Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Jagannatha Setty and G.L. Oza, JJ.
Hari Singh - Appellant
versus
Sukhbir Singh & ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 74 and 15 of 1986
Decided on 25.8.1988
Held, under section 307 IPC what the Court has to see is, whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that section. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary constitute murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of "attempt to murder". Under section 307 the intention precedes the act attributed to accused therefore the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that ensue. The nature of the weapon used, manner in, which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the intention.' (Para 7)
(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 -Sections 325/149 and 323/149-Conyiction under Release on probation of good conduct Challenged-Sudden quarrel-No previous enmity-No intention to commit murder-Both parties received injuries-Extension of benefit of probation to these first offenders cannot be said to be ill appropriate.
Held, many offenders are not dangerous criminals But are weak characters or who have surrendered to temptation or provocation. In placing such type of offenders, on probation, the court encourages their own same of responsibility for their future and protect them from the stigma and possible contamination of prison (Para 8).
(iii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 357(3)-Award of compensation to victims while passing judgment of conviction A constructive approach to crimes -Recommendation to all courts to exercise this power liberally-Payment by way of compensation must be reasonable. (Paras 9 and 10)
(iv) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 357(3) and 360-Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 325/149 and 323/149-Conviction under-Release on probation of good conduct-Power of speech of the victim has been permanently impaired -Award of Rs, 50,000/- compensation to the victim to be payable by the five appellants in equal proportions. (Para 13)
Result: Appeals partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
Jagannatha Shetty, J. These two appeals, by special leave, are directed against a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 128.SP of 1984. The respondents in the appeals were prosecuted for various offences in the court of Addititional Sessions Judge, Faridkot by judgment dated February 28, 1984 learned Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as follows:
"Keeping in view the circumstances of the case and the part played by each of them I, hereby sentence Sukhbir, Sukhpal and Surat Singh accused to undergo R.I. for four year u/s. 307/149 IPC. Each Om Pal, Dhan Pal, Mannu and Siri Chand are ordered to undergo R.I. for, three years u/s 307/149 IPC.
Each of the seven accused are further ordered to undergo R.I. for one year u/s 148 IPC, two years R.I.
u/s 325/149 JPC and one year's R.I, u/s 323/149 IPC.
Keeping in view the circumstances of the case, all the sentences shall run concurrently."
2. The accused appealed to the High Court challenging the conviction and sentence. The High Court by the judgment under appeals acquitted Sukhpal Singh and Surat Singh of all charges by giving them the benefit of doubt. The other accused who are respondents herein are also acquitted of the offence under sections 307/149 and section 148 IPC. Their conviction and sentence under sections 325/149, 323/149 and section 148 IPC are however, maintained. They are released on probation of good conduct Each one of them, is ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 2,500/- to Joginder who was seriously injured in the incident. In default to pay the compensation they are directed to serve their sentence. The operative portion of the judgment runs like this:
"There is no, previous history of enmity between the parties. The occurrence is the outcome of a sudden flare up. I think, these five appeI1ants namely Sukhbir Singh Dhanpal Hannu, Siri Chand and Om Pal are entitled to benefit under section 360 Cr. P.C. Consequently, I suspend their sentence under sec 325/149, 323/149 and section 148 IPC and order that the appeI1ants namely Sukhbir Singh, Dhan Pal, Mannu, Siri Chand and Om Pal, be released on probation on their entering into bonds of Rs, 3,000/ each with one surety in the like amount for a period of one year, to the satisfaction of the trial court, undertaking to appear in the court to receive the sentence during the said period whenever called upon to do so and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. However, each one of the appellant would pay Rs. 2,500/- as compensation payable to Joginder injured. Compensation if not said within two months the appellants namely Sukhbir Singh, DhanpaJ, Mannu Siri Chand and Om Pal would be called upon to serve their sentence.
But for thir modification, appeal falls and is hereby dismissed.
In view of section 12 of the Probation of offenders Act, no disqualification would attach to the appellants due to this conviction.
Sd/- K.P.S. Sandhu
Dt. November 13, 1984
Judge
3. In these appeals, there is no serious dispute with regard to acquittal of Sukhpal Singh and Surat Singh. The prosecution case that they were armed with Barchha has not been proved. There was no incised injury to the victim or any of the prosecution witnesses. Their participation in the commission of crime therefore appears to be doubtful. The High Court was justified in acquitting them.
4. Counsel for the appellants are however, very critical of the order of High Court with regard to the remaining accused. It is urged that the High Court was too much charitable to them. The intention of accused was obviously to commit murder of Joginder. Their acquittal under s. 307 IPG is characterised as perverse. At any rate, it is said that they ought not have been put on probation. It is an abuse of the process of Court. They should have been properly sentenced to terms of imprisonment and fine. It is a1so urged that Joginder has sustained permanent disability due to head injury and no amount of compensation would be
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
