2007 Supreme(SC) 1403

2007(8) Supreme 112
Supreme Court of india
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
P.P. Naolekar & B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ.
Paramjit Singh @ Mithu Singh — Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab Through Secretary (Home) — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 1474 of 2005
Decided on : 31-10-2007

important point
Merely because the eye witnesses did not interfere to save the deceased when he was being attacked does not make their presence at the place of occurrence doubtful.

Headnote:(a)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 154 – In order to determine whether the FIR was lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, the courts normally look for certain external checks – One of the checks is the receipt of the copy of the FIR, called a special report, by the Illaqa Magistrate, which was received by in time – The second external check, equally important, is the sending of the copy of the FIR along with the dead body and its reference in the inquest report – The inquest report clearly refers to the lodging and registration of the FIR and dispatch of special report for their delivery to the concerned authorities – As the sequence of events establish that there was not any unexplained and unreasonable delay in lodging the FIR, it cannot be said that the FIR was ante-timed and brought into existence after some deliberations. (Para 11)

       (b)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 154 – DDR having been recorded on the basis of the facts given in the First Information Report established – Further, the photocopy of the DDR produced before the court after four years of the closure of evidence – The DDR therefore could not be relied upon in absence of the original, which was never produced, to doubt the timing and contents of FIR.(Para 14)

       (c)Criminal Trial – Eye witness – Merely because the eye witnesses did not interfere to save the deceased when he was being attacked does not make their presence at the place of occurrence doubtful – High Court rightly observed that it would be well nigh impossible to apply a universal yard stick as to how a person would react to a given situation – Presence of the witnesses cannot be doubted on the ground that they have not made any attempt to rescue the deceased – The fact of the accused being armed with deadly weapons may have deterred the witnesses cannot be ignored.(Para 15)

       (d)Criminal Trial – Eye witness – The victim was under attack from a group of persons armed with deadly weapons – He must have made attempts to save himself from the attack and in the process may have not remained static without moving one way or the other – One cannot expect that in such a situation the witness would graphically describe the nature of injuries and spell out accurately the situs of the injuries on the body of the victim – His failure to be able to do so would not, therefore, make his evidence unreliable or doubtful.(Para 16)

       (e)Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 r/w 34 – In order to convict the person vicariously under Section 34, it is enough if the overt act of one or more of the accused was or were done in furtherance of common intention – Instantly, all the accused attacked the deceased and caused injuries in furtherance of the common intention to kill him – In such a situation the nature of injuries inflicted by the appellant on the victim and whether those injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death becomes insignificant – The appellant was not a curious onlooker and had not accompanied the assailant out of any ideal curiosity – Each one of them is therefore liable for that act of murder as if the act of murder was done by each one of them – The fact that the appellant inflicted injuries with the deadly weapon itself shows that he had also shared the common intention.(Para 18)

       Facts of the case:

       1.The accused Mukhtiar Singh and Gurdial Singh and deceased Harnek Singh were real brothers. The family consisted of eight brothers altogether. Dalip Singh, father of Gurcharan Singh and Mithu Singh is stated to have entered into an agreement to sell his house to Babu Singh, Balak Singh and their sons but the same could not be fructified into regular sale as Harnek Singh had interfered in the deal.

       2. On 6.5.1989 about 7.00 p.m. Amar Singh and deceased Harnek Singh were going towards their houses when they saw all the four accused armed variously standing outside the house of Mukhtiar Singh. All accused inflicted several injuries on Harnek Singh. Harnek Singh died soon after reaching the Civil Hospital, Sangrur. The police filed charge sheet against Gurcharan Singh @ Charna for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC whereas the other accused were charged under Section 302/34 of the IPC.

       3.The trial court acquitted all the accused of the charges. The High Court reversed the findings of the Trial court.

       Findings of the Court:

       Merely because the eye witnesses did not interfere to save the deceased when he was being attacked did not make their presence at the place of occurrence doubtful.

        The appellant was not a curious onlooker and had not accompanied the assailant out of any ideal curiosity. The fact that the appellant inflicted injuries with the deadly weapon itself showed that he had also shared the common intention.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.