CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 432 1999 PETITIONER: PIPAL SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/12/2000 BENCH: S.R.Babu, D.P.Mohapatro JUDGMENT:
RAJENDRA BABU, J.:
L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J
Pipal Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 432 of
1999 and Mukhtiar Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
433 of 1999, were accused along with several others for
having caused the death of Sardara Ram and injuries to
Sukhdev Raj when they were entering their own land. The
learned Sessions Judge sentenced the appellants along with
certain others to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a
fine of Rs. 5000/- each or in default of payment of fine to
further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under
Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC for murder and
further sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six
months for simple hurt under Section 323 IPC read with
Section 34 IPC and both the sentences to run concurrently.
On appeal the High Court reappraised the evidence adduced
before the trial court and came to the conclusion that the
appellants had a common cause and had come together duly
armed at a place which was in possession of the deceased
with the common intention to commit the crime and they left
the scene of the occurrence also together with their
respective weapons. The High Court recorded the two
injuries found on the dead body of the deceased, viz., (i)
T-shaped incised wound 15 cms x 2 cms by 10 x 2 cms on right
parietal region, underlying bone, scalp and brain were cut,
and (ii) incised wound 5 x 1.5 cms, 5 cms behind injury No.
1 and that injury No. (ii) was bone deep and the doctor
opined that injuries Nos. (i) and (ii) were fatal in the
ordinary course of nature. The evidence put forth before
the court was that while Pipal Singh caused the first
injury, injury No. 2 was said to have been caused by
Mukhtiar Singh. That evidence had been believed by the High
Court.
The learned counsel for the appellants put forth two
contentions, namely, (1) the effect of acquittal of other
accused in the case on sentencing accused under Section 302
IPC by involving Section 34 IPC, and (2) as regards the
offence stated to have been committed by each of them.
Even where some out of several accused are acquitted
it is open to the court to consider whether remaining
accused were guilty of an offence by involving Section 34
IPC by reason of having committed the offence along with
others acquitted. With a view to determine the common
intention, the nature of injuries, background of the
incident and the nature of weapon used to cause the injuries
besides other factors are needed to be considered. There is
no principle in law which prevents from adopting that course
set out above by us. In the circumstances arising in the
case the High Court has done the necessary exercise in
finding out whether the accused needed to be convicted under
Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. We find no
infirmity in the same.
So far as the evidence alleged against the accused is
concerned and the manner in which they have committed the
same, it is clear that Section 304 Part II would not arise
as rightly held by the High Court. So neither of the
contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants
can survive close scrutiny and stand rejected.
The appeals are dismissed.