha road on the side of Girdharpur. The appellants, however, continued their mission and went towards the other deceased persons, namely, Nath Singh, Tulsa Singh, Jit Singh and Partap Singh. When the appellants noticed the presence of these four deceased persons, they again made a lalkara as a result of which the deceased strated running towards Girdharpur side being hotly pursued by the appellants. Hardly had the four deceased gone about 1 1/2 Kilas (about 280 feet) they entered the field. The accused also entered the field and ultimately Nirpal Singh and Jagmohan Singh fired at Partap Singh who d
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
