SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(P&H) 2615

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajiv Sharma, Harinder Singh Sidhu, JJ.
Satnam Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. - Respondents
CRA-D-728-DB of 2010, CRA-D-848-DB of 2010, CRA-D-878-DB of 2010 (O&M) and CRA-D-694-DB of 2011 (O&M)
Decided On : 29-05-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Isha Goyal, T.C. Bansal, Advocate, G.S. Sidhu, Advocate, For the Appellant; S.P.S. Tinna, Addl. A.G., Advocate, For the Respondent

Headnote:

Common Intention - Criminal Law - Section 302, Section 34 IPC, Section 382 IPC, Section 27 and Section 25 of the Arms Act - The judgment discusses the applicability and rationale of common intention under Section 34 IPC, emphasizing the need for a pre-arranged plan and acting in concert. It cites precedents to establish the principle of joint liability in doing a criminal act based on a common intention and the difficulty in procuring direct evidence to prove such intention. The court concludes that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.

Fact of the Case:

The case involves the conviction and sentencing of the accused for offences under Section 302, Section 34 IPC, Section 382 IPC, Section 27 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, based on the prosecution's case that the accused were involved in a robbery and murder at a chemist shop.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the presence of common intention and the pre-arranged plan to commit the criminal act. The court dismissed the appeals filed by the accused and the appeal for enhancement of sentence and compensation filed by the complainant.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the establishment of common intention among the accused, the pre-arranged plan to commit the criminal act, and the liability of each accused for the result of the criminal act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on precedents to establish the principle of joint liability in doing a criminal act based on a common intention, emphasizing the difficulty in procuring direct evidence to prove such intention. The court inferred the common intention from the proved circumstances relating to the entire conduct of all the persons involved.

Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction and sentencing of the accused, dismissing their appeals and the appeal for enhancement of sentence and compensation filed by the complainant.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sharma, J. - Since common questions of law and facts are involved in CRA-D-728-DB of 2010, CRA-D-848-DB of 2010, CRA-D-878-DB of 2010 and CRA-D-694-DB of 2011, therefore, these are taken up together and being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. These appeals are instituted against judgment and order dated 31.05.2010, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, in Sessions Trial No. 92 of 2010. Appellants Satnam Singh, Mangal Ram alias Mangali and Shingara Singh alias Shingari were charged with and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 302 read with Section 34 IPC, 382 IPC, 27 and 25 of the Arms Act. They were convicted and sentenced as under:-

Name of appellant

Sentenced to RI

Under Section

Fine of Rs.

In default of payment of fine

Shingara Singh alias Shingari

Life Imprisonment

302 IPC

10,000/-

One year

Five years

382 IPC

5,000/-

One year

Three years

25 Arms Act

2,000/-

Three months

Three years

27 Arms Act

2,000/-

Three months

Mangal Ram alias Mangali

Life Imprisonment

302 IPC

10,000/-

One year

 

Five years

382 IPC

5,000/-

One year

Satnam singh

Life Imprisonment

Five years

302/34 IPC

382 IPC

10,000/-

5,000/-

One year

One year

All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.

3. CRA-D-728-DB of 2010, CRA-D-848-DB of 2010 and CRA-D-878-DB of 2010 have been filed by accused Satnam Singh, Mangal Ram alias Mangali and Shingara Singh alias Shingari, respectively, challenging their conviction and sentence.

4. CRA-D-694-DB of 2011 has been filed by complainant Jagan Nath seeking enhancement of sentence imposed upon the accused persons, and also for grant of compensation to legal heirs of his deceased son.

5. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that complainant Jagan Nath got recorded his statement before the police to the effect that he was running a Karyana shop. He had four sons and one daughter. Out of them, Ashok Kumar was a doctor and Pawan Kumar was running a medical shop in Bahmni Bazar, Jalalabad. On the night of 29.08.2003, Pawan Kumar did not come back to his house. He accompanied by his son Kewal Krishan went to see him at his shop. His son was closing the shop. In the meantime, three boys in the age group of 20 to 25 years came on a motor cycle. They parked the motor cycle in front of the shop. They were clean shaven. Two of them were wearing shirts and trousers and one of them was wearing Kurta Pajama. One of them kept sitting on the motor cycle. Two persons entered the shop on the pretext of purchasing medicines. One of them was having a kirch in his hand. The other person was having a pistol. They tried to snatch a bag, which was containing about Rs. 8,000/-. Pawan Kumar resisted the same. Then the person, who was carrying kirch in his hand, gave a kirch blow on the neck of Pawan Kumar. The other person fired a shot on the right flank of Pawan Kumar. He collapsed. Thereafter, many kirch blows were given on various parts of the body of Pawan Kumar. The complainant and his son Kewal Krishan raised hue and cry. These persons snatched the money bag and ran towards village Bhamniwala on their motor cycle. Several persons gathered there. Blood was oozing from the wounds of Pawan Kumar. He was removed to Civil Hospital, Jalalabad. Thereafter, he was referred to Adesh Hospital, Muktsar. The occurrence took place at 11.00/11.15 PM. The lights were on. FIR was registered. When Pawan Kumar died, Section 302 IPC was inserted. The post mortem was got conducted. The accused were arrested. Weapons of offence were taken into possession. The investigation was completed and challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

6. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses in support of its case. The accused were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the case of the prosecution. According to them, they were falsely implicated. They were convicted and sentenced, as noticed above. Hence, CRA-D-728-DB of 2010, CRA-D-848-DB of 2010 and CRA-D-878-DB of 2010 have been filed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top