Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
RAMA SHANKAR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF HARYANA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/09/1996
BENCH:
KURDUKAR S.P. (J)
BENCH:
KURDUKAR S.P. (J)
MUKHERJEE M.K. (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (7) 651 1996 SCALE (6)326
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 349 OF 1996
Ranbir Singh & Ors.
V.
State of Haryana
J U D G M E N T
S.P. KURDUKAR, J.
A small incident of taking a turn without giving any
signal by the driver of the three wheeler had initially led
to a wordy exchange between Raghbir Singh (PW 2) and his
brother Satbir who were riding on a scooter and Ranbir Singh
(A-1) who was driving the three wheeler. Ordinarily, this
incident should have ended at that stage but Raghbir Singh
(PW 2) after reaching the Forest Department at Hisar where
he was working, came back with his friends to the place of
first incident and thereafter again there was exchange of
hot words between these two groups which led to the assault
by Ranbir Singh causing death of Ajit Singh.
2. The broad facts of the prosecution case may be
summarised as under:
On 10th May, 1991 at about 7.30 a.m. Raghbir Singh (PW
2) and his brother Satbir were going to the Forest
Department at Hisar on a scooter. At the same time, a three
wheeler driven by Ranbir Singh (A-1) was going ahead of the
scooter. A-1 without giving any indication took a right
turn; however, Raghbir Singh (PW 2) skillfully avoided the
accident with great difficulty. There was an altercation
between the scooterist and the driver of the three wheeler
who called his brother Rama Shankar (A-2) and Vinod (A-3).
However, this incident ended there only and thereafter
scooterist left for their office. This incident was reported
to Umed Singh, the officer in the Forest Department and
thereafter Raghbir Singh (PW 2), Ramphal (PW 3) and Umed
Singh came to the place where the first incident took place.
All the three accused (appellants) were then standing at the
place of Ist incident. Raghbir Singh (PW 2), and his
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
companions advised A-1 to drive the three wheeler cautiously
so that accident is avoided. In the mean time, Ajit Singh
(since deceased), a Peon in the Forest Department, reached
there. Both the groups then got involved in heated exchange
of words and thereafter A-1 suddenly inflicted two knife
blows on Ajit Singh who resultantly fell down. A-2 gave a
lathi blow on Raghbir Singh (PW 2) whereas A-3 inflicted
knife blow on Ram Phal (PW 3). The injured raised an alarm
whereupon Jaswant Singh came there with his car. All the
accused in the mean time fled away with their weapons.
Raghbir Singh (PW 2) and Ramphal (PW 3) who had sustained
the injuries were removed to the hospital at Hisar. Ajit
Singh died on the spot. Statement of Raghbir Singh (PW 2)
recorded at about 11.45 a.m. was treated as an FIR. The
Investigating Officer, thereafter went to the place of
incident and held the inquest panchnama, spot panchnama and
recorded the statements of injured persons and other
witnesses. The accused on 11th May, 1991 surrendered in the
Court and they were formally shown arrested on 13th May,
1991. After completing the necessary investigation, all the
three accused were put up for trial for offences punishable
under Sections 302, 302/34, 384, 324/34,323 and 323/34 IPC.
To be more precise, A-1 was charged under Section 302, A-2
and A-3 under Section 302/34, A-3 under Section 307, A-1 and
A-2 under Section 307/34 IPC, A-2 under Section 323 IPC and
A-1 and A-3 under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
All the three accused pleaded not guilty to the charges
and claimed to be tried.
3. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many
as nine witnesses. Of them, Raghbir Singh (PW 2) and Ramphal
(PW 3) are the injured eye witnesses. Dr. S.K.Modi (PW 1)
held the autopsy on the dead body of Ajit Singh. He also
examined the two injured eye witnesses on 10th May, 1991 and
issued the injury certificates thereof. There is also
evidence relating to the disclosure statement made by A-2
which led to the recovery of a knife under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act.
4. The learned Sessions Judge, Hisar on appraisal of oral
and documentary evidence on record by his judgment and order
dated 8th December, 1992 found A-1 guilty of an offence of
murder of Ajit Singh punishable under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code. As also for the same murder found A-2 and
A-3 guilty with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and convicted them for life imprisonment and a fine of
Rs.2,000/-. In default, to undergo RI for six months. All
the three accused ware also found guilty for an offence
punishable under Sections 324/34 and 323/34 IPC and
sentenced them to suffer RI for one year and six months
respectively. All substantive sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of
conviction passed by learned Sessions Judge, all the three
accused preferred a criminal appeal before the Punjab &
Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. The learned Division Bench
vide its judgment and order dated July 20, 1995, dismissed
the said appeal. It is against this judgment and order
passed by the High Court, A-2 has filed Criminal Appeal No.
348/96 whereas A-1 and A-3 have filed Criminal Appeal No.
349/96. Since both these appeals arise out of a common
judgment passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, they
were heard together and are being disposed of by this
judgment.
5. At the outset, it may be stated that learned Advocates
appearing in support of both these appeals did not and could
not challenge the fact that Ajit Singh died a homicidal
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
death. We have gone through the evidence of Dr. S.K.Modi (PW
1) and the post mortem examination report and we are
satisfied that the cause of death given by Dr. S.K.Modi (PW
1) suffers from no infirmity. Both the courts below have,
therefore, rightly held that Ajit Singh died a homicidal
death because of injuries sustained by him during the
incident that took place on 10th May, 1991.
6. As stated earlier, the prosecution case principally
rested on the evidence of two injured eye witnesses namely
Raghbir Singh (PW 2) and Ram Phal (PW 3). Raghbir Singh (PW
2) is the de facto informant who in his evidence has
narrated the first incident where he and Satbir had wordy
quarrel with Ranbir Singh (A-1) who took a right turn of his
three wheeler without giving any indication/signal which
could have led to a serious accident but for his applying
the brakes, luckily saved therefrom. At that point of time,
A-2 and A-3 also came to the place of incident. Nothing
untoward happened at that stage. Raghbir Singh (PW 2) and
Satbir thereafter went to the office of Forest Department
and told about the incident to the superior officer Umed
Singh. Raghbir Singh (PW 2) then stated that he, Satbir and
Umed Singh came to the place of incident. In the mean time,
Ajit Singh (since deceased) also joined them. There was
again heated exchange of words between the two groups and
suddenly A-1 took out the knife and assaulted Ajit Singh. He
then stated that Rama Shankar (A-2) gave a lathi blow to
him. Vinod (A-3) assaulted Ram Phal (PW 3) causing an
incised injury. Ram Phal (PW 3) has substantially supported
the evidence of Raghbir Singh (PW 2) in identical terms. In
our opinion, it is not necessary to reproduce the same.
7. It is true that both the courts below have attributed
common intention to A-2 and A-3 for the substantive offence
of murder of Ajit Singh punishable under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code. Ordinarily, in an appeal under article
136 of the Constitution, this Court would not be justified
in interfering with the finding of fact. However, after
going through the impugned judgment as well as the judgment
rendered by the Sessions Judge, Hisar, we are of the
considered view that both the courts below have committed a
material illegality and error while appreciating the
evidence of Raghbir Singh (PW 2) and Ramphal (PW 3) while
attributing common intention to A-2 and A-3 under Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code in respect of murder of Ajit Singh.
As indicated above, Raghbir Singh (PW 2) after going to his
office (Forest Department) narrated incident to Umed Singh
and thereafter came to the place cf incident alongwith them
and then the quarrel started which had ended in murderous
assault on Ajit Singh. Ajit Singh was not a party to the
first incident but he joined on his own at a later stage in
the second incident. There is nothing in the evidence of
either Raghbir Singh (PW 2) or Ramphal (PW 3) which would
enable the Court to draw an inference of common intention on
the part of A-2 and A-3 to commit murder of Ajit Singh. It
is the complainant party which came on its own. It is not
the case of any of the injured eye witnesses that all the
three accused were going towards the Forest Office where
Raghbir Singh (PW 2) was working to seek his explanation.
All the three accused were standing at the place of first
incident. It was only the complainant party which returned
thereafter had wordy exchange between them. All of a sudden
A-1 caused stab injuries to Ajit Singh. The first incident
itself happened without any premeditation. Infact A-2 and A-
3 joined A-1 at a later stage. It is in these circumstances
if the evidence of Raghbir Singh (PW 2) and Ramphal (PW 3)
is scrutinized, it is very difficult to come to a conclusion
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
that A-2 and A-3 shared the common intention with A-1 to
commit the murder of Ajit Singh. It is well settled that
common intention can develop on the spur of the moment but
the prosecution evidence is too short to come to that
conclusion. It ever the case of both these injured eye
witnesses that the accused persons had thrown a challenge
and therefore, they were waiting at the place of Ist
incident. It was the complainant party which came to the
place of incident within a short time with Umed Singh and
thereafter Ajit Singh joined them. It is in these
circumstances we are of the considered view that no common
intention as regards committing the murder of Ajit Singh
could be attributed to A-2 and A-3. This vital circumstance
it appears was not brought to the notice of the High Court.
We, therefore, hold that there was no common intention on
the part of A-2 and A-3 to commit the murder of Ajit Singh.
Resultantly, it must follow that conviction of A-2 and A-3
under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code is
unsustainable.
8. Learned counsel for the A-1, however, urged that even
A-1 also could not be convicted under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code. He urged that the quarrel between the two
groups took place all of a sudden without any premeditation
or pre-concert and, therefore, the conviction of A-1 under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is unsustainable and at
the most, he could be held liable under Section 304 part II
of the Indian Penal Code. In support of this contention,
learned counsel urged that deceased had no concern with the
quarrel and therefore, there was no intention to commit his
murder. We are not impressed by this submission because A-1
infact assaulted Ajit Singh with a knife on a vital part of
the body and as a result thereof, he died on the spot. We,
therefore, see no merit in the contention raised on behalf
of A-1. The conviction of the A-1 under Section 302
simpliciter recorded by the courts below is legal and calls
for no interference.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the
conviction of the appellants under section 324 read with 34
and Section 383 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code for
causing injuries to Raghbir Singh (PW 2) and Ramphal (PW 3)
urged that both these witnesses have deposed falsely against
them to take revenge of the first incident. It was then
urged that assuming that the appellants were guilty of these
offences, the sentences awarded to them are too harsh and
disproportionate and be altered to the period of
imprisonment already undergone. We have given our careful
thought to this submission and in our opinion, having regard
to the nature of injuries sustained by Raghbir Singh (PW 2)
and Ramphal (PW 3), no reduction in the sentences for any of
these appellants is called for.
10. In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 348/96 is partly
allowed. Conviction of A-2 under Section 302/34 of the
Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside. However, his
conviction under Section 383 read with 34 of tho Indian
Penal Code is confirmed.
Criminal Appeal No. 349/96 filed by A-1 and A-3 is
partly allowed to the extent that the conviction of A-3
under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and
set aside. However, conviction t A-3 under Section 324 read
with 34 of IPC is confirmed. The appeal of Ranbir Singh (A-
1) against his convictions and sentences under Sections 302,
324 read with 34 and S.S read with 34 of the Indian Penal
Code are confirmed. The appellants who are on bail to
surrender to their bailbonds to serve out the remaining
period of sentences.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5