SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(SC) 222

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. SARKARIA AND P.S. KAILASAM, JJ.
State of Haryana, Appellant
Versus
Harpal Singh and others, Respondents.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 483 and 484 of 1977
Decided on 22-8-1978.
Advocate Appeared
Mr. H. S. Marwah and Mr. R. N. Sachthey, for Appellant; M/s. B. S. Randhawa and H. S. Marwah, for Complainant; M/s. Ram Jethmalani and M. C. Bhandare Advocates (Mr. K. K. Mohan, Advocate with them (in Cr. A. No. 483/77); Mr. Swaraj Kaushal and Mr. S. C. Patel Advocates (for No. 1) in Cr. A. No. 484/77 and Mr. D. Mookerjee Sr. Advocate (Mr. K. K. Mohan Advocates with him) (for No. 2) in Cr. A. No. 484/77, for Respondents.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 107 and 151 - Indian Arms Act – Section 25 and 27 - Charges for offences - Share of produce from her land - Appeals are preferred by State of Haryana against judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowing appeals preferred by respondents against conviction and sentence imposed on them by Additional Sessions Judge who is respondent in Criminal Appeal was third accused before Sessions Court who are respondents in Criminal Appeal were first and second accused in trial Court - Charged for offences read was also charged Arms Act and Indian Arms Act charged Sessions Court convicted Ram and sentenced them to death – Held, Delay in arrest of cannot therefore be taken as indicating guilt of accused - On consideration of all circumstances against court are satisfied that there is no clinching evidence on which court can hold that prosecution has proved beyond doubt case of abetment against Harpal - No doubt evidence indicates that was keen on helping himself to property of his widowed sister-in-law and that he was annoyed when unfortunate sister-in-law dared to ask for possession of her property fact that assailants were associated with and that they had no motive to commit crime would also indicate that would have very much liked to see end of her sister-in-law but all these suspicious circumstances do not unerringly lead to an inference of guilt and prove abetment - It is not clear as to why assailants shot and caused death of Tej Kaur and spared - Taking all circumstances into account though court have a strong suspicion about conduct of there is no case for indubitably holding him guilty of offence with which he was charged - Order accordingly

JUDGMENT

KAILASAM, J. :— These appeals are preferred by State of Haryana against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowing the appeals preferred by the respondents against the conviction and sentence imposed on them by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar. Harpal Singh who is the respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 483 of 1977 was the third accused before the Sessions Court and Ram Swarup and Bahadur, who are the respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 484 of 1977 were the first and the second accused in the trial Court. Ram Swarup and Bahadur were charged for offences under S. 302 read with Ss. 34 and 449, I. P. C. Ram Swarup was also charged under S. 27 of the Arms Act and Bahadur under S. 25 and S. 27 of the Indian Arms Act. Harpal was charged under S. 302 r/w S. 109, I.P.C. and S. 307 read with S. 109, I.P.C. The Sessions Court convicted Ram Swarup and Bahadur under S. 302 read with S. 34 and sentenced them to death. They were also convicted under S. 307 read with S. 109, I.P.C. and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and under S. 449, I.P.C. and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment. Ram Swarup was further convicted under S. 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment while Bahadur was found guilty under S. 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment. Harpal was found guilty under S. 302 read with S. 109 and sentenced to death. He was also convicted under S. 307 read with S. 109, I. P. C. and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment.

2. The case for the prosecution may be briefly stated. The motive for the crime as stated by Dalip Kaur, P. W. 1 is that in the village of Sainpal 16 killas of land 1531 was allotted to her husband and he further purchased 24 killas of land. Harpal cultivated her land for the last 10 or 12 years. As Harpal did not give Dalip Kaur her share of the produce from her land about 1-1/2 years ago she told Harpal that she would look after the cultivation of her land and will do self-cultivation. On hearing this Harpal got annoyed. Dalip Kaur was living in separate portion in Harpals house.

3. A day before the occurrence Harpal went to Hissar. On that day at about 8 a.m. Harpal was present in Dalip Kaurs Baithak with Ram Swarup and Bahadur. Harpal told them that he was leaving for Hissar and that both of them should do the work which he had told them to do. Dalip Kaur heard this talk when she came to look after the cattle which were nearby.

4. The evidence regarding the occurrence was given by Dalip Kaur. At about 5.30 p. m. on 17th July, 1974, Tej Kaur wife of Harpal Singh and Dalip Kaur were talking in the common courtyard of their house along with their mother Sant Kaur and a relation Gurnam Kaur alias Melo. At that time Ram Swarup armed with a double barrel breach loading gun and Bahadur with a country made pistol came to the spot. Immediately on their reaching the scene they fired with their respective weapons. Tej Kaur received two shots in her chest while Dalip Kaur received some pellet injuries on her left arm. Dalip Kaur stated in her evidence that the shot fired by Ram Swarup hit Tej Kaur and some pellets hit her also. The shot fired by Bahadur from his pistol struck Tej Kaur in her stomach. Ram Swarup again aimed his gun at her mother Sant Kaur but the shot fired by him missed its mark and struck the wall.

5. On hearing the alarm raised, some neighbours came and after seeing the condition of Dalip Kaur and Tej Kaur went away. After about 21/2 hours one Sodagar and Resham Singh came in a jeep and took Dalip Kaur, her sister Tej Kaur and their mother Sant Kaur to Sirsa hospital. At the hospital the Doctor saw the injured at 11 a.m. and attended to their injuries. Soon after the Sub-Inspector Bhagwan Dass, P. W. 9, came and recorded in the hospital the dying declaration of Tej Kaur in the presence of the doctor who certified that Tej Kaur was in a fit condition to give a statement. Within 45 minutes of the

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top