Gurbax Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2003
Petitioner: Gurbax Singh & Ors.
Respondent: State of Punjab
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2003
Judges: Y.K. SABHARWAL & H.K. SEMA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 04, 2003
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 148, 447, 302, 307, 323 all read with section 149 – Riot and murder- All five accused armed and gone to field of complainant party – Previous enmity among the groups – Civil and criminal cases pending -common object to do away with other group- Two of the accused not inflicting any injury to deceased, but to his brother (PW-one of the accused using spear but no corresponding hole on shirt of deceased) – If those who have not inflicted any injury to deceased are not liable under section 302/149. Held that the factum of unlawful assembly and common object having been established individual blows given by respective appellants loses significance. Order of conviction with aid of section 149 upheld. (Paras 7, 8)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Five accused that were charged with offences punishable under sections 148, 447, 302, 307 323 and 149 of I.P.C. were Atma Singh, his son Gurbax Singh, son of brother-in-law of Atma Singh, named Gurjant Singh, another son of Atma Singh, named Bachint Singh and one Angrez Singh @ Geja Singh. The trial court found Atma Singh alone as guilty of offence punishable under section 302. He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-. Bachint Singh was found guilty of offence punishable under section 307, IPC for causing injuries to Nachhattar Singh and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. The remaining – Gurbax Singh, Gurjant Singh and Angrez Singh @ Geja Singh were acquitted by the trial court.
2. Two appeals were filed before the High court against the judgment and order of the trial court. Crl.A.No. 295-DB of 1995 was filed by Atma Singh and his son Bachint Singh to challenge their conviction and sentence. Crl.A.No.56-DBA of 1996 was filed by the State against four persons, namely, Gurbax Singh, Angrez Singh @ Geja Singh, Gurjant Singh and Bachint Singh. The first three had been acquitted by the trial court and Bachint Singh was convicted only under section 307, IPC but acquitted of offence under section 302, IPC and other provisions for which he had been charged. The High court by common judgment, which is under challenge in this appeal, dismissed the appeal that had been filed by Atma Singh and Bachint Singh (Crl.A.No.295-DB of 1995) and allowed the State appeal against acquittal (Crl.A.No.56-DBA of 1996) and aforesaid four respondents in the appeal have been found guilty of offence punishable under section 302 read with section 149, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- each and to suffer further imprisonment of three months in default of payment of fine. They have also been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of five years for the offences punishable under sections 447, 307, 323 read with section 149, IPC besides fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for three months each. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
3. The conviction of Atma Singh by the trial court as affirmed by the High Court has become final. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. J. K. Das, submits that Atma Singh has not challenged the impugned judgment of the High Court.
4. Two appeals were filed by the four respondents who had been convicted by the High Court allowing the State appeal against acquittal. Gurjant Singh preferred separate appeal (Crl.A.No. 154 of 2002). The remaining three- Gurbax Singh, Angrez Singh and Bachint Singh have preferred this common appeal. The appeal of Gurjant Singh has been dismissed by this Court in terms of judgment dated 3.9.2002 by a bench of which one of us (Justice H.K. Sema) was a member. Therefore, the judgment of the High Court in so far as it convicts Gurjant Singh has also attained finality.
5. Reverting now to the present appeal filed by the remaining three, it is necessary to notice in brief the prosecution case so as to examine the submission of Mr. Das so as to distinguish the case of the appellants from that of Gurjant Singh. The occurrence took place at about 9.30 a.m on 15th October, 1990 in the fields in village Khialivala. The deceased Kaka Singh @ Lachhman and the injured witness PW3- Nachhattar Singh are brothers. The prosecution story was revealed on the statement of PW3 to the effect that he along with his brother Kaka Singh, PW4- Sukhdev Kaur- wife of PW3-Nachhattar Singh, and a labourer Ram Chand had gone to the fields to pick cotton. While they were so doing Atma Singh and Gurjant Singh armed with gandasas, Gurbax Singh and Bachint Singh armed with spears, Geja Singh and three more armed with dangs reached their fields. Atma Singh raised a lalkara that they should be taught a lesson for buying their land. He gave a gandasa blow to Kaka Singh on the left side of his head. Gurjant also gave a gandasa blow on the head of Kakka Singh, Gurbax Singh gave a spear blow on the left flank of Kaka Singh. Bachint Singh gave a spear blow to PW3 and a second blow on the portion above the naval. Resultantly, PW3 fell down. Geja Singh gave a dang blow on the head of PW3 and also on his left arm. It was also alleged that there was previous enmity between the two groups. Civil litigation was pending in court. There was also criminal cases. They had blamed complainant party for the murder of elder brother of Gurjant Singh. The High Court on appreciation of evidence reverse the acquittal of these three appellants and Gurjant Singh as already noticed.
6. In respect of Bachint Singh, one of the contention urged by Mr. J.K. Das is that no appeal had been filed by State of Punjab against his acquittal for offence under section 302/149 IPC and, therefore, the High Court committed a serious illegality in convicting him for the said offence reversing the judgement of the trial court. Our attention has been drawn to a factual statement in the impugned judgment while narrating facts that State of Punjab has filed Crl.A.No.56-DB-A of 1996 to challenge the acquittal of Gurbax Singh, Gurjant Singh and Geja Singh. It is true that at the particular portion of the judgment pointed out by learned counsel, name of Bachint Singh has not been mentioned. It is evident that it is on account of slip or typographical error that while narrating fact at particular portion of judgment name of Bachint Singh has not been mentioned. That, however, does not lead to the conclusion that State did not challenge the acquittal of Bachint Singh for offence under section 302/149 and other offences. It is evident from the perusal of the record that Crl. A.56.DB-A of 1996 was filed not only challenging the acquittal of the affronted three persons but also challenging the acquittal of Bachint Singh for the offence for which he was not found guilty by the trial court. Bachint Singh was admittedly respondent no.4 in Crl.A.56.DBA of 1996. He was represented by a counsel before the High Court. In the course of the judgment the High Court has referred to detail facts and the evidence against Bachint Singh as well before coming to the conclusion that he too is guilty of offence punishable under section 302 read with section 149 IPC and other offences. We, therefore, find no substance in the contention that State had not challenged the acquittal of Bachint Singh in the appeal filed by it before the High Court.
7. In respect of the appellant Gurbax Singh, a submission was sought to be urge to create a doubt in respect of injury said to have been inflicted by him on the left flank of deceased Kaka Singh with a spear blow submitting that on the shirt of Kaka Singh that had been seized there has no hole which makes, according to the learned counsel, the infliction of injury, by Gurbax Singh, doubtful. In respect of appellants Bachint Singh and Angrez Singh, @ Geja Singh the contention sought to be urged was that even according to the case of the prosecution, they had allegedly inflicted injuries not to Kaka Singh but to PW3 and, therefore, it was submitted, that these two appellants could not be held guilty for offence under section 302/149, IPC and other offences as noticed hereinbefore.
8. All the five accused armed with weapons had gone to the fields where Kaka Singh, his brother PW3 and others were working has been fully established from the evidence. It has also been fully established that there was previous enmity between the two groups. The formation of unlawful assembly, on the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be doubted, so also the common object of the said assembly to do away with the other group. It is a different matter that luckily PW3 got saved and only Kaka Singh succumbed to the injuries. The formation of the unlawful assembly with the common object to kill the other group and the homicidal death of Kaka Singh having been duly established, the factum of the individual blows by the respective appellants loses any significance. In this view of the matter we find no reason to take a view different than already taken by this Court in Crl.A.No. 154 of 2002. There are no distinguishing features of the case of the appellants.
9. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no substance in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
1. Five accused that were charged with offences punishable under sections 148, 447, 302, 307 323 and 149 of I.P.C. were Atma Singh, his son Gurbax Singh, son of brother-in-law of Atma Singh, named Gurjant Singh, another son of Atma Singh, named Bachint Singh and one Angrez Singh @ Geja Singh. The trial court found Atma Singh alone as guilty of offence punishable under section 302. He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-. Bachint Singh was found guilty of offence punishable under section 307, IPC for causing injuries to Nachhattar Singh and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. The remaining – Gurbax Singh, Gurjant Singh and Angrez Singh @ Geja Singh were acquitted by the trial court.
2. Two appeals were filed before the High court against the judgment and order of the trial court. Crl.A.No. 295-DB of 1995 was filed by Atma Singh and his son Bachint Singh to challenge their conviction and sentence. Crl.A.No.56-DBA of 1996 was filed by the State against four persons, namely, Gurbax Singh, Angrez Singh @ Geja Singh, Gurjant Singh and Bachint Singh. The first three had been acquitted by the trial court and Bachint Singh was convicted only under section 307, IPC but acquitted of offence under section 302, IPC and other provisions for which he had been charged. The High court by common judgment, which is under challenge in this appeal, dismissed the appeal that had been filed by Atma Singh and Bachint Singh (Crl.A.No.295-DB of 1995) and allowed the State appeal against acquittal (Crl.A.No.56-DBA of 1996) and aforesaid four respondents in the appeal have been found guilty of offence punishable under section 302 read with section 149, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- each and to suffer further imprisonment of three months in default of payment of fine. They have also been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of five years for the offences punishable under sections 447, 307, 323 read with section 149, IPC besides fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for three months each. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
3. The conviction of Atma Singh by the trial court as affirmed by the High Court has become final. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. J. K. Das, submits that Atma Singh has not challenged the impugned judgment of the High Court.
4. Two appeals were filed by the four respondents who had been convicted by the High Court allowing the State appeal against acquittal. Gurjant Singh preferred separate appeal (Crl.A.No. 154 of 2002). The remaining three- Gurbax Singh, Angrez Singh and Bachint Singh have preferred this common appeal. The appeal of Gurjant Singh has been dismissed by this Court in terms of judgment dated 3.9.2002 by a bench of which one of us (Justice H.K. Sema) was a member. Therefore, the judgment of the High Court in so far as it convicts Gurjant Singh has also attained finality.
5. Reverting now to the present appeal filed by the remaining three, it is necessary to notice in brief the prosecution case so as to examine the submission of Mr. Das so as to distinguish the case of the appellants from that of Gurjant Singh. The occurrence took place at about 9.30 a.m on 15th October, 1990 in the fields in village Khialivala. The deceased Kaka Singh @ Lachhman and the injured witness PW3- Nachhattar Singh are brothers. The prosecution story was revealed on the statement of PW3 to the effect that he along with his brother Kaka Singh, PW4- Sukhdev Kaur- wife of PW3-Nachhattar Singh, and a labourer Ram Chand had gone to the fields to pick cotton. While they were so doing Atma Singh and Gurjant Singh armed with gandasas, Gurbax Singh and Bachint Singh armed with spears, Geja Singh and three more armed with dangs reached their fields. Atma Singh raised a lalkara that they should be taught a lesson for buying their land. He gave a gandasa blow to Kaka Singh on the left side of his head. Gurjant also gave a gandasa blow on the head of Kakka Singh, Gurbax Singh gave a spear blow on the left flank of Kaka Singh. Bachint Singh gave a spear blow to PW3 and a second blow on the portion above the naval. Resultantly, PW3 fell down. Geja Singh gave a dang blow on the head of PW3 and also on his left arm. It was also alleged that there was previous enmity between the two groups. Civil litigation was pending in court. There was also criminal cases. They had blamed complainant party for the murder of elder brother of Gurjant Singh. The High Court on appreciation of evidence reverse the acquittal of these three appellants and Gurjant Singh as already noticed.
6. In respect of Bachint Singh, one of the contention urged by Mr. J.K. Das is that no appeal had been filed by State of Punjab against his acquittal for offence under section 302/149 IPC and, therefore, the High Court committed a serious illegality in convicting him for the said offence reversing the judgement of the trial court. Our attention has been drawn to a factual statement in the impugned judgment while narrating facts that State of Punjab has filed Crl.A.No.56-DB-A of 1996 to challenge the acquittal of Gurbax Singh, Gurjant Singh and Geja Singh. It is true that at the particular portion of the judgment pointed out by learned counsel, name of Bachint Singh has not been mentioned. It is evident that it is on account of slip or typographical error that while narrating fact at particular portion of judgment name of Bachint Singh has not been mentioned. That, however, does not lead to the conclusion that State did not challenge the acquittal of Bachint Singh for offence under section 302/149 and other offences. It is evident from the perusal of the record that Crl. A.56.DB-A of 1996 was filed not only challenging the acquittal of the affronted three persons but also challenging the acquittal of Bachint Singh for the offence for which he was not found guilty by the trial court. Bachint Singh was admittedly respondent no.4 in Crl.A.56.DBA of 1996. He was represented by a counsel before the High Court. In the course of the judgment the High Court has referred to detail facts and the evidence against Bachint Singh as well before coming to the conclusion that he too is guilty of offence punishable under section 302 read with section 149 IPC and other offences. We, therefore, find no substance in the contention that State had not challenged the acquittal of Bachint Singh in the appeal filed by it before the High Court.
7. In respect of the appellant Gurbax Singh, a submission was sought to be urge to create a doubt in respect of injury said to have been inflicted by him on the left flank of deceased Kaka Singh with a spear blow submitting that on the shirt of Kaka Singh that had been seized there has no hole which makes, according to the learned counsel, the infliction of injury, by Gurbax Singh, doubtful. In respect of appellants Bachint Singh and Angrez Singh, @ Geja Singh the contention sought to be urged was that even according to the case of the prosecution, they had allegedly inflicted injuries not to Kaka Singh but to PW3 and, therefore, it was submitted, that these two appellants could not be held guilty for offence under section 302/149, IPC and other offences as noticed hereinbefore.
8. All the five accused armed with weapons had gone to the fields where Kaka Singh, his brother PW3 and others were working has been fully established from the evidence. It has also been fully established that there was previous enmity between the two groups. The formation of unlawful assembly, on the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be doubted, so also the common object of the said assembly to do away with the other group. It is a different matter that luckily PW3 got saved and only Kaka Singh succumbed to the injuries. The formation of the unlawful assembly with the common object to kill the other group and the homicidal death of Kaka Singh having been duly established, the factum of the individual blows by the respective appellants loses any significance. In this view of the matter we find no reason to take a view different than already taken by this Court in Crl.A.No. 154 of 2002. There are no distinguishing features of the case of the appellants.
9. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no substance in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
