Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
K.S.Bhalla and S.D.Bajaj JJ.
Gurbachan Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Appeal No. 562-DB of 1987,
Decided On : JANUARY 9, 1990
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302, 34 IPC - FACTUAL MATRIX - ENMITY BETWEEN ACCUSED AND DECEASED - TESTIMONY OF CHANCE WITNESS - EVIDENCE OF INTERESTED WITNESSES - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 302 AND 34 IPC - APPLICATION OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES TO FACTS - CONVICTION AND SENTENCING OF ACCUSED.
Fact of the Case:
Balkar Singh, son of Hari Singh, was murdered on February 5, 1985. Sardara Singh was convicted for the murder and was serving a life sentence. While on bail, Sardara Singh was attacked by Hari Singh, his son Gurbachan Singh, and Avtar Singh, resulting in his death. The trial court convicted Hari Singh, Gurbachan Singh, and Avtar Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court upheld the trial court's conviction and sentence. The court found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the murder of Sardara Singh. The court rejected the defense arguments that the enmity between the accused and the deceased had motivated the wife of the deceased to falsely implicate the accused, that the testimony of the chance witness was unreliable, and that the evidence of the interested witnesses should be disregarded.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the murder of Sardara Singh. 2. Whether the enmity between the accused and the deceased had motivated the wife of the deceased to falsely implicate the accused. 3. Whether the testimony of the chance witness was unreliable. 4. Whether the evidence of the interested witnesses should be disregarded.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the murder of Sardara Singh. The court relied on the testimony of the wife of the deceased, the chance witness, and the medical evidence to conclude that the accused had caused the death of Sardara Singh. 2. The court rejected the defense argument that the enmity between the accused and the deceased had motivated the wife of the deceased to falsely implicate the accused. The court held that the wife of the deceased had no reason to falsely implicate the accused and that her testimony was reliable. 3. The court also rejected the defense argument that the testimony of the chance witness was unreliable. The court held that the chance witness had a clear view of the occurrence and that his testimony was consistent with the other evidence in the case. 4. Finally, the court rejected the defense argument that the evidence of the interested witnesses should be disregarded. The court held that the interested witnesses had no reason to falsely implicate the accused and that their testimony was reliable.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused.
S.D.Bajaj, J.
1. Balkar Singh son of Hari Singh accused-appellant was murdered on February 5, 1985. Deceased Saidara Singh was convicted by the Sessions Court for the murder of Balkar Singh and was undergoing life imprisonment for it. In appeal the High Court admitted Sardara Singh to bail. While living in house No. 1608, Simlapuri, Ludhiana, after his release on bail as ordered by this Court, security proceedings had been taken by the police against Sardara Singh as also the rival party of accused-appellants and both the parties had been down to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
2. On October 16, 1986 around 7.00 P.M. when Sardara Singh and his wife Kailash Kaur were returning to their Simlapuri residence from the house of Smt. Gurnam Kaur on Radhaswami Road at Ludhiana and had reached Gali No. 9 on Simlapuri Road, scooter driven by Hari Singh on the pillion seat of which his son Gurbachan Singh was seated, struck their moped from behind. Sardara Singh stopped his mooed and both the husband and wife got down therefrom. Hari Singh and his son Gurbachan Singh also alighted from their scooter after bringing it to a halt.
3. From the opposite side came a Rajdoot motorcycle driven by Mohan Singh. Avtar Singh son of Hari Singh was sitting on its pillion seat. Both of them got down from their motorcycle and all the four accused are alleged to have besieged Sardara Singh now deceased. His wife stood aside along with two chance witnesses named Bakhtawar Singh (elder brother of Sardara Singh deceased) and Piara Singh (mothers brother of Kailash Kaur wife of Sardara Singh.
4. Gurbachan Singh was armed with a Datar. Avtar Singh with a Pump handle and their father Hari Singh carried a kirpan. Mohan Singh the fourth accused who has been acquitted by the learned trial court was empty handed. Out of the four Mohan Singh is attributed a lalkara only. Fatal blow on the head with his pump handle is attributed to Avtar Singh. Datar blow on the face is attributed to Gurbachan Singh and another Kirpan blow on the face is attributed to Hari Singh. Wife of the deceased named Kailash Kaur and other two chance witnesses in Bakhtawar Singh and Piara Singh are alleged to have seen the occurrence. Sardara Singh is alleged to have breathed his last on the spot.
On being charged with the commission of offences under sections 302. read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, all the four accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Vide its judgement, dated October 21, 1987, learned trial court acquitted Mohan Singh convicted the remaining three accused appellants of the commission of offences under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each. In default of payment of fine every one of the three accused appellants was individually ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months each. Feeling aggrieved therefrom the accused appellants have filed Criminal Appeal No. 562-DB of 1987 in this Court.
5. We have heard Shri J. N. Kaushal, Sr. Advocate, with Shri Ashok Jindal, Advocate, for the appellants, Shri S. S. Kang, A.A.G. Punjab for the State and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants forcefully argued that admittedly there has been previous enmity between the accused and the deceased over the death of Balkar Singh son of accused-appellant Hari Singh and real brother of accused-appellants Avtar Singh and Gurbachan Singh and it is on account of the enmity aforesaid that all the three members of Hari Singhs family have been named as accused in this case by the wife of the deceased. The argument is wholly without merit. Enmity is a double edged weapon. Dealing with it in Raghbir Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1971 Supreme Court 2156 their lordships of the Supreme Court observed, "In cases where there is enmity between two factions then there is tendency on the part o
AI
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
