Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
KARTAR SINGH & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/01/1996
BENCH:
MUKHERJEE M.K. (J)
BENCH:
MUKHERJEE M.K. (J)
KIRPAL B.N. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (7) 300 JT 1996 (1) 482
1996 SCALE (1)330
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.248 OF 1983 Dilbagh Singh
Dilbagh Singh
V.
State of Punjab
J U D G M E N T
M.K. MUKHERJEE J.
These two appeals have been heard together as they
arise out of a common judgment delivered by the Punjab &
Haryana High Court affirming the convictions and sentences
recorded against the five appellants under Section 302,
302/149, 324, 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. While one of these
appeals (Crl. Appeal No. 248/83) is at the instance of one
of the five convicts, the other (Crl. A. No. 67-67A/83) is
by the remaining four. During the pendency of these appeals
in this Court one of the appellants, namely, Pargat Singh
died and consequently his appeal abates.
Having gone through the judgments of the learned Courts
below we find ourselves in complete agreement with the
concurrent findings recorded by them - as they are based on
a careful consideration and discussion of the evidence
adduced during trial - except that it cannot be said to have
been conclusively proved, in view of the evidence of Dr.
Rajinder Singh (PW 1) who held post-mortem examination upon
deceased Mota Singh, that the appellants shared the common
object of causing his murder. Except one incised injury
found by him on the skull of the deceased all other injuries
were lacerated injuries on the legs. Those lacerated
injuries, according to PW 1 could be caused by fire-arm, and
the incised injury by a sharp edged weapon. According to the
prosecution case as detailed by the eye witnesses two of the
appellants shot at the deceased with their respective fire-
arms and, therefore, if the common object of the unlawful
assembly of which they were members was to kill him, it was
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
expected, in the fitness of things, that they would shot at
vital parts of his body, more so when the deceased was at
close quarters. The evidence of the doctor further discloses
that there was no corresponding internal injury of the
incised wound which necessarily means that that injury was
also not intended to cause the death of the deceased. Such
being the state of evidence on record it can only be said
that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause
grievous hurt to the deceased with dangerous weapons.
For the foregoing reasons we allow this appeal to the
extent that the convictions and sentences of the two
appellants (Kartar Singh and Dilbagh Singh) under Section
302 and of the others under Sections 302/149 IPC are set
aside; and instead thereof they are convicted under Sections
326 and 326/149 IPC respectively. For the above convictions
each of them will suffer a sentence of rigorous imprisonment
for seven years. The other convictions and sentences imposed
therefor will, however, stand. The substantive sentences
will run concurrently. The appellants, who are on bail, will
now surrender to their bail bonds to serve out the sentences
imposed upon them.