Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M.Punchhi and J.S.Sekhon JJ.
Darshan Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Appeal No. 364 of 1987,
Decided On : MARCH 1, 1989
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302, 323, 25, 34, INDIAN PENAL CODE - ARMS ACT - MURDER - COMMON INTENTION - SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE - DYING DECLARATION - EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNT - RECOVERY OF WEAPON - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 34, INDIAN PENAL CODE - DISTINCTION BETWEEN INTENTIONAL AND UNINTENTIONAL PARTICIPATION IN A CRIME.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Jagir Singh, was assaulted by the appellants, Darshan Singh and Joginder Singh, over a loan dispute. Darshan Singh stabbed the deceased with a spear, causing fatal injuries, while Joginder Singh hit the deceased with a wooden batten, causing non-fatal injuries. The deceased made a dying declaration implicating both appellants. The trial court convicted Darshan Singh of murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to life imprisonment, and convicted Joginder Singh of causing hurt under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The State appealed against Joginder Singh's acquittal of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, and Darshan Singh appealed against his conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court upheld the trial court's convictions and sentences. It found that the dying declaration and the testimony of an eyewitness, Channa Singh, were reliable evidence that Darshan Singh had intentionally caused the deceased's death, while Joginder Singh's participation in the assault did not amount to sharing the common intention of murder. The High Court also found that the recovery of the spear used in the assault from Darshan Singh's house was sufficient evidence to convict him under the Arms Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that Darshan Singh had intentionally caused the deceased's death. 2. Whether Joginder Singh's participation in the assault amounted to sharing the common intention of murder. 3. Whether the recovery of the spear from Darshan Singh's house was sufficient evidence to convict him under the Arms Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the dying declaration and the testimony of an eyewitness, Channa Singh, were reliable evidence that Darshan Singh had intentionally caused the deceased's death. The Court found that the dying declaration was made shortly after the assault and was consistent with the other evidence in the case. The Court also found that Channa Singh's testimony was credible and that he had no motive to lie. 2. The High Court held that Joginder Singh's participation in the assault did not amount to sharing the common intention of murder. The Court found that Joginder Singh had used a wooden batten, which is not a deadly weapon, and that his blows had caused only non-fatal injuries. The Court also found that Joginder Singh had not participated in the stabbing, which was the fatal blow. 3. The High Court held that the recovery of the spear from Darshan Singh's house was sufficient evidence to convict him under the Arms Act. The Court found that the spear was the weapon used in the assault and that it was found in Darshan Singh's possession shortly after the assault.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed all three appeals. Darshan Singh's conviction and sentence for murder were upheld, Joginder Singh's acquittal of murder was upheld, and Darshan Singh's conviction and sentence for possessing a weapon under the Arms Act were upheld.
M.M.Punchhi, J.
1. These are three Criminal Appeals. Criminal Appeals No. 364 and 359-DB of 1987 arise from one and the same judgment and order. These are the main appeals arising out of a trial for murder. There are two appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 364-DB of 1987. Out of the two, Darshan Singh has appealed against his conviction under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and the sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- imposed thereunder. The other appellant, Joginder Singh, has appealed against his conviction under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, and sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment. Criminal Appeal No. 459-DBA has been preferred by the State against Joginder Singh, for his acquittal under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. Lastly, Criminal Appeal No. 390-DB of 1987 has been preferred by Darshan Singh against his conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act and the sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment. This sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the sentence awarded to the appellant, which is subject matter of Criminal Appeal No. 364-DB of 1987.
2. The deceased in this case was Jagir Singh, a Harijan, residing in village Mundi Jamal, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur. He himself, while alive laid the foundation of the case in giving the following version to the police when his statement was recorded, which become the basis of the First Information Report.
3. According to Jagir Singh, he and his brother Channa Singh PW8, had gone to the circular road of the village in order to buy liquor from Joginder Singh accused selling liquor there in front of the house of Darshan Singh appellant. The deceased demanded liquor from Joginder Singh. Darshan Singh appellant, who was standing close-by, abused the deceased and told Joginder Singh not to supply liquor to the deceased, as the deceased had taken a loan of Rs. 50/- from him and had not returned the same by then. In retaliation the deceased abused Darshan Singh. Thereupon Darshan Singh ran to his house and brought a spear and immediately on his arrival hit the deceased with his spear in the abdomen. Joginder Singh appellant too, who was armed with a wooden batten, gave two or three batten blows hitting him on the right shoulder, left shoulder and the forehead. Darshan Singh appellant than gave another spear blow near the ribs of the deceased, whereupon he fell down. While lying fallen, Joginder Singh gave more batten blows on the right leg of the deceased. Besides, Darshan Singh gave him kick blows in the abdomen. The deceased and his brother Channa Singh kept saying loudly to the accused not to kill the deceased. In the meantime, the uncle of the deceased, namely, Sohan Singh also came at the spot. The assailants together with their respective weapons fled from the scene of occurrence. The deceased was removed to his house by Channa Singh and Sohan Singh. The father of the deceased had gone to a close-by village Saideshah and the brother of the deceased went to fetch him. They having arrived, removed him to the Rural Dispensary, Fatehgarh Panjtoor, where he was attended to by the Incharge. The deceased owned the cause of grudge being his having borrowed Rs. 50/- from Darshan Singh a year ago, which he had not been able to pay due to paucity of money and for that reason the deceased stated that he had been assaulted.
4. The deceased was attended to by Mr. Balraj Vohra, PW-1, Medical Officer, Rural Dispensary, Fatehgarh Panjtoor, at 6.10 p.m. on May 24, 1986. He found as many as 10 injuries on his person, but the first two injuries require specific notice :-
1. Incised stab wound 3 cm. x 1/2 cm. on front of abdomen in upper half, in right hypochondrium. Depth not probed Clots present, wound was oblique.
2. Incised wound 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. skin deep on right side of the chest in lower 3rd, 5 cm. right to injury No. 1, clots present, wound was oblique.
Out of the remaining eight injuries, six were stabbed abrasions of various
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
