Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
BHAWAN SINGH & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF BIHAR
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/11/1997
BENCH:
G.T. NNAVATI, V.N. KHARE
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
G.T. NANAVATI, J.
The two appellants in this appeal were convicted by the
trial court along with accused Bishwanath Singh for
committing the offence punishable under Section 302 read
with Section 34 IPC. In the appeal filed by them the High
Court altered their conviction from under Section 302 read
with Section 34 IPC. In the appeal filed by them the High
Court altered their conviction from under Section 302 read
with Section 34 IPC to one under Section 326 read with
Section 34 IPC. Both the appellants were sentenced to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and accused Bishwanath
Singh was awarded rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. All
the three convicted accused applied to this Court for
special leave to file an appeal. Leave was granted to all
of them. Bishwanath Singh’s appeal being Criminal Appeal
No.356/88 came up for hearing earlier and it was dismissed
by this Court on January 18, 1995. The appeal of the
present two accused as unfortunately not listed fro hearing
along with that appeal and therefore it is now heard by us
separately.
At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellants
stated that appellant Bhagwan Singh has died and therefore
his appeal/has abated. Therefore the appeal filed by Raj
Nath Singh alone now survives.
Both the courts below have held that Raj Nath Singh had
given a sphere blow on the chest of Brijlal. The courts
have also held that injuries were caused to Brijlal in
furtherance of the common intention of all the three
accused. The reason why the High Court altered the
conviction of Raj Nath Singh from that under Section 34 IPC
is that according to the evidence of Dr. C.B. Tripathi who
had held the post martem examination 8 injuries on the
person of the deceased were medically interferred with and
the death was caused due to pus in the brain. The High
Court was, therefore, of the view that the death of Brijlal
was not the direct result of the injuries caused by the
accused.
What is contended us by the learned counsel for the
appellant is that in view of the said finding recorded by
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
the High Court the appellant Raj Nath Singh could not be
convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. We
are of the opinion that the said finding of the High Court
is not correct. Nothing was brought out in the cross
examination of the doctor to indicate that any external
factor had contributed to the formation of pus justifying
the view that the death of Brijlal was not the direct result
of the injuries caused to him by the accused. That apart,
what we find is that Dr. Rajendra Singh (P.W. 12) has
clearly stated in his evidence that injury which was found
on the abdomem of Brijlal was a grievous injury and on that
evidence alone conviction of the appellant under SECTION 326
read with Section 34 IPC is justified. As we do not find
any error in the judgment of the High Court this appeal is
dismissed. The appellant is on bail. So he is ordered to
surrender to custody to serve out the remaining portion of
his sentence.