SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.L. UNTWALIA AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.
Dalip Singh and others, Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1978, D/- 12-1-1979.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Frank Anthony, Sr. Advocate (Mr. Harjinder Singh Advocate with him), for Appellants; M/s. Hardev Singh and R. S. Sodhi, Advocates, for Respondent.
Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34, 307 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 162 – Offence of Murder – Order of Conviction – This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court confirming the death sentence imposed upon each of the three appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code for the murder of five persons belonging to one family – Because of the family disputes and rivalry, a serious occurrence took place at about sunset time on resulting in the death of five members of the same family – Appellants are also very close agnatic relations of the deceased – Held, Court maintain the conviction of all the three appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code for the murder of Teja Singh, Sucha Singh and Pal Kaur – Court also maintain their other convictions – Trial Court gave an opportunity to the appellants of hearing arguments on the question of sentence – That was a sufficient compliance with the law – Argument on the question of sentence was also advanced in the High Court – There is no infirmity on that account at all. Special reasons have been given by both the courts for imposing the extreme penalty of death on each of three appellants – While generally agreeing with those reasons we feel persuaded to take a somewhat lenient view in the case of Balvinder Singh – Court could not find with certainty for lack of legal evidence that he along with the other two appellants was responsible for causing the death of Jetha Singh and Ram Singh. Dalip Singh and Kundan Singh are nephews of Teja Singh and they had demanded a share in the sum of Rs. 3,000/- received by Jetha Singh on execution of the mortgage –Balvinder Singh was a young man in his twenties at the time of the occurrence – He is a grand-nephew of Teja Singh – Court, therefore, feel that in his ends of justice would be met by sentencing him to life imprisonment instead of the imposition of the extreme penalty of death – Court further do not feel persuaded to uphold the imposition of fine of Rs. 2,000/- on any of the appellants because after imposing a sentence of death it was not necessary on the facts of this case to impose any sentence of fine on any of them – Court uphold the conviction of all the appellants under the various counts to the extent and in the manner indicated above – Court uphold the sentence of death awarded to appellants Dalip Singh and Kundan Singh but set aside the imposition of fine of Rs. 2,000/- on each of them – Court commute the sentence of death imposed upon Balvinder Singh and instead sentence him to undergo imprisonment for life. Sentence of fine of Rs. 2,000/- imposed upon him is also knocked down – Appeals are dismissed subject to the modification in the sentence as made above. – Appeal Dismissed
Judgment
UNTWALIA, J.:- This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court confirming the death sentence imposed upon each of the three appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code for the murder of five persons belonging to one family. Because of the family disputes and rivalry, a serious occurrence took place at about sunset time on the 2nd of December, 1975 resulting in the death of five members of the same family. The appellants are also very close agnatic relations of the deceased.
2. Jetha Singh, Teja Singh and Veer Singh were brothers. Jetha Singh was unmarried and used to live with Teja Singh. The three brothers had divided their properties at a private partition. Appellant Dalip Singh and Kundan Singh are sons of Veer Singh who is dead. Appellant Balvinder Singh and his brother Baldev Singh (since acquitted) are the sons of appellant Dalip Singh. Tejas wife was Pal Kaur. They had three sons and a daughter, their names being Ram Singh, Sucha Singh, Anup Singh and Darsho. A few months before the occurrence, Jetha Singh raised a sum of Rs. 3,000/- at the instance of his brother Teja Singh mortgaging four Kanals of his land. Appellants Dalip Singh and Kundan Singh wanted a share in that money as they could not reconcile themselves with the fact that the branch of Teja Singh alone should enjoy the property or the money of Jetha Singh. They being the sons of another brother of Jetha Singh wanted to lay a claim on the property and money of Jetha Singh. It appears that it was not known to the prosecution as to how and to what extent the family disputes and rivalry went on gradually aggravating and what was the immediate cause of the occurrence. The two brothers namely Jetha Singh and Teja Singh who could throw light on this aspect of the matter were both killed in the occurrence. But that is of no consequence in this case.
3. According to the prosecution case on the day and at the time of the occurrence the four accused went to the house of Teja Singh armed with deadly weapons. Dalip Singh had a spear and the other three had Kirpans. The three appellants attacked Teja Singh with their respective weapons while he was sitting in a room in his house. Baldev Singh (since acquitted) was standing at the door as a guard. Sucha Singh tried to escape but Baldev Singh stopped him by injuring him on the left shoulder with his Kirpan. The others also attacked him and he fell down. Pal Kaur, Anup Singh and Darsho ran out of the house. They were chased. Darsho was given a Kirpan injury on the head by Baldev Singh and she fell down. All the accused surrounded Pal Kaur and Anup Singh and caused injuries to them. They fell down. The accused raised a Lalkara saying that Jetha Singh and Ram Singh should also be done away with. Saying so they went towards a well and the fields of Teja Singh where Jetha Singh and Ram Singh were. There they are said to have attacked, with their respective weapons, Jetha Singh and Ram Singh.
4. Balbir Singh, P. W. 6, a close neighbour of Teja Singh, could see only a part of the occurrence and in the company of Sarpanch Surti Singh (not examined) he rushed to the Police Post at Chheharta and gave a report Ext. P/EE to Jarnail Singh, P. W. 28, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, in-charge of the Out Post. Since Balbir Singh did not notice as to whether any person was dead or alive and himself had seen the attack on Pal Kaur only, in the report which he lodged he mentioned only that part of the occurrence which he had seen with his own eyes. On that report a case under Section 307 of the Penal Code was instituted at the Police Station Sadar. The report was lodged at the Police Post at 6.45 p.m. the same day i.e. the 2nd December, 1975 and it was registered in the Police Station at 7.20 p.m. P. W. 28 proceeded to the village of occurrence with a Head Constable and two Constables. They learnt there that Sucha Singh and Jetha Singh had died and Teja Singh was lyi
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.