PETITIONER: HARDEV SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB DATE OF JUDGMENT11/05/1994 BENCH: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) BENCH: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J) CITATION: 1994 SCC Supl. (2) 282 JT 1994 (4) 120 1994 SCALE (2)900 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.- Original accused 3 is the
appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1982 and original
accused 4 is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 400 of
1982. They along with six others were tried for offences
punishable under Sections 302, 302/149, 307 and 307/149 IPC
and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The trial court
acquitted A-5 to A-8 and convicted A-1 to A-4 and sentenced
them to imprisonment for life in respect of the murder
charge and various other terms of imprisonment in respect of
other offences. The appeal preferred by them was dismissed
by the High Court.
2. It may be mentioned at this stage that during the
pendency of the special leave petition in this Court A-1,
Hardeep Singh died and the special leave petition filed by
A-2, Baljinder Singh was dismissed. Therefore we are left
with
+ From the Judgment and Order dated 6-8-1981 of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 773-DB of’
1980
283
only A-3 Hardev Singh and A-4, Jaspal Singh who figure as
appellants in these two appeals.
3. The prosecution case is as follows: Hardeep Singh, A-1
and his son Jaspal Singh, A-4 are the residents of Village
Salewala. A-2 is the Sarpanch and resident of Village
Khanewal. A-3 belongs to another Village Khang. A-5, one
of the acquitted accused also belongs to Village Khanewal.
A-6 to A-8 belong to Village Salewala. Two months before
the present occurrence Amritpal Singh, deceased 1 and one
Sarbjit Singh had quarrelled with Kuldip Singh, Sarpanch, A-
7, one of the acquitted accused and brother of A-1, at the
Patiala bus stand. A-3 is the wife’s brother of Kuldip
Singh. On 22-7-1979, Partap Singh, PW 4 and his son
Amritpal Singh, deceased 1 and Satbir Singh had gone to
Pattran for making some purchases and they started to go
back to their village at 5 p.m. The deceased was driving the
motorcycle and Harbans Singh Sarpanch, deceased 2 and Surjit
Singh, PW 6 were sitting on the pillion seat. Another
motorcycle was driven by Sarbjit Singh and Satbir Singh and
Partap Singh, PW 4 were sitting on the pillion seat. When
they reached near the Sam Nala bridge after crossing Village
Salewala, they noticed A-1, armed with a .12 bore gun, A-2
armed with .31 5 bore rifle and A-3 armed with gandasa
hiding in the Akk plants. At that time Amritpal Singh,
deceased 1 was going ahead on the motorcycle than the other
one. While so both A-1 and A-2 fired one shot each on
Amritpal Singh, deceased 1 who fell down after receiving the
injuries along with Harbans Singh, deceased 2 and Surjit
Singh, PW 6 towards the left of the road. Just at that
juncture, a truck driven by A-4 came from the side of
Village Khanewal. In that it is alleged that the other
acquitted accused were sitting by the side of the driver
armed with .12 bore pistol etc. and they raised lalkaras to
kill the deceased and according to the prosecution, the
truck went and hit and ran over the motorcycle. The gun of
deceased 1 which was in the hands of deceased 2 was also
broken. The three persons coming on the other motorcycle
came forward to save them but the accused in the truck fired
but nobody was hit. The truck got stuck in the water.
Amritpal Singh, deceased 1 had already died because of
gunshot injury and Harbans Singh, deceased 2 was unconscious
and Surjit Singh, PW 6 was lying injured outside the water.
One Jagjit Singh came and took the injured Surjit Singh to
the hospital and the injured Harbans Singh was taken by
another person to the hospital in a car leaving others at
the place of occurrence. Partap Singh left for the police
station and lodged a report before ASI, Kehar Singh, PW 17
and the case was registered. Surjit Singh, PW 6 was
examined by Dr Barjesh Modi, PW 1. He found two lacerated
wounds and a swelling and two abrasions. After X-ray,
injuries 1 and 2 were declared grievous. The doctor opined
that he could have received these injuries by striking
against the running truck. Dr C.L. Verma, PW 3 conducted
the postmortem on the dead body of deceased 1 and he found a
gunshot wound on the right side of the forehead. On
dissection, the frontal bone was found to be fractured and
the brain matter was punctured and it was opined that he
died due to this gunshot injury. Deceased 2 meanwhile died.
The same doctor, PW 3, also conducted postmortem on his dead
body and found several abrasions all over the body and left
thigh and left leg were found to be pinkish blue. On
internal examination he found fractures of clavicle and 3rd
to 10th rib on the right side, puncture of right lung and
fractures of 2nd to 10th rib on the left side. The other
internal organs like liver and kidneys were found to be
ruptured. The doctor
284
opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage due
to these injuries and he also opined that all the injuries
on the body of deceased 2 could be the result of an accident
with a heavy vehicle. ASI, PW 17 got the place of
occurrence photographed and he found some empty cartridges
at the scene of occurrence which he seized. The truck which
got stuck in the water was also taken into possession. The
accused were arrested and after completion of the
investigation, the charge-sheet was laid. The prosecution
examined as many as 18 witnesses. PWs 1 to 3 are the
doctors, PW 4 Partap Singh is the father of deceased 1 who
gave the report. PW 6 is the injured witness. The rest are
all official or panch witnesses.
4. The accused denied all the allegations. A-1, however,
stated that the two deceased persons and PW 6 received
injuries in the motorcycle accident when they were going at
a high speed and could not control and that the truck in
question was driven by one Baldev Singh and not by A-4 and
Baldev Singh tried to avert the accident and in that attempt
he took the truck to the extreme right and went into the
ditches and during the same PW 6 also received injuries and
that the persons on the motorcycle were carrying a gun which
went off accidentally by their fall and caused injuries to
deceased 1. A-4 stated that he was a student and he was not
at the scene of occurrence. The other accused in general
denied the occurrence and examined some defence witnesses.
The trial court relied on the evidence of PWs 4 and 6 and
held that A-1 to A-3 were waiting in hiding and when the
motorcycle driven by deceased 1 came, they advanced. A-1
and A-2 fired at D-1 who was hit by the shot fired by A-1
and the shot fired by A-2 did not hit him. The trial Judge
further held that A-1 to A-3 had the common intention to
cause the death of deceased 1. He also held that the other
five accused reached in the truck after the deceased was
already hit with gun and therefore they cannot be held
liable for the murder of deceased 1. He, however, held that
A-4 who was driving the truck had overrun deceased 1 and PW
6 and therefore he had also the intention to cause the death
of deceased 1 and accordingly convicted him under Section
302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 302 in respect of
deaths of deceased 1 and deceased 2 respectively. He also
convicted A-4 under Section 307 IPC for causing injuries to
PW 6 by dashing him against the truck and the other accused
were convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC. A-1 is also
convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The High Court
agreed with the findings of the trial court and confirmed
the convictions and sentences. A-3, Hardev Singh, the
appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1982 has been made
constructively liable along with A-1 and A-2 in respect of
the murder of deceased 1. According to the prosecution he
was armed with a gandasa and was in the company of A-1 and
A-2 who shot at deceased 1 but he was hit by the gunshot
fired by A-1. Learned counsel submits that the case of A-3
is in no way different from the case of the acquitted
accused A-5 to A-8, who according to the prosecution, were
seated in the truck armed with pistol and gun and who also
raised lalkaras instigating to kill the deceased. It is
also submitted that A-3 had not used his gandasa on anyone
and in a case of this nature arising out of acute enmity, it
is highly unsafe to convict A-3. We find considerable force
in this submission. PW 6, the injured witness simply
deposed that A-3 was there along with A-1 and A-2 and raised
a lalkara. Therefore we agree with the learned counsel that
his case is in no way different from that of the other
acquitted accused. Therefore he is also entitled to the
benefit of doubt.
285
5. Now coming to the case of A-4, Jaspal Singh, the
appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 400 of 1982, the
prosecution case is that after D-1 was hit by the gunshot,
the truck driven by A-4 came there and dashed against the
motorcycle driven by deceased 1 which had already fallen and
ran over it. It is in evidence that deceased 1 was driving
the motorcycle and he fell down because of the gunshot
injury. Consequently the motorcycle also fell to a side and
deceased 2 and PW 6 who were on the pillion also fell down.
Then, according to the prosecution, the truck ran over them
causing injuries to deceased 2 and Surjit Singh, PW 6. On
this aspect, the evidence of PW 6 is rather important. He
deposed that the motorcycle was driven by deceased 1 and he
and deceased 2 were sitting on the pillion and before
starting deceased 1 handed over his own gun to deceased 2
and when they were nearing the Sam Nala bridge, they saw A-1
and A-2 armed with a gun and a rifle respectively and A-3
armed with a gandasa hiding behind Akk plants and that A-1
and A-2 fired and the shot fired by A-1 struck the
forehead of deceased 1 as a result of which they fell down
from the motorcycle along with the motorcycle and just then
A-4 drove the truck towards them and all the three of them
were dragged by the truck along with the motorcycle towards
the ditches. PW 6 further deposed that he was hit by the
side of the truck as a result of which his left leg and
right arm were fractured. In the cross-examination he
stated that all the three of them entangled in the
motorcycle when it fell down. He also admitted that he
could not say if the truck had gone out of control before
proceeding towards the ditches. He added that the truck had
passed over the motorcycle but again stated that no wheel of
the truck passed over it and that he did not notice which
part of the motorcycle was hit by the truck. He admitted
that deceased 1 was also hit by the left side of the truck
and that the motorcycle and deceased 2 were hit by the front
portion of the truck. PW 4, the other eyewitness, who was
travelling in the other motorcycle deposed that deceased 1
fell down after being hit by the gunshot along with deceased
2 and PW 6 to their left and that the truck driven by A-4
came and ran over the fallen people. In the cross-
examination he stated that after their fall none of their
bodies came under the motorcycle but he added that wheel of
the truck passed over the motorcycle. He, however, admitted
that none of the riders was overrun by the wheels of the
truck and that the truck hit against the motorcycle.
A perusal of the chief-examinations and cross-examinations
of these two witnesses would show that they could not give a
correct picture as to how the truck hit the motorcycle.
Relying on these admissions, the learned counsel strongly
contended that at the most it can be an accident or a rash
and negligent act and that Section 302 IPC cannot be invoked
by any stretch of imagination by calling it a murder.
Having examined the evidence of PW 4, we do find
considerable force in this submission. That apart, the
medical evidence assumes importance. PW 1, a doctor,
examined PW 6 and found six injuries on him. The first
injury was a swelling pain on the right elbow, the second
was painful tender swelling over the left thigh, the third
was only an abrasion below the left nipple of the chest, the
fourth one was a bruise on the left arm just above elbow,
the fifth one was a lacerated wound on the posterior aspect
of left thigh just above the knee and the sixth injury was a
lacerated wound skin deep on the dorsum of right foot.
The doctor opined that the possibility of receiving these
injuries being caused by striking with a truck cannot be
ruled out. In the cross-examination the doctor again
admitted that the
286
possibility of PW 6 receiving these injuries by fall of a
motorcycle along with the motorcycle cannot be ruled out.
Another significant admission made by him is that he did
not find any crush injury. He also stated that if a truck
overruns, there would be crush injuries on the part
coming under the truck. This medical evidence amply shows
that the truck did not pass over on any part of the body of
PW 6 but at the most he could have received the injuries
because of the fall after being knocked down. PW 3,
another doctor, who conducted the postmortem of deceased I
found only one gunshot injury on the forehead which caused
the death and another lacerated ‘wound bone deep on the left
leg and another abrasion on the medial aspect of
the left leg. These injuries would show that deceased 1
though got entangled with deceased 2 and PW 6 due to fall,
but did not receive any injury by virtue of the truck
dashing against the motorcycle. PW 3 also conducted the
postmortem on the dead body of deceased 2. He found six
abrasions and some portions of the body being pinkish blue.
On dissection he found fracture of the clavicle and ribs
and rupture of kidneys and liver. He opined that the
injuries on deceased 2 can be the result of heavy vehicle
accident. In the cross-examination he admitted that the
abrasions can be the result of rubbing against a hard
surface and some of the injuries can be the result of fall
from motorcycle on uneven ground. The doctor did not say
that he noticed any crush injuries. From his evidence also
it cannot be ruled out that the injuries can be due to a
heavy vehicle accident and there is no re-examination clarifying
the position. As already mentioned the plea of the accused
had been that some driver was driving the truck which
went out of control resulting in accident and since the
driver tried to avert, the truck went into the ditches and
got stuck in the water. If really it was the intention of
the driver, whoever he may be, to dash against the victims
with a view to commit murder, he could have hit and
proceeded. The fact that it got into the ditches would
probabilise the theory of accident. Under these
circumstances, we find it difficult to uphold the
conviction of A-4 for the offence of murder. However, it is
clear that he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner and consequently he would be liable under Section
304-A IPC.
6. For the aforesaid reasons A-3 Hardev Singh is acquitted
and Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1982 filed by him is allowed.
All the convictions and sentences awarded against A-4,
Jaspal Singh are set aside. Instead he ‘IS convicted
under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo two years’
RI. In the view we have taken namely that Jaspal Singh,
A-4 was responsible for causing the death of Harbans Singh,
deceased 2 and injuries to Surjit Singh, PW 6 by rash
and negligent driving, we think this is a fit case where
Jaspal Singh, A-4 should be directed to pay sufficient
amount by way of compensation to the legal heirs of
Harbans Singh, deceased 2 and to Surjit Singh, PW 6. Accordingly
as provided under Section 357 CrPC, Jaspal Singh, A-4 is
directed to pay Rs 30,000 by way of compensation to
the legal heirs of Harbans Singh, deceased 2 and Rs 10,000
to Surjit Singh, PW 6. If the amounts are not deposited
within three months from today, the same shall be recovered
and paid to the legal heirs of Harbans Singh, deceased 2
and to Surjit Singh, PW 6 as provided under Section 357
read, with Section 431 CrPC. Accordingly Criminal Appeal No.
400 of 1982 filed by him is partly allowed.
287