Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 349 OF 2007
BUDDHU SINGH ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND) ...RESPONDENT
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1116 OF 2007
LEDWA SINGH & ANR. ...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND) ...RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
SIRPURKAR, J.
1. Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2007 has been filed by
accused Buddhu Singh while Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2007
has been filed by his father Ledwa Singh and brother
Balchand Singh. The trial court found them guilty under
Section 302 IPC and sentenced each one of them to
imprisonment for life. The High Court also affirmed the
conviction and sentenced awarded by the trial court.
2. The prosecution case is that the deceased Sugendra
Singh was suspected to be practising witchcraft and he was
aggrieved against the accused persons for not giving to
him the feast which he was professionally supposed to be
paid on account of getting cured of accused Balchand Singh
2
from some serious illness. The incident seems to have
taken suddenly without there being any previous history to
it.
3 The allegation is that on 30.7.1995 at about 4 p.m.
deceased Surendra Singh was standing in front of house of
PW5 Nagru Kharia when accused Balchand Singh pushed him
down and accused Buddhu Singh is said to have then dealt
an axe blow which landed on the head of the deceased.
Accused Ledwa Singh is, thereafter, said to have started
kicking the deceased. It is reported that on account of
that blow, Sugendra Singh was seriously injured and died
in the hospital.
4. The prosecution pressed in service the evidence of
three eye witnesses namely; PW 2 Feku Kharia, PW6 – Karia
Singh and PW7 Tijo Devi. PWs 2 and 6 turned hostile and
refused to support the prosecution. PW7, being the mother
of the deceased, however, supported the prosecution case.
According to her, she saw the accused Balchand Singh and
Ledwa Singh grappling with the deceased while accused
Buddhu Singh giving an axe blow on the head of the
deceased.
5. We have gone through the evidence of the witnesses
very carefully.
6. Mr. Ajit Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the
accused persons contended that firstly this was a case of
3
single blow and the blow could not have been intended to be
given on the head though it did land on the head. Mr.
Pandey further argued that if the intention was to commit
the murder, then the accused persons, more particularly
accused Buddhu Singh would have repeated the assault
which he actually and admittedly did not repeat.
7. Mr. Pandey further contended that once the injury
was unintended, the offence could be converted into Section
304 Part II IPC from Section 302 IPC because the accused
ought to have the knowledge that a single assault by an
axe could result into the death of the deceased.
8. Mr. Manish Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the
State supported the judgment and contended that the injury
was serious enough and was on a very vital part i.e. head
and resulted in the fracture of frontal bone and the death
was almost instantaneous, though in the hospital.
9. Considering the overall material, we are of the
view that there is hardly anything on record which can be
said against the accused Ledwa Singh and Balchand Singh
though the common intention on their part could be
attributed since they had done the over act of grappling
with and pinning down the deceased. Now, seeing his
father and brother had been grappling with the deceased,
the accused Buddhu Singh dealt an axe blow which could not
4
be said to be intended towards the head. It could have
landed anywhere. However, it landed on the head of the
deceased. Therefore, the element of intention is ruled
out. Again the defence raised on behalf of the accused
that there could not have been the intention to commit
the murder of the deceased is justified by the fact that
the accused Buddhu Singh did not repeat the assault. Under
the circumstances, we feel that the prosecution has been
able to establish the guilt of the accused persons under
Section 304 Part II I.P.C.
10. We, accordingly, modify the finding of the High
Court and convert the conviction of the accused from
Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC and sentence
each of them to the period already undergone. Accused
Buddhu Singh is stated to be in jail for the last five
years whereas other accused persons namely; Ledwa Sngh and
Balchand Singh are stated to be in jail for the last ten
years. They be released from the jail forthwith unless they
are required in any other case.
11. The appeals are partially allowed.
......................J.
[ V.S. SIRPURKAR ]
......................J.
5
[ T.S. THAKUR ]
NEW DELHI
APRIL 28, 2011.