Singh Vs. The State of Haryana  INSC 912 (9 December 1997)
NANAVATI, G.B. PATTANAIK
appellant and one Teja Singh were convicted by the Court of Sessions Judge, Ambala
in Sessions Case No. 10 of 1981/Sessions Trial No. 27 of 1981. Their Conviction
was confirmed by the High Court. Teja Singh and Harpal Singh challenged their
conviction by filing separate appeals in this Court. Criminal Appeal No. 576 of
1982 filed by Teja Singh abated as result of only with Criminal Appeal No. 71/83
filed by Harpal Singh.
case of the prosecution was Teja Singh had borrowed Rs.500/- from one Balbir
Singh two Months before the date of the data of the occurrence. As Teja Singh
was not returning the said amount, Balbir Singh, along with Gulab Singh and Gurdev
Singh, went to Teja Singh's house for getting back the said amount. They had
gone to the house of Teja Singh on 22.11.19980 at about 10 p.m. From near the gate of his house they shouted for Teja
Singh. Teja Singh came out of his house armed with a DBBL . 12 bore gun along
with Harpal singh. Balbir Singh Demanded return of the amount and insisted that
it should be paid on that day itself. The demand led to an exchange of words
followed by grappling between Teja Singh and Balbir Singh. At that time Harpal
Caught Balbir Singh. At that time Harpal Singh Caught Balbir Singh by has hair
and gave a lalkara to Teja Singh that he should not wait any more and fire a
shot at Balbir Singh.
Teja Singh fired a shot at Balbir Singh which hit him on his chest. Thereafter Teja
Singh and Harpal Singh went inside their house. Gulab Singh went to the police
station and lodged a complaint.
trial Court believed the evidence of PW4 Gulab Singh and PW11 Gurdev Singh and
held that Balbir Singh died as a result of the shot fired by Teja Singh from
him gun that Harpal Singh had caught hold of Balbir Singh by his long hairs and
given a lalkara to Teja Singh. It, therefore, convicted Teja Singh for the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Harpal Singh under Section 302
read with Section 34 IPC. Both were ordered to undergo imprisonment for life.
High Court, on re-appreciation of evidence, confirmed the findings recorded by
the Trial Court. It has also found that the evidence of evidence of Gulab Singh
and Gurdev Singh is consistent and inspite of thorough cross- examination
nothing could be elicited by the defence which would create any doubt regarding
truthfulness of their version. The High Court rejected the defence version on
the ground that it stood falsified by the evidence of the two doctors Dr.Y.K. Bajaj
and Dr.P. Sinha who had medically examined both the accused.
contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that so far as Harpal
Singh is concerned, it cannot be said he entertained a common intention with
Singh to cause the death of Balbir Singh. It was submitted by her that merely
giving a lalkara by itself cannot be regarded as sufficient to come to that
conclusion. As stated above, Harpal Singh had not only come out of the house of
Teja Singh along with him but had also taken part in the assault on Singh even
though he was not attacked either by Balbir Singh or any other person
accompanying him. It not Harpal Singh's case that he had intervened in that
manner to Teja Singh and Balbir Singh from fighting. Moreover from the words
uttered by Harpal Singh, namely, that Teja Singh should not wait any more and
fire at Balbir Singh it becomes apparent that both Teja Singh and Hardev Singh
share the common intention that a shot be fired by Teja Singh at Balbir Singh.
It was in pursuance of this common intention that Teja Singh had fired the shot
which killed Balbir Singh. Both the Courts were, Therefore, right in drawing an
inference from these facts that both Harpal Singh and Teja Singh had
entertained a common intention to cause death of Balbir Singh.
find that the view taken by the High Court is correct, this appeal is
dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal filed by appellant Harpal
Singh, no order is required to be passed in the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
filed by the wife of deceased balbir Singh. It also stands disposed of
accordingly. The appellant Harpal Singh is directed to surrender to custody
immediately so as to serve out the remaining part of his sentence.