Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.K.Bali and K.S.Kumaran JJ.
Sawinder Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Appeal No. 464 of 1994,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 2, 1996
{'KEYWORD': 'Murder', 'SUBJECT': 'Conviction and Sentence', 'ACT SECTION LIST': 'S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code', 'SUMMARY': "The appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Sulakhan Singh. The prosecution's case was that the appellant, along with two others, had killed Sulakhan Singh in the presence of his son, Sona. Sona's testimony was the main evidence against the appellant. The appellant denied the charges and claimed that he was falsely implicated due to party faction in the village."}
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, along with two others, was accused of murdering Sulakhan Singh in the presence of his son, Sona. Sona lodged an FIR with the police, stating that the appellant and his co-accused had dragged his father towards a well and caused injuries to him with their Dattars. Sona's maternal uncle and brother-in-law, who were present at the scene, were not examined as witnesses as they were said to have been won over by the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the testimony of Sona was cogent and consistent, and that he was able to identify the assailants of his father. The court also found that the injuries caused to Sulakhan Singh were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
Issues: 1. Whether the testimony of Sona, a child witness, was sufficient to convict the appellant in the absence of corroboration. 2. Whether the appellant could be held liable for the death of Sulakhan Singh even if it was not clear which of the accused had caused the fatal injury.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the testimony of Sona was sufficient to convict the appellant, even in the absence of corroboration, as he was an intelligent witness who answered questions in a rational manner. 2. The court held that the appellant could be held liable for the death of Sulakhan Singh under S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as all the assailants had come together and had opened a simultaneous attack upon the deceased.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and the appellant's conviction and sentence were upheld.
V.K.BALI, J.
1. Sawinder Singh alias Chhinda son of Ishar Singh has filed the present appeal against order of conviction and sentence recorded against him by Shri Nirmal Singh, Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dated September 19, 1994, vide which he was held guilty under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo RI for three months.
2. As per the prosecution version, the appellant in the company of Tarsem Singh and Mohan Singh who could not be apprehended, and were, as such declared proclaimed offenders, had killed Sulakhan Singh, in the presence of his son, Sona, a child of 12-13 years. It is on the statement of Sona that the F.I.R. with regard to murder of Sulakhan Singh came to be recorded on March 21, 1990 at 11.45 a.m. Sona, while narrating the events leading to the death of his father, stated that he belonged to village Bajuman. They were two brothers and two sisters. His elder sister Nindero wife of Dharam Singh was married at village Abdal and he along with his father was living at village Abdal with his sister for the last 5-6 years. Last night, his maternal uncle Balkar Singh came to see them. After taking their meals, he and his father went to tubewell in order to sleep. His maternal uncle remained with his sister at village. At about 9 p.m. when he and his father were sleeping in the room of the tubewell and lamp was emitting light, door was knocked and his father opened the same. He also woke up. Tarsem Singh alias Sema son of Darbara Singh and Surinder Singh alias Chhinda son of Ishar Singh, caste Jat, residents of village Bajuman and Mohan Singh, Nihang of village Leharka, were standing in the door. He knew them well as they had stayed in his village for about 10-12 days in connection with their land dispute. All the three persons dragged his father towards well. He raised an alarm and began weeping. They started causing injuries with their Dattars to his father. He ran towards the village while crying. His maternal uncle Bulkar Singh and his brother-in-law, Dharam Singh met him on the way. He narrated them the whole occurrence. They along with him ran towards tubewell. All the three accused ran towards the katcha passage leading to village Abdal within their sight. He remained at the tubewell till morning. Then his uncle Balkar Singh took him along and they were going to lodge a report that ASI Gurdip Singh of Police Station Kathunangal met them. Sona further stated that the accused had killed his father for the reason that a case pending regarding the land and for that there was a dispute in the village. From the narration of facts, as have been given above, it, thus, appears that whereas the occurrence took place on March 20, 1990 at 9 p.m. the FIR on the statement of Sona came to be recorded on March 21, 1990 at 11.45 a.m. Police Station Kathunangal is stated to be at a distance of four miles from village Abdal. The special report with regard to the incident reached the concerned Magistrate at Amritsar on March 21, 1990 at 4.10 p. m.
3. Tarsem Singh and Mohan Singh, as mentioned above, had absconded after the incident and as per the information given to the Court, by Mr. Mehtab Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, they are still at large. They were declared proclaimed offenders, and, therefore, it is Sawinder Singh alone who was tried for an offence under S. 302, IPC with the result, as mentioned above.
4. PW 3 Dr. Vas Dev Sharma conducted postmortem on the dead body of Sulakhan Singh on March 21, 1990 at 4.30 p.m. and found following injuries :-
"1. An incised wound 6 cm x 3 cm was present on the middle of right pinna which was cut in to 2 pieces.2. A lacerated wound 17 cm x 7 cm was present on the right side of head just above the right ear.3. A lacerated wound 7 cm x 3 cm was present on the right side of head, 6 cm above and behind the outer angle of right eye.4. An abrasion 2
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
