Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 832

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo And Others – Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1389 of 2012
Decided on : 25-09-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jain, AOR
For the Respondent(s) Mr. Siddhant Sharma, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Common intention – There cannot be a fixed timeframe for formation of common intention – Determination of common intention or common object should primarily be within domain of trial courts and at the most High Courts.
(2) Murder – Examination of independent witness is not an indispensable requisite if testimonies of other witnesses are deemed trustworthy and reliable – Non-examination of any independent witness by prosecution will not go to root of matter.
(3) Error, omission or irregularity in charge – Burden to show that in fact failure of justice has been occasioned is on accused.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 34 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 3(5)] – Common intention – There cannot be a fixed timeframe for formation of common intention – It is not essential for perpetrators to have had prior meetings to conspire or make preparations for crime – Common intention to commit murder can arise even moments before commission of act – Since common intention is a mental state of perpetrators, it is inherently challenging to substantiate directly – Instead, it can be inferred from conduct of the perpetrators immediately before, during and after commission of act – Determination of common intention or common object should primarily be within domain of trial courts and at the most High Courts – It should not be role of Supreme Court to directly adjudicate issues of common intention and common object. (Paras 19 and 21)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 307 and 148 read with Section 34 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 103(1), 109 and 191(3) read with Section 3(5)] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374(2) [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 415] – Murder, attempt to murder and rioting – Common intention – Life sentence – Sworn testimonies provided by injured witnesses generally carry significant evidentiary weight – Such testimonies cannot be dismissed as unreliable unless there are pellucid and substantial discrepancies or contradictions that undermine their credibility – If there is any exaggeration in deposition that is immaterial to the case, such exaggeration should be disregarded; however, it does not warrant rejection of entire evidence – Suspicion raised by appellants regarding genesis of case is rendered unfounded – Serious/fatal injuries sustained by victims have been substantiated by medico-legal evidence provided by witnesses from medical field, who have also testified under oath – Severe nature of attack by appellants , inflicting serious/fatal injuries upon victims leads to inference that appellants came with an intention to kill in retaliation of a previous altercation – Appellants acted with a common intention to kill, seeking to avenge slapping incident – Examination of independent witness is not an indispensable requisite if testimonies of other witnesses are deemed trustworthy and reliable – Non-examination of any independent witness by prosecution will not go to root of matter affecting decision of court, unless other witnesses’ testimonies and evidences are scant to establish guilt of accused – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 12, 14, 20, 29, 31 and 33)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 464 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 510] – Error, omission or irregularity in charge – In order to judge whether a failure of justice has been occasioned, it will be relevant to examine whether accused was aware of basic ingredients of offence for which he is being convicted and whether main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him clearly and whether he got a fair chance to defend himself – Burden to show that in fact failure of justice has been occasioned is on accused. (Paras 25 and 26)
Facts of the case:
Trial Court convicted A-4 under Sections 148, 302, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act, while A-1, A-2 and A-3 as well as A-5 were convicted under Sections 148, 302, 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. All accused were sentenced to life in prison. Criminal appeal was dismissed by High Court.
Findings of Court:
High Court's decision finding A-1, A-2, and A-3 guilty of offences under sections 148, 302, and 307, IPC read with section 34 thereof is affirmed as correct and upheld.
Result : Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

THE APPEAL

1. This is an appeal, by special leave, by 4 (four) appellants. They call in question the judgment and order dated 04th May, 2011¹[impugned judgment, hereafter] passed by the High Court of Judicature at Punjab and Haryana²[High Court, hereafter] dismissing a criminal appeal³[Criminal Appeal No. 454-DB of 2001] under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973⁴[Cr. PC, hereafter]. Such appeal was preferred by the appellants, arraigned as “A-1”, “A-2”, “A-3” and “A-4” in the trial, and a co-accused (“A-5”). The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 04th August, 2001, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Punjab⁵[Trial Court, hereafter] in a sessions case⁶[Sessions Case No. 121 of 1998] registered against A-1, A-2, A- 3, A-4 and A-5 was majorly upheld. While A-5 was acquitted, conviction of A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 and the sentence imposed upon them were maintained by the High Court. The Trial Court convicted A-4 under sections 148, 302, 307 of the Indian Penal Code⁷[IPC, hereafter] and section 27 of the Arms Act, while A-1, A-2 and A-3 as well as A-5 were convicted under sections 148, 302, 307 IPC read with section 34 IPC. All the accused were sentenced to life in prison.

2. The appeal was heard in the presence of learned advocates for the parties on 09th May, 2024. It was submitted in course of such hearing that A-4 might have died during pendency of the appeal and that A-1 and A-3 were juveniles as on the date of the offence, i.e., 12th December, 1997. Learned advocate for the respondent - State of Punjab was directed to obtain appropriate instructions. He confirmed on 23rd July, 2024 that A-4 was indeed no more, having breathed his last on 16th February, 2019; hence, it was recorded by an order passed on that date that the appeal at the instance of A-4 stands abated. Insofar as the claim of juvenility raised by A-1 and A-3 is concerned, the same was overruled by an order passed by us on 23rd July, 2024 itself.

BRIEF RESUME OF FACTS

3. The facts, leading to the present appeal, may be summarised as follows:

a) The prosecution case was set in motion when P.W.8 - Inspector Gurbhinder Singh/Investigating Officer, SHO, Police Station Sadar, Taran Tarn, upon receiving information on 12th December, 1997 from P.W.2 – Dr. Brij Mohan of the Civil Hospital, Taran Tarn - reached the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W. 3 – victim Puran Singh @ Bhola. P.W.3 recounted that on the morning of 12th December, 1997 around 9:00 AM, he was standing outside his residence near the chowk, when A-1, son of A-4, came riding a scooter from the direction of the gurudwara and bumped into P.W. 3, causing minor injuries to little and the ring fingers of P.W. 3’s right hand. In response, P.W. 3 slapped A-1, who in return hurled pejoratives at P.W. 3. Indignantly, P.W. 3 again slapped A-1. Upon hearing the commotion, P.W. 4 – victim Jit Singh, deceased victim Karam Singh⁸[deceased no.1, hereafter], deceased victim Laddi⁹[deceased no.2, hereafter] and P.W. 5 – victim Jagga @Jagjit Singh intervened and separated P.W. 3 and A-1.

b) Within 15 minutes of such altercation, A-1, A-2 and A-3 (all sons of A-4), armed with dangs and sofas, accompanied by A-4 (who wielded a 12 bore double-barrel gun) and A-5 (armed with a dang) assembled on the street and while raising exhortations (lalkaras) attacked P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5, and the deceased nos. 1 and 2¹⁰[victims, hereafter when referred to collectively]. A-1, A-2 and A-3 began brick batting and A- 4, with an intention to kill, fired five shots at the victims, resulting in minor injury to P.W. 3 and serious injuries to P.W.4, P.W. 5 and the victims.

c) First Information Report¹¹[FIR, hereafter] was registered on 12th December, 1997 at about 12:45 PM, for the offences under sections 307 and 148, IPC read with section 149, IPC and section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Deceased no. 1 breathed his last on 13th December, 1997 and consequently offence under se