Singh & Anr Vs. State of Haryana & Ors  INSC 110 (21 April 1992)
M.M. Punchhi, M.M. Agrawal,
1992 AIR 1429 1992 SCR (2) 586 1992 SCC Supl. (2) 295 JT 1992 (2) 580 1992
PENAL CODE, 1860:
34,148,149,302,304 and 323:
intention-Inflicting injuries with knowl- edge that the injuries may cause the
death of victim-Except one, other accused did not have such knowledge -Effect
of -Modification of sentence in respect of those accused-Ac- cused who had
knowledge and who inflicted vital injury -Absence of common intention in
causing such injury -Sen- tence-Altered.
appellants and two others were charged with and tried for offences under
sections 148,302,149 and 323/149 IPC for causing the murder of one S and
causing simple hurts to one R, both related to the accused. The Trial Judge
acquitted one of the five accused since no part of the actual occurrence except
exhortations were attributed to him and convicted the other four accused under
section 302/34 and 323/34 IPC, and sentenced them to life imprisonment and 6
months rigorous imprisonment respectively.
appeal, the High Court acquitted one more accused on the ground that the
medical evidence did not corroborate the claim that he used his kirpan with
force as alleged by the prosecution. The appeal preferred by the complainant
against this acquittal,was dismissed by this Court.
other three accused whose conviction and sentence were confirmed by the High
Court, have preferred the present appeals.
contended on behalf of the appellants that the prosecution case has been
discredited by the Courts render- ing the same unacceptable resulting in the
acquittal of two accused and for the same reasons, they also deserved acquit- tal.
It was also contended that the evidence regarding recovery of weapons did not
Disposing of the appeal, this court,
1. There may be a tendency here and there to implicate a person in addition to actual
assailants in a crime but substitution is rare and that cannot be the case
here. As is evident the parties are closely related. The crime was committed in
broad day light. The witness is a stamped witness. There was no reason for the
prosecution to falsely evolve a case against the appellants. The medical
evidence is consistent and corroborative in connecting all the three
appellants. On the eye-witness account and the corroboration it receives from
medical evidence, their guilt is estab- lished even if the evidence of recovery
of weapon is kept aside.[592 C-G]
of 13 injuries on the dead body six were incised wounds and the remaining were
blunt weapon injuries. Amongst the incised wounds the first one was by itself
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the de- ceased.
That injury was positively attributed to the appel- lant in the second case who
opened the attack but the re- maining five incised wounds were not positively
attributed to him alone. It can safely be assumed that some may have fallen to
his share to be inflicted and others to the co- accused who has since been
acquitted. Even though the Doctor has stated that all the incised wounds could
have been caused by Kulhar P.1, that by itself cannot go to conclude that all
the incised wounds were caused by the appellant in the second case. Since he
inflicted the first incised wound on the head of the deceased, which was
sufficient by itself in the ordinary course to cause death, he has rendered
himself liable to be adjudged guilty under section 302 IPC. [592-H; 593 A_C]
Since extensive damage had been done to the limbs of the deceased after the
infliction of vital injury No.1, it can safely be inferred that despite the
assailants' choosing non-vital parts of the body for inflicting those injuries,
they must be attributed the knowledge that by their concert- ed act they were
likely to cause death of the deceased, for which act they could be punished
under section 304 part-II of the Indian penal Code. The act was done while the
de- ceased was alive . The outcome of injury No.1 may or may not have been
perceived by the assailants except the appellant in the second case, but they
were satisfied in choosing and inflicting injuries on non-vital parts which
injuries were caused by breaking the bones of his arms and legs.[593 F-H]
to his young age, being in teens, the appellant in the first case 588 may have
acted under the influence of his paternal uncle, viz; the appellant in the
second case. Though he shared the common intention of causing extensive
injuries to the de- ceased and injuries to P.W.4 he may not have shared the
common intention of causing death but can definitely be attributed the
knowledge that by his concerted act the victim could die. Similarly the share
cropper had acted under the influence of his employers.but cannot be said to be
a co-participant in intentionally causing the death of the death of the
deceased. He too must be attributed the knowledge that by his act in concert
with others he was others he was likely to cause the death of the deceased.
no injury on any vital part of the body of the de- ceased was attributed to
either of these accused. According- ly, these appellants are held guilty of
offence under sec- tion 304 part II IPC, read with section 34 IPC, and not
under section 302 IPC.[594 A-D]
conviction of the appellant in second case is altered to a plain one under
section 302 IPC and his life sentence is maintained. His conviction and
sentence under section 323/34 is also sustained. The conviction of the other
appellants are altered to one under section 304 part II IPC read with section
34 IPC for which a sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment is imposed on
each of them.[594 D,E]
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 715of 1981.
Appeal No. 716 of 1981.
the judgment and order dated 15.5.1981 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 419(DB) of
A.N. Mulla, S.K. Sabharwal and O.K. Khullar for the Appellants. I.S. Goyal for
Judgment of the court was delivered by PUNCHHI, J. These two appeals are
directed against the judgment and order of May 15,1981 passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 419-DB of 1981.
The appellants are three in number . They are Wazir Singh, his nephew Darbara
Singh and share- cropper(seeri)Dalip Singh. These three, together with Mohin- der
Singh the brother of Wazir Singh' and father of Darbara Singh, as also one Avtar
Singh, Wazir Singh 's father-in- law's brother, stood trial before the sessions
Judge, Bhiwa- ni for offences under sections 148, 302/149 and 323/149 I.P.C.for
having caused the murder of Sadha Singh, paternal cousin of Wazir Singh and Mohinder
Singh accused, as also to have caused simple hurts to Ranjit Singh, PW4
sister's son of the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted Avtar Singh
taking the view that since the Investigating Officer could not recover the gun,
the weapon of offence, from him in spite of interrogation, his name had been
introduced by the prosecution in order to complete the alleged unlawful assembly,
convenient and handy as it was because of relation- ship with deceased. Avtar
Singh was attributed no part in the actual occurrence except exhortations. The
remaining four accused were convicted under sections 302/34 and 323/34 I.P.C.
and were sentenced to life imprisonment and six months rigorous imprisonment
respectively. In appeal the High Court acquitted Mohinder Singh accused taking
the view that though he was stated to have used his kirpan with force, the
medical evidence did not corroborate this version because DR. B.M. Kapur, PW-2,
who performed the autopsy of the deceased, opined that the injuries which
apparently were kirpan injuries could only be caused by the tip of the kirpan
suggesting that much force had not been used. The High Court then went on to
agree with the opinion of Dr. Kapur to say that all the incised wounds on the
deceased could have been caused by Kulhari Ex.PI. This Kulhari was suggested to
have been used by Wazir Singh appellant towards commission of the crime. On
that premise the High Court let off Mohinder singh recording the opinion that
his participa- tion was doubtful. For lack of coroboration of medical evidence
the High Court also observed that it was quite probable that like Avtar Singh,
acquitted co-assused, Mohin- der Singh accused too had been brought in as an
accused. As a result the three apellants remained convicted and sen- tenced. So
they are here before us.
Appeal No.714 of 1981 was preferred by Ranjit Singh complainant against
acquitted co-accused Mohinder Singh but this appeal was dismissed by us on 8-4-1992 for non-prosecution because learned counsel for that
appellant stated that he had no instructions. So Mohinder Singh re- mained
The occurrence took palce on November 10,1979
at 12.30 P.M. in the open fields of Village Kikral.
Deceased Sadha Singh was present in his fields taking out grass while deceased's
nephew Ranjit Singh P.W.4 was present ploughing the de- ceased's field. close
by in their own fields were Jagir Singh P.W.5 and Malkiat Singh P.W.6. At that
juncture Mohin- der Singh acquitted co-accused armed with a sword, Wazir Singh
armed with a kulhari, Darbara Singh and Dalip Singh, armed with lathis each and
Avtar Singh acquitted co-accused armed with a gun came together towards the
deceased and opened assault on him. Wazir Singh apellant started and gave a kulhari
blow on the head of the deceased whereas Mohinder Singh acquitted co-accused
gave injuries by kirpan. Dalip Singh and Darbara Singh appellants inflicted lathi
blows, Avtar Singh acquitted co-accused raised exhortations. When Ranjit Singh
P.W. interfered he was given lathi blows by Dalip Singh and Darbara Singh,
appellants. Jagir Singh and Malkiat Singh P.Ws. who saw the occurrence came
running to the place and found Sadha Singh lying injured seriously.
Singh and Ranjit Singh victims were brought by Jagir Singh and Malkiat Singh P.Ws.
in injured condition to Rural Dispensary, Siwani which is at a distance of 5
kilometers from the place of occurrence. Dr. Ram Krishan P.W.3 Incharge of the
Dispensary, after examining and giving first aid to Sadha Singh advised him to
be taken to Civil Hospital, Bhiwani as his condition was serious. Ranjit Singh P.W.
was admited in the Rural Dispensary Siwani, Siwani police was informed about
the arrival of both the them.
Singh was taken to Civil Hospital, Bhiwani, where he was found dead. Dr. Gambhir P.W. 1 sent
message to the police station informing the Bhiwani police about the arriv- al
of the dead body. Sub Inspector Sadhu Sing P.W. 12 on the basis of message of
Dr. Ram Kishan P.W. 3 went to Rural Dispensary, Siwani where he recorded the
statement of Ranjit Singh P.W.4 at 4.15 p.m. First Information Report on the basis of the said statement was
recorded at the police station at 5.30p.m. The special report reached the Magis- trate at Bhiwani on 11-11-1979.
about the motive. The grand-father of sadha singh deceased had four sons, chanan
Singh , Bishan Singh, Kishan Singh and Makhan Singh. The eye-witnesses Malkiat
Singh and jagir Singh are the sons of Chanan Singh. Sadha Singh de- ceased was
the son of Bishan Singh. Mohinder Singh acquitted co-accused and Wazir Singh
appellant are sons of Kishan Singh. Makhan Singh the fourth son was married to Harnam
Kaur but had not made issue. It appears that Makhan Singh on September 591 20,1975
executed an agreement to sell his lands in some proportions to the three
families of his brothers, but Mohinder Singh acquitted co-accused wanted to
purchase all the land of Makhan Singh. The agreement ultimately did not materialise. Thereafter
there is history of acrimony and illwill between the parties itching to obtain
the land of Makhan Singh. Besides Wazir Singh appellant got lodged FIR against Sadha
Singh deceased in may, 1977 accusing him of an attack and of having stolen away
his motor cycle. such were the strained relations which provided the motive of
post mortem of Sadha Singh deceased performed by Dr. B.M. Kapur P.W.2 revealed
13 injuries on his body. the first one was an incised wound 2"x1/2"
over the left side of the forehead, on dissection of which it was found to be a
fracture of the frontal bone. There was also extra dural haemotoma and fracture
of the skull on the left side. The other injuries were either incised wounds or
blunt weapon injuries. They were on non-vital parts of the body. There were,
however, compound and diverse fractures of both bones of both the legs as well
as that of both the arms. The cause of death then opined by Dr. Kapur was, due
to shock and haemorrhage on account of multiple injuries, which was sufficient
to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
trial however Dr. Kapur went on to add that injury No.1 could individully be
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He also opined that
injuries other than injury NO.1 collectively were sufficient to cause death in
the ordinary course of nature even if one were to exclude injury No.1. Dr. Kapur
further opined that all the incised wounds could be caused by kulhari P.1. Dr.
Ram Kishan P.W.3 on examination found Ranjit Singh having five injuries on his
person which were simple in nature and were caused by a blunt weapon. Four of
them were contusions which were size- able and one was an abrasion.
the investigations the weapons of the offence were recovered by the
investigating officer at the instance of recovery statements made by the
accused persons respec- tively.
entire bundle of evidence was produced before the Court of sessions which led
to the result above indicated.
counsel for the appellants individually as well as collectively at the first
instance pressed into service reasons for the acquittal of Avtar Singh and Mohinder
Singh 592 co-accused to contend that the prosecution case has been discredited
by the courts below rendering it unacceptable.
this aspect it was contended that the complain- ant party apparently had spread
their net wide and had dragged in Avtar Singh acquitted co-accused just in
order to lay charge of unlawful assembly and Mohinder Singh co- accused to
share the incised injuries, when those injuries could have been caused by one
weapon like kulhari Ex.Pl. On that basis it was asserted that P.W.s having told
lies the entire prosecution case deserved throwing out. Beside it was urged
that the evidence regarding recovery of weapons did not inspire confidence. These
arguments even though attrac- tive do not appeal to us. There may be a tendency
here and there to implicate a person in addition to actual assailants in a
crime but substitution is rare and that cannot be the case here. As is evident
the parties are closely related.
crime was committed in broad day light. Ranjit Singh is a stamped witness.
There was no reason for the prosecution to falsely evolve a case against the
appellants. Now here there are two types of injuries on the deceased being in- cised
wounds and blunt weapon injuries totalling 13 in number. This is suggestive of
at least two assailants re- spectively armed with suitable weapons. to be
responsible for these injuries. But when these seven blunt weapon in- juries of
the deceased are added to five blunt weapon in- juries of Ranjit Singh P.W. and
the extensive damage caused seen, it becomes evident that there were more than
one assailant inflicting blunt weapon injuries. Thus there were three
assailants as is evident from the result. Besides shortly before the occurrence
Ranjit Singh P.W. was plough- ing the field and it is expected of a ploughman
to be carry- ing a stick. The very fact that he did not claim to have used any
goes to confirm that he was a victim of two assail- ants who could use their
blunt weapons against him as well as against the deceased. The medical evidence
is thus con- sistent and corroborative in connecting all the three appel- lants,
that is, in Wazir Singh having used his kulhari and Dalip Singh and Darbara
Singh having used their lathis in the commission of the crime. On the
eye-witness account and the corroboration it receives from medical evidence,
their guilt is established even if the evidence of recovery of weapons is kept
aside. We have thus no reason to question the ultimate result arrived at by the
High Court though we have our doubts about the reasoning employed by it to
acquit Mohinder Singh co-accused.
next point urged was with regard to nature of the offence committed by the
appellants. We notice that out of 13 injuries on the dead body of Sadha Singh,
six were in- cised wounds and the remaining were blunt 593 weapon injuries.
Amongst the incised wounds the first one above-described was by itself
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased.
That injury was positively attributed to Wazir Singh appellant who opened the
attack but the remaining five incised wounds were not positively attributed to Wazir
Singh appellant alone. It can safely be assumed that some may have fallen in
his share to be inflicted and others to Mohinder Singh co-accused who has since
been acquitted. Even though Dr. B.M. Kapur has stated that all the incised
wounds could have been caused by kulhar p.1 but that by itself cannot go on to
conclude that all the incised wounds were caused by Wazir Singh appellant.
the role assigned to Wazir Singh in this manner, we take the view that on the
infliction of the first incised wound on the head of the deceased, which was suffi-
cient by itself in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and death did
ensue, Wazir Singh appellant has ren- dered himself liable to be adjudged
guilty under section 302 I.P.C.
B.M. Kapur has further opined that leaving aside injury No.1, injuries nos.2 to
13 were collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of
this collection we have five incised wounds and seven blunt weapon injuries.
The blunt weapon injuries are frac- tures of bones of both the arms and legs.
Even though some of those blunt weapon injuries are extensive and grievious in
nature because of the fracture of bones of the left fore-arm, right fore-arm,
elbow, left leg and right leg, these by themselves cannot in the facts and
circumstances of this case, be said to have been inflicted by the assailants
other than Wazir Singh appellant with the intention of causing death, or in
ratification of the act of Wazir Singh appellant. But since extensive damage
had been done to the limbs of Sadha Singh, after the infliction of vital injury
No.1, it can safely by inferred that despite the assailant's choosing non-vital
parts of the body for inflicting those injuries, they must be attributed the
knowledge that by their concerted act they were likely to cause death of the
decease, for which act they could be punishable under sec- tion 304 part-II of
the Indian Penal Code.The act was done while sadha Singh was alive. The outcome
of injury No.1 may or may not have been perceived by assailants other than Wazir
Singh but they were satisfied in choosing and inflict- ing injuries on
non-vital parts of the body of Sadha Singh, Which injuries were breaking bones
of his arms and legs.
have leaned towards this view also for the reason that Darbara 594 Singh, due
to his young age being in teens, may have acted under the influence of his
paternal uncle Wazir Singh, appellant and though he shared the common intention
of causing extensive injuries to deceased Sadha Singh and injuries to Ranjit
Singh P.W. he may not have shared the common intention of causing the former's
death but can definitely be attributed the knowledge that by his concerted act Sadha
Singh could die. Similarly Dalip Singh, a share cropper of his employer, Wazir singh
and Mohinder singh, perhaps had acted under the influence of his employers but cannot
in these facts be said to be a co-participant in intentionally causing the
death of Sadha Singh. He too must be attributed the knowledge that by his act
in concert with others he was likely to cause to death of the deceased. It is
worth reminding that neither of the two accused Darbara Singh and Dalip Singh
are attributed any injury on any vital part of the body of the deceased. Thus
on the above analysis Darbara Singh and Dalip Singh, appellants are held guilty
for offence under section 304 Part II IPC, read with Section 34 IPC.
we alter the conviction of Wazir Singh appellant to a plain one under section
302 IPC and maintain his life sentence. His conviction and sentence under
section 323/34 is also sustained. The convictions of Darbara Singh and Dalip
Singh appellants are altered to one under section 304 part II IPC read with
section 34 IPC for which sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment is
imposed on each of them. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
Appeals disposed of.