Back
2009(6) Supreme 409
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dalveer Bhandari and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Gurmukh Singh — Appellant
versus
State of Haryana — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1609 of 2009
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7898 of 2008]
Decided on : 25-08-2009
Facts of the Case :
1. Appellant accused along with three others was prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of deceased by inflicting injury on his head by a lathi. Trial Court while convicting appellant acquitted other three accused persons. Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.
2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
There was no pre-arranged plan or that the incident had taken place in furtherance of the common intention of the accused persons. Occurrence had taken place at the spur of the moment. Only the appellant had inflicted a single lathi blow. The other accused had not indulged in any overt act. There was no intention or pre-meditation in the mind of the appellant to inflict such injuries to the deceased as were likely to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. On consideration of entire evidence including medical evidence, held that conviction of the appellant could not be sustained under section 302 IPC, but the appropriate section under which the appellant ought to be convicted was section 304 Part II IPC.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
Dalveer Bhandari, J.—
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 4.4.2008 delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 163-DB of 1999.
3. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the appeal are in nutshell as under:-
The appellant Gurmukh Singh in this appeal has challenged his conviction and sentence for the murder of Hazoor Singh.
4. According to the prosecution version, on 8.1.1997 in the morning, deceased Hazoor Singh had borrowed the tractor of Lal Singh and tiller of Gurbachan Singh. Gurmej Singh P.W.5, son of Hazoor Singh (deceased) was going along with Lal Singh to return the tractor at the Dera of Gurbachan Singh. On the way, accused Gurmukh Singh, son of Dayal Singh, accompanied by the co-accused Niranjan Singh, Harbhajan Singh and Manjit Singh armed with lathis, whose Dera was nearby came and stopped the tractor. The appellant raised a lalkara that Hazoor Singh and his son should not be allowed to pass through the passage of which there was a dispute between the parties. Hazoor Singh was following the tractor. He advised the appellant to desist from stopping the tractor on which the appellant gave a lathi blow on the head of the deceased Hazoor Singh rendering him unconscious, resulting in his fall on the ground. Jagtar Singh, P.W.4 brother of the deceased, witnessed the incident and reached the spot. Gurdip Singh and Puran Singh also reached there. Jagtar Singh had caught Gurmukh Singh. In the process, Gurmej Singh P.W.5 was also given lathi blow by Niranjan Singh. Gurmej Singh also caused injuries to Harbhajan Singh and Niranjan Singh. The deceased was taken to the hospital and on receiving the message, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police Jagdish Chander reached there and recorded the statement of Jagtar Singh at 7.15 p.m., leading to the registration of the First Information Report. He went to the place of occurrence, prepared rough site plan and took other steps of investigation. Injured Hazoor Singh was removed to PGI Hospital at Chandigarh, where he died on 14.1.1997 after three days on account of the head injury sustained by him.
5. The prosecution examined Dr. Rajinder Kumar P.W.1 who examined Hazoor Singh at 4.55 p.m. on 8.1.1997 and referred him to the Civil Hospital, Karnal, Dr. R. M. Singh P.W.2 who conducted the post-mortem examination on 15.1.1997, Balkar Singh Patwari P.W.3 who prepared the site plan, Jagtar Singh, P.W.4 author of the FIR and eye witness, Gurmej Singh, P.W.5 another eye witness and ASI Jarnail Singh P.W.6 who proved the investigation.
6. Dr. Rajinder Kumar P.W.1 who examined the deceased found the following head injury:
“Depression of skull bone at both parietal region at top, swelling both parietal region whole. No abrasion, no bruise visible. Advise X-ray skull A.P. lateral and obliquely.”
7. According to the Doctor, the cause of death of the deceased was the head injury sustained by him, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
8. It may be pertinent to mention here that the appellant Gurmukh Singh was accompanied by co-accused Niranjan Singh, Harbhajan Singh and Manjit Singh. Except the appellant Gurmukh Singh, all other accused were acquitted by the trial court, whereas the appellant Gurmukh Singh was convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of which, to further under rigorous imprisonment for six months.
9. The High Court in the impugned judgment has upheld the judgment of the trial court and maintained the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant Gurmukh Singh.
10. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court preferred this appeal. We have carefully perused the judgments of the trial court and the High Court as also the evidence of witnesses. It is fully established from the evidence on record that the appellant had caused the injury to the deceased Hazoor Singh wh
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
