Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A.D. KOSHAL, JJ.
Nidhan Singh and others, Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab, Respondent.
Criminal Appeals Nos, 15 and 16 of 1977,D/-26-8-1980.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302, 34 and 307 - Arms Act - Section 27 – Offence of Murder - Act done by several persons - Charged - (P. W. 2) loaded 40 mds. of paddy in trolley of his tractor for being sold in market - Accompanied by his son was driving tractor - As tractor was approaching bus stand of village, three appellants passed it by in their tractor and went ahead - They were armed with guns - Near bus stand of village, got into tractor - Tractor covered a distance of about 300 karams towards when appellants came out of Sarkanda bushes from the right side of road - Fired a shot which killed - Fired shots which injured -Jumped out of the trolley along with his rifle from which he fired a few shots in the air - In meanwhile,jumped out of trolley to save their lives but they, too received gun shot injuries - He saw dead bodies , prepared an inquest report and seized the card board wads, pellets and empty cartridges cells from place of occurrence – Held, argument leaves us unimpressed – Court find it impossible to accept that Sub-Inspector could have done anything of kind in presence of a large crowd which had gathered at place of occurrence - Quadruple murder must have created great excitement, if not panic, in locality and there is evidence to show that several people gathered at place of occurrence soon after incident - Besides, First Information Report itself shows that appellants came out of reeds and started firing and his party -Photographs which Investigating Officer took soon after reaching place of occurrence also show that appellants tractor was lying beyond the reeds - As observed by High Court, evidence is not clear enough to compel inference that whether fatal injury was caused as a result of shot fired - Injuries found on person of show that two shots were fired at him from two different guns - Sentence of death-was imposed by Sessions Court on for having committed murder - Since High Court was in doubt as to whether fatal shot was fired, it reduced death sentence to life imprisonment - Appeals dismissed.
Key Points: - (!) The Court upheld the convictions and sentences of all three appellants on charges including murder under Section 302 IPC and unlawful use of firearms under Section 27 Arms Act. (!) (!) - (!) The High Court confirmed the four deaths and various injuries, and reduced Nidhan Singh’s death sentence to life imprisonment due to doubt whether he fired the fatal shot. (!) (!) - (!) The Court emphasized premeditation/plan in attacking Jagir Singh’s party and held Jagir Singh acted in self‑defense; no mitigating grounds excused the appellants’ acts. (!) (!) - (!) The Court rejected the argument that Shisha Singh’s death was necessarily due to a shot by Nidhan Singh and accepted the evidence showing multiple shooters from the appellants. (!) (!) - (!) The appellate decisions relied on eye-witness testimony and post‑occurrence evidence confirming the sequence of firing and injuries. (!) (!) - (!) The High Court’s and Sessions Court’s factual findings were reviewed and upheld; the death sentence for Nidhan Singh was reduced, others maintained. (!) - (!) The overall result: both appeals dismissed; judgments of the High Court confirming convictions and sentences were upheld. (!) - (!) The record shows the incident occurred in broad daylight with multiple fatalities and injuries, establishing a multi‑offender murder with common intent. (!) (!) - (!) The judgment addresses the evidentiary challenges to the cause of death and the source of fire, rejecting alternative explanations. (!) (!) - (!) Final disposition: Appeals dismissed; citations for the case: AIR 1981 SC 376. (!) (!)
Judgment
CHANDRACHUD, CJI.:- The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 1977 were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala, for various offences arising out of an incident dated November 27, 1973, in which four persons were murdered. Appellant Nidhan Singh was convicted under Section 302 I. P, C. for the murder of Gurcharan Singh and was sentenced to death. Appellants Balwinder Singh and Harnam. Singh, who are the sons of Nidhan Singh, were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 I. P. C. for the murder of Charat Singh, Shisha Singh and- Hamir Kaur as also for the murder of Gurcharan Singh. All the appellants were further convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 I. P. C. for causing injuries to Gian Singh and Didar Singh, and under Section 27 of the Arms Act for unlawful use of firearms.
2. The three accused filed a common appeal in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against their conviction and sentence. The learned Sessions Judge referred the death sentence for confirmation to the High Court. The State of Punjab filed an appeal in the High Court for enhancement of the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the appellants Balwinder Singh and Harnam Singh.
3. The High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellants on all the charges as also the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to them on some of the charges. It, however, set aside the death sentence imposed on appellant Nidhan Singh and reduced it to life imprisonment.
4. We have two appeals before us, both by special leave; Criminal Appeal 15 of 1977 is by the accused, while Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1977 is by the State of Punjab asking that all the three accused should be sentenced to death.
5. The High Court and the Sessions Court have both considered the various matters arising in the case fully and carefully. We will therefore not repeat what has been said by them and will confine our attention to the main points made before us by Mr. Mulla who appears on behalf of the appellants.
6. The incident out of which the prosecution arose happened at about 11.00 A. M. on November 27, 1973. Jagir Singh (P. W. 2) loaded 40 mds. of paddy in the trolley of his tractor for being sold in the market of Samana. Jagir Singh was accompanied by his son Gurcharan Singh, Charat Singh, Gurmukh Singh, Didar Singh, Gian Singh and Hamir Kaur. Gian Singh was driving the tractor. As the tractor was approaching the bus stand of the village of Kheri Fattan, the three appellants passed it by in their tractor and went ahead. They were armed with guns. Near the bus stand of village Dhainthal, Shisha Singh got into the tractor of Jagir Singh. Jagir Singhs tractor covered a distance of about 300 karams towards Samana when the appellants came out of the Sarkanda bushes from the right side of the road. Nidhan Singh fired a shot which killed Gurcharan Singh. Balwinder Singh and Harnam Singh fired shots which injured Charat Singh and Didar Singh. Jagir Singh jumped out of the trolley along with his rifle from which he fired a few shots in the air. In the meanwhile, Hamir Kaur and Shisha Singh jumped out of the trolley to save their lives but they, too received gun shot injuries. Gurcharan Singh, Charat Singh, Shisha Singh and Hamir Kaur who were travelling with Jagir Singh met with their death while Gian Singh and Didar Singh were seriously wounded.
7. Jagir Singh then went to Samana in a bus and lodged his First Information Report (Exhibit P-J) at about 1.00 P. M. Sub-Inspector Banta Singh recorded the F. I. R., and reached, the place of occurrence within a few hours. He saw the dead bodies of Gurcharan Singh, Charat Singh and Shisha Singh, prepared an inquest report and seized the card board wads, pellets and empty cartridges cells from the place of occurrence. He found Jagir Singhs tractor with a loaded trolley standing on the Patiala-Samana Road. The tractor of the appellant Nidhan Singh was at a distance of about 20 karams from Jagir Singhs tractor behind the Sarkanda reeds
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
