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

2016 Supreme(SC) 946

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, AMITAVA ROY, JJ.
GURPAL SINGH – APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1145 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P (CRIMINAL) NO.4877 OF 2012)
Decided On : 02-12-2016

IMPORTANT POINT
Murder committed in a fit of anger makes the accused liable for conviction u/s 304 Part I and 307.

Headnote:Criminal trial – Conviction – Evidence of eye-witnesses consistent, coherent and convincing and trustworthy – Family relationship of witnesses to both parties does not discredit their evidence – Recoveries, site map and medical evidence clinching the issue – Acquittal of co-accused in absence of any incriminating evidence against him not relevant – Conviction sustainable. (Para 8, 9)

       Criminal trial – Conviction and Sentence – Incident 12 years old – Taking place in a fit of anger – Conviction ought to be moderated to one under section 304 Part 1 and section 307 – Further, reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone, held, would be justified. (Para 10)

       Facts of the case:

       Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and 307 IPC while acquitting the co-accused Harpartap Singh, his son. Following his conviction, the appellant had been awarded sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-with default sentence under Section 302 IPC and five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-with default sentence under Section 307 IPC. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

       The High Court has concurred with the conviction and the sentence.

       Finding of the Court:

       Conviction should be moderated to one under section 304 Part I and section 307. Sentence deserves to be reduced to period undergone.

       

JUDGMENT

AMITAVA ROY, J.

The subject matter of scrutiny is the judgment and order dated 01.10.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 378-DB of 2004 concurring with the verdict of the Trial Court in convicting the appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and 307 IPC while acquitting the co-accused Harpartap Singh, his son. Following his conviction, the appellant had been awarded sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-with default sentence under Section 302 IPC and five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-with default sentence under Section 307 IPC. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. The High Court has concurred with the sentence as well.

2. We have heard Mr. Yatindra Singh, Senior Advocate, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Saurabh Ajay Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The incident witnessing the death of Jatinder Singh and the injuries sustained by Lakhwinder has the genesis in a trifle. On a statement rendered with regard thereto by Gurdial Singh(PW1), the First Information Report was registered against the appellant and his son Harpartap. It was alleged that over a lingering land dispute between the informant and the appellant, who are brothers, on 06.07.2002, while Jugraj, the son of the informant was in his fields, the appellant had hurled abuses to him. Jugraj having felt humiliated and anguished, on returning home, complained about the same to his father Gurdial, the informant. The houses of the brothers were adjacent to each other. When the appellant returned home from his fields, the informant went to the terrace of the roof of his house and summoned the former to that of his. The appellant and his son Harpartap responded to the call whereafter informant enquired of Gurpal as to why he had abused his son. This enraged the appellant and while arrogantly proclaiming that he was not only justified to do so but that he would continue to conduct himself as done, rushed downstairs of his house and brought his DBBL gun. His son Harpartap, the acquitted co-accused was also with him. It is alleged by the prosecution that on the exhortation of Harpartap, the appellant opened fire, which hit the informant on the side of his head. Meanwhile drawn by the commotion, Paramjit Kaur, the wife of the informant, Jatinder Singh and Lakhwinder Singh, friends of Jugraj rushed to the terrace. On seeing them, the appellant fired from his gun towards them, which hit Paramjit and Jatinder on their abdomen and Lakhwinder on his mouth and head. On hue and cry being raised, the appellant and the accused fled the scene.

4. The injured were rushed to the Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar where they were treated. However, Jatinder succumbed to the injuries sustained. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was laid against both the accused persons under Sections 302 and 307 IPC.

5. The accused persons denied the charge and, therefore were tried. The prosecution examined several witnesses including the informant, the injured and the doctor who had performed the post-mortem examination and had attended the injuries of others involved. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on the completion of the trial, the Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 307 IPC but acquitted the co-accused Harpartap. To reiterate, the High Court has affirmed the conviction and the sentence recorded by the Trial Court.

6. The learned Amicus Curiae has persuasively argued that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charge against the appellant which is patently deducible amongst others from the exoneration of the co-accused Harpartap, who allegedly had instigated the former to open fire on the deceased and the injured. Apart from contending that all the purported eye-witnesses are relatives inter se, and therefore inherently partisan and thus are wanting in creditability, the learned senior





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