{"id":227297,"date":"1978-08-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1978-08-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarwan-simgh-ors-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-on-30-august-1978"},"modified":"2017-06-14T05:45:22","modified_gmt":"2017-06-14T00:15:22","slug":"sarwan-simgh-ors-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-on-30-august-1978","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarwan-simgh-ors-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-on-30-august-1978","title":{"rendered":"Sarwan Simgh & Ors Etc vs State Of Punjab on 30 August, 1978"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sarwan Simgh & Ors Etc vs State Of Punjab on 30 August, 1978<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1978 AIR 1525, \t\t 1979 SCR (1) 383<\/div>\n
Author: P Kailasam<\/div>\n
Bench: Kailasam, P.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSARWAN SIMGH & ORS ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF PUNJAB\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT30\/08\/1978\n\nBENCH:\nKAILASAM, P.S.\nBENCH:\nKAILASAM, P.S.\nSINGH, JASWANT\n\nCITATION:\n 1978 AIR 1525\t\t  1979 SCR  (1) 383\n 1978 SCC  (4) 111\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1979 SC1177\t (9)\n\n\nACT:\n     Penal Code,  (Act 45),  1860 Section  300 r\/w 149-Scope\nof.\n     Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 357(3) (=s. 54 of\n1898 Code) object of order to pay compensation to the victim\nor members of the family explained.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The deceased  Mewa Singh  is the  brother\tof  the\t two\naccused Sarwan Singh and Bachan Singh and the paternal uncle\nof two\tother accused  Karnail Singh  and Zora Singh sons of\nSarwan Singh, Malkait Singh the other accused is the son-in-\nlaw of Sarwan Singh. They are thus close relatives and there\nwas dispute  over a  common khal  of the  land and pahi. The\ndeceased had put an application before the Revenue Authority\nagainst the  accused and  the matter  was pending  when\t the\noccurrence took place on 8-9-1969. The deceased was attacked\nby the\taccused with  deadly weapons resulting in as many as\n27 injuries  of which  injuries 2  and 3  were grievous. The\ndeceased died  the next day in the civil hospital. The cause\nof death  was shock  and haemorrhage  and the  injuries were\nante-mortem and\t sufficient in the ordinary course of nature\nto cause  death. The  trial court found all the five accused\nguilty under  s. 302  read with\t s. 149\t I.P.C. and punished\nthem taking  the view  that once  the existence\t of injuries\nsufficient to  cause death is proved, the intention to cause\ndeath  will   be  presumed   unless  the   evidence  or\t the\ncircumstances warrant an opposite conclusion. The High Court\nin appeal  from that  the common  object was clearly to kill\nthe deceased and that the offence fell under s. 300. Thirdly\nread with s. 34 IPC and accepted the trial court's Judgment.\n     Dismissing the appeals by special leave the Court,\n^\n     HELD: (1)\tIf  a  person  causes  an  injury  with\t the\nintention of  causing bodily  injury to\t any person and when\nthe bodily  injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in\nthe ordinary  course of\t nature to  cause death, the offence\nwould fall  under clause  (iii)\t of  s.\t 300  and  would  be\npunishable under s. 302 I.P.C. [387 B]\n     (2) In order to find the person guilty of offence under\ns. 300 read with s. 149, the prosecution must establish that\nthe offence  was committed  by any  member  of\tan  unlawful\nassembly in prosecution of the common object of the assembly\nor such as the members of that assembly knew it to be likely\nto be  committed in prosecution of the common object. It is,\ntherefore, necessary  for the  prosecution to establish that\nthe common  object of the unlawful assembly was to commit an\noffence under  s. 300  or that\tthe members  of the assembly\nknew it to be likely that an offence under s. 300 punishable\nunder s.  302 IPC  would be  committed in prosecution of the\ncommon object. [387 B-D]\n     (3) If the injuries that are sufficient in the ordinary\ncourse of  nature to  cause death are traced to a particular\naccused, he  will be  guilty of\t an  offence  under  s.\t 300\npunishable under  s. 302 without the aid of s. 149, when the\ninjuries caused\t are cumulatively sufficient to cause death,\nit is necessary before holding\n384\neach of\t the accused guilty under s. 300 read with s. 149 to\nfind that  the common object of the unlawful assembly was to\ncause death  or that  the members  of the  unlawful assembly\nknew it to be likely that an offence punishable under s. 302\nIPC would  be committed in prosecution of the common object.\n[387 D-F]\n     In the instant case, on an analysis of the injuries (a)\nit cannot  be said  that any  of the  persons that inflicted\ninjuries intended  to cause  death  or\tsuch  injury  as  is\nsufficient in  the ordinary course of nature to cause death.\n(b) The circumstance that unexpected quarrel was between the\nmembers of the same family over a dispute as to water rights\nshows that  no offence\tunder s.  300 read with sec. 149 IPC\npunishable under  s. 302  IPC has  been made  out.  (c)\t the\ncommon object  of the assembly was to cause bodily injury as\nis likely  to cause death. Though the doctor has stated that\nthe injuries  were sufficient  in  the\tordinary  course  of\nnature to  cause death,\t it is\tdifficult to  hold that\t the\ninjuries, cumulatively,\t were  sufficient  in  the  ordinary\ncourse of  nature to  cause death.  The common object of the\nassembly in  the circumstances\tcan only  be said  to  cause\ninjuries which\tare likely  to cause  death which will be an\noffence punishable  under section 304(1) of the Indian Penal\nCode. [388 E-H 389 A]\n     (4)  (a)\tThe  object  of\t s.  357(3)  is\t to  provide\ncompensation payable  to the  persons who  are\tentitled  to\nrecover damages\t from the  person sentenced even though fine\ndoes not  form part  of the  sentence. Though s. 545 of 1898\nCode enabled  the court\t only to pay compensation out of the\nfine that would be imposed under the law, by s. 357 (3) when\na court\t imposes a  sentence, of  which fine does not form a\npart, the  Court may direct the accused to pay compensation.\n[390 D-E]\n     (b) In  awarding compensation  it is  necessary for the\ncourt to  decide whether  the case  is a  fit one  in  which\ncompensation  has  to  be  awarded.  If\t it  is\t found\tthat\ncompensation should  be\t paid,\tthen  the  capacity  of\t the\naccused to  pay a  compensation has  to\t be  determined.  In\ndirecting compensation,\t the object  is to  collect the fine\nand pay\t it to\tthe person  who has  suffered the  loss. The\npurpose will not be served if the accused is not able to pay\nthe fine  or compensation  for, imposing  a default sentence\nfor non-payment of fine would not achieve the object. If the\naccused is  in a  position to  pay the\tcompensation to\t the\ninjured or  his dependent  to which  they are  entitled\t to,\nthere could  be no  reason for\tthe court not directing such\ncompensation  When  a  person,\twho  caused  injury  due  to\nnegligence or  is made\tvicariously liable  is bound  to pay\ncompensation it is only appropriate to direct payment by the\naccused\t who  is  guilty  of  causing  an  injury  with\t the\nnecessary mens\trea to\tpay compensation  for the person who\nhas suffered injury. [390 E-G]\n     (c)  The\tcourt  should\tnot  first   consider\twhat\ncompensation sought  to be  awarded  to\t the  heirs  of\t the\ndeceased and  then impose  a fine  which is  higher than the\ncompensation. It  is the  duty of  the court  to  take\tinto\naccount the  nature of\tthe crime,  the injury suffered, the\njustness of  the claim for compensation. the capacity of the\naccused to  pay the  other relevant  circumstances in fixing\nthe amount of fine or compensation. [390 G-H, 391 A]\n     Palaniappa Gounder v. State of Tamil Nadu,<\/a> [1977] 3 SCR\n132 applied.\n     [The  Court   altered  this   conviction\tof   offence\npunishable under s. 304(1) read\n385\nwith s.\t 149 and  sentenced to 5 years R-I and a fine of Rs.\n3500\/- each,  the fine\tto be  paid as\tcompensation to\t the\nwidow of the deceased]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION: Criminal\t Appeal Nos.
\n59 and 60 of 1972.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeals by\t Special Leave\tfrom the  Judgment and order
\ndated 23-9-1971 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Cr1.
\nA. 512 of 1970.\n<\/p>\n
     R. L. Kohli and U. P. Singh for the Appellants.
\n     A. S.  Sohal, Hardev  Singh and  R. S.  Sodhi  for\t the
\nRespondent.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     KAILASAM, J. The two criminal appeals Nos. 59 and 60 of
\n1972 are  by special  leave. Criminal  Appeal No. 59 of 1972
\nis, preferred by Sarwan Singh, Karnail Singh, Zora Singh and
\nMalkiat Singh,\twhile Criminal\tAppeal No.  60 of 1972 is by
\nBachan Singh  against their  conviction and sentence imposed
\non them\t by the\t trial court and confirmed by the Punjab and
\nHaryana High  Court in Criminal Appeal No. 512 of 1970. This
\nCourt granted  special leave  in both  cases limited  to the
\nquestion  as   to  whether  the\t offence  committed  by\t the
\nappellants is  one punishable  under section  300 I.P.C.  or
\nunder any part of section 304 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
     The facts\tnecessary for  determining what\t offence the
\naccused were  guilty of\t may be\t stated. Sant  Singh is\t the
\nfather of  Sarwan Singh, Bachan Singh and Mewa Singh. Sarwan
\nSingh is  the first  appellant in  Criminal Appeal No. 59 of
\n1972 and  Bachan Singh\tis the\tsole appellant\tin  Criminal
\nAppeal No.  60 of  1972. The  deceased Mewa  Singh is  their
\nbrother. Sarwan\t Singh had  two sons, Zora Singh and Karnail
\nSingh who are appellants Nos. 3 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No.
\n59 of  1972. Sarwan  Singh’s daughter was married to Malkiat
\nSingh who  is the fourth appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 59
\nof 1972.  Pending appeal, Sarwan Singh and Bachan Singh have
\ndied  and  their  appeals  have\t abated.  We  are  therefore
\nconcerned only\twith Karnail  Singh, Zora  Singh and Malkiat
\nSingh who  are appellants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in Criminal Appeal
\nNo. 59 of 1972.\n<\/p>\n
     The deceased  is the  brother of  the two\taccused\t and
\npaternal uncle\tof the\ttwo other  accused. The\t dispute was
\nover a common Khal of the land and a pahi. The deceased Mewa
\nSingh  put  an\tapplication  before  the  Revenue  authority
\nagainst the  accused and  the matter  was pending  when\t the
\noccurrence took place.\n<\/p>\n
     On the  date of  the occurrence,  8-9-1969, at  about 3
\nP.M., PW..  3, Mohinder\t Singh, went  to Amar Singh, P.W. 5,
\nwho is\tLambardar of  his village  in  connection  with\t the
\nmutation of his land. Amar Singh was grazing his cattle near
\nthe minor canal just opposite to the well
\n386<\/span>
\nof the\taccused and the deceased Mewa Singh. When P.W. 3 was
\n20 Kadams  away from  the place where Amar Singh was grazing
\nhis cattle,  he heard  a Raula\tcoming from the side of tube
\nwell of\t Mewa Singh.  Hearing the  noise, P.W. 3 ran towards
\ntheir place  of the  occurrence. He  also saw  P.W. 5,\tAmar
\nSingh and  Mohinder Singh,  son of Thakar Singh, P.W. 4 also
\nrunning towards the place of occurrence. The three witnesses
\nand Ujagar  Singh, P.W. 9 who are eye-witnesses spoke to the
\nactual incident as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “When they  reached near  the place  of occurrence
\n     they heard\t Zora Singh  shouting to  Mewa\tSingh.\tZora
\n     Singh was\tarmed with  a  Gandasi,\t Karnail  Singh\t was
\n     holding a Takwa, Malkait Singh was armed with a Gandasi
\n     and Sarwan\t Singh and  Bachan Singh were having a Lathi
\n     each. Zora\t Singh gave a Gandasi blow to Mewa Singh who
\n     raised his\t hands to  ward off  the blow  and sustained
\n     injury. Karhail  Singh then  gave a  Takwa blow to Mewa
\n     Singh which  he warded off by raising his hands and got
\n     an injury\ton his\thand. Zora  Singh and  Karnail Singh
\n     gave  more\t injuries  with\t their\trespective  weapons.
\n     Therefore, all  the accused started causing injuries to
\n     Mewa Singh\t with their  respective weapons while he was
\n     Lying on the ground.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     On the  evening at\t about 8.30  P.M., P.W.\t 14 saw Mewa
\nSingh and  enquired from  the doctor whether he was in a fit
\ncondition to,  make a statement. The doctor gave his opinion
\nthat Mewa  Singh was  not fit  to  make\t a  statement.\tMewa
\nSingh’s condition  was found  to  be  not  satisfactory\t and
\ntherefore he  was moved to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. He died
\nat 5.40\t p.m. On  9-9-1969. The\t doctor noted 27 injuries on
\nthe person of Mewa Singh. According to the doctor, the cause
\nof death  was shock  and haemorrhage  and the  injuries were
\nante-mortem and\t sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
\nto cause  death. Dr.  Jagjit Singh,  P.W. 5,  examined\tMewa
\nSingh on  admission to the hospital at 6.45 p.m. On 8-9-1969
\nand found 27 injuries on Mewa Singh, of which injuries 2 and
\n3 were grievous. Injuries at 3, 5 to 9, 11 to 17 were caused
\nby sharp-edged\tweapons. All  the injuries,  except 2  and 3
\nwere simple in nature.\n<\/p>\n
     The trial\tcourt was  of the view that the question for
\nconsideration was  whether the\taccused intended  to inflict
\nthe injuries  in question  and\tif  once  the  existence  of
\ninjuries sufficient  to cause death is proved, the intention
\nto cause  death will  be presumed unless the evidence or the
\ncircumstances warrant  an opposite conclusion. In this view,
\nthe trial  court found\tall the accused guilty under section
\n302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The High
\nCourt found that
\n387<\/span>
\nthe common  object was\tclearly to kill the deceased and the
\noffence fall  under section  300. Thirdly, read with section
\n34, Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
     The facts\tof the case disclose that five accused armed
\nwith various  weapons caused  the injuries  to the  deceased
\nwhich resulted\tin his\tdeath. If  a person causes an injury
\nwith the  intention of\tcausing bodily\tinjury to any person
\nand when  the bodily  injury intended  to  be  inflicted  is
\nsufficient in  the ordinary course of nature to cause death,
\nthe offence would fall under clause (iii) of section 300 and
\nwould be  punishable under  section 302\t of the Indian Penal
\nCode. The five accused were convicted by the trial court for
\nan offence under section 302 read with section 149 I.P.C. In
\norder to find the person guilty of offence under section 302
\nread with  section 149,\t the prosecution must establish that
\nthe offence  was, committed  by any  member of\tan  unlawful
\nassembly in prosecution of the common object of the assembly
\nor such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to
\nbe committed  in prosecution  of the  common object.  It is,
\ntherefore necessary  for the  prosecution to  establish that
\nthe common  object of the unlawful assembly was to commit an
\noffence under  section\t300  or\t that  the  members  of\t the
\nassembly knew it to. be likely that an offence under section
\n300 would  be committed in prosecution of the common object.
\nThe cumulative\teffect of the injuries was no doubt found to
\nhave been  sufficient in  the ordinary\tcourse of  nature to
\ncause death.  If the  injuries that  are sufficient  in\t the
\nordinary course\t of nature  to cause  death are\t traced to a
\nparticular  accused,   he  will\t be  guilty  of\t an  offence
\npunishable under section 302 without the aid of section 149,
\nwhen the  injuries caused  are\tcumulatively  sufficient  to
\ncause death,  it is  necessary before  holding each  of\t the
\naccused guilty\tunder section  302 read\t with Section 149 to
\nfind that  the common object of the unlawful assembly was to
\ncause death  or that  the members  of the  unlawful assembly
\nknew it\t to be\tlikely\tthat  an  offence  punishable  under
\nsection 302  I.P.C. would be committed in prosecution of the
\ncommon object.\tIn order  to determine\tthis question, it is
\nnecessary to refer to the injuries caused in some detail:\n<\/p>\n
     Two grievous injuries are injuries 2 and 3 described in
\nEx. PD.\t Injury No.  2 is  an incised wound 3\/4″ x 1\/4″ bone
\ndeep on the right little finger at its middle and injury No.
\n3 is  incised wound 1\/3″ distal to injury No. 2 at the right
\nlittle finger  cutting the  bone  underneath.  The  grievous
\ninjury is  the fracture\t and cutting  of  the  Light  little
\nfinger\tcaused\tby  a  sharp-edged  weapon.  All  the  other
\ninjuries are  simple in\t nature. The injuries Nos. 1 to 3, 5
\nto 9, 11 to 17 were caused by sharp-edged weapon. Injury No.
\n1 is incised wound 1\/2 ” x 1\/6″ muscle deep on the left palm
\nin-between the left thumb and index
\n388<\/span>
\nfinger. Injury\tNo. 2 is incised wound 3\/4″ x 1\/4″ bone deep
\non the\tright little  finger at\t its middle. Injury No. 3 is
\nincised wound  1\/3″ distal  to Injury  No. 2  at  the  right
\nlittle finger  cutting the  bone underneath. Injury No. 5 is
\nincised wound  2″ x 1\/4″ muscle deep on the left shin at its
\nmiddle areas.  Injury No.  6 is incised wound 1\/2″ x 1\/4″ on
\nthe left  shin. Injury\tNo. 7  is incised  wound 1\/3″ x 1\/4″
\nmuscle deep  on the left shin. Injury No. 8 is incised wound
\n1\/3″x 1\/4″  muscle deep\t on the\t left shin.  Injury No. 9 is
\nincised wound  3\/4″ x  1\/3″ muscle  deep on  the left  shin.
\nWhile Injury  No. 1  is on The left palm in between the left
\nthumb and  index finger,  injuries Nos. 2 and 3 on the right
\nlittle finger at its middle, injuries Nos. 5 to 9 are in the
\narea of\t the left  shin. Most  of the injuries are only 1\/4″
\ndeep while  injury No.\t9 is  1\/3″ deep, and injury No. 1 is
\n1\/6″ in\t depth. The  other injuries Nos. 11 to 17 are on the
\nright shin  and are incised wounds, most of which are of the
\nsize of\t 1 3\/4″ x 1\/4″. The other injuries are contusions in
\nthe chest  area on the right and the left side, the with not
\nexceeding 3\/4  of an  inch. Injury  No. 26 is on the head of
\nthe dimension  of 1 3\/4″ X 1\/4″ muscle deep on the left side
\nof the\thead 3″\t above the  left ear.  All the\tinjuries are
\ndescribed by  the do tor as simple. The depth of the incised
\ninjuries is  not more  than of\tan inch and the width of the
\ncontusions is  not more\t than 3\/4″.  The area  of the injury
\ncannot be said to be a vital part of the body. The injury on
\nthe head  is only 1″ in depth and has not caused any damage.
\nOn an analysis of the injuries it cannot be said that any of
\nthe persons  that inflicted injuries intended to cause death
\nor such\t injury as  is sufficient  in the ordinary course of
\nnature to  cause death. If the common object of the unlawful
\nassembly was  to commit\t murder and  in prosecution  of\t the
\ncommon object  of the unlawful assembly any member caused an
\ninjury which  is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
\nto cause  death, the members of the assembly would be liable
\nfor an offence under section 302 I.P.C. read with 149 I.P.C.
\nbut on\ta consideration of the injuries we are not satisfied
\nthat the common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause
\ndeath. Taking  the circumstance\t that the unexpected quarrel
\nwas between the members of the same family over a dispute as
\nto water  rights, we  are unable  to held that offence under
\nsection 302  read  with\t section  149  is  made\t out.  On  a
\nconsideration of  the circumstances  and the  nature of\t the
\ninjuries, it  is not possible to hold that the common object
\nof  the\t assembly  was\tto  cause  bodily  injury  which  is
\nsufficient in  the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
\nIt can be said that the common object of the assembly was to
\ncause bodily  injury as is likely to cause death. Though the
\ndoctor has  stated that\t the injuries were sufficient in the
\nordinary course\t of  nature  to\t cause\tdeath,\twe  find  it
\ndifficult to  hold that\t the  injuries,\t cumulatively,\twere
\nsufficient in the ordinary course of nature
\n389<\/span>
\nto cause  death. The  common object  of the  assembly in the
\ncircumstances can  only be  said to cause injuries which are
\nlikely to  cause death\twhich will  be an offence punishable
\nunder section  304(1) of  the  Indian  Penal  Code.  In\t the
\ncircumstances we  set aside the conviction under section 350
\nread with  section 34  I.P.C. but  find the  appellants\t are
\nguilty of  an offence  punishable under\t section 304(1) read
\nwith section  149 I.P.C.  and sentence\tthem to\t five  years
\nrigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,500\/- each.\n<\/p>\n
     In this case, the death was caused by the brothers in a
\nquarrel regarding  water rights.  From the  records  we\t are
\nsatisfied that\tthe accused  are possessed  with  sufficient
\nfunds to  compensate, at least to some extent, the loss that
\nhas been suffered by the dependants of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
     The law  which enables the Court to direct compensation
\nto be  paid to the dependants is found in section 357 of the
\nCode  of   Criminal  Procedure\t (Act  2   of\t1974).\t The
\ncorresponding provision\t in the\t 1898 Code  was section 545.
\nSection 545  of the  Code of  Criminal Procedure  (Act 5  of
\n1898) was  amended by  Act 18 of 1923 and by Act 26 of 1955.
\nThe amendment  which is\t relevant for  the  purpose  of\t our
\ndiscussion is  525(1)(bb) which,  for  the  first  time\t was
\ninserted by  Act 26  of 1955. By this amendment the court is
\nenabled to  direct the\taccused, who  caused  the  death  of
\nanother person,\t to pay compensation to the persons who are,
\nunder the  Fatal Accidents  Act, entitled to recover damages
\nfrom the  persons sentenced,  for the loss resulting to them
\nfrom such  death. In  introducing the  amendment, the  Joint
\nSelect Committee  stated “when\tdeath has  been caused\tto a
\nperson, it  is but  proper that\t his  heirs  and  dependants
\nshould be  compensated, in  suitable  cases,  for  the\tloss
\nresulting to  them from\t such death,  by the  person who was
\nresponsible for\t it. The  Committee proceeded  to state that
\nthough section\t545 of\tthe Code  as  amended  in  1923\t was
\nintended to  cover such cases, the intention was not however
\nvery clearly brought out and therefore in order to focus the
\nattention of  the courts on this aspect of the question, the
\nCommittee have\tamended section\t 545 and  it has  been\tmade
\nclear that  a fine may form a part of any sentence including
\na sentence  of death  and it has also been provided that the
\npersons who  are entitled  under the  Fatal  Accidents\tAct,
\n1855, to  recover damages  from the  person sentenced may be
\ncompensated out\t of the\t fine imposed. It also expressed its
\nfull agreement\twith the  suggestion that  at  the  time  of
\nawarding judgment  in a\t case where  death has resulted from
\nhomicide, the  court should  award compensation to the heirs
\nof the deceased. The Committee felt that this will result in
\nsettling the  claim once for all by doing away with the need
\nfor a  further claim  to a  civil Court,  and avoid needless
\nworry and expense
\n390<\/span>
\nto both\t sides. The  Committee further\tagreed that in cases
\nwhere the death is the result of negligence of the offender,
\nappropriate compensation  should be awarded to the heirs. By
\nthe introduction  of clause  (bb)  to  section\t545(1),\t the
\nintention  of  the  legislature\t was  made  clear  that,  in
\nsuitable  cases,   the\theirs\tand  dependents\t  should  be
\ncompensated for\t the loss  that resulted  to them  from\t the
\ndeath, from  a person  who was\tresponsible for it. The view
\nwas also  expressed that the court should award compensation
\nto the\their of\t the decease  so that  their claims would be
\nsettled finally. This object is sought to be given effect to
\nby section  357 of  the new  Code (Act\t2 of  1974). Section
\n357(3) provides\t that when  a court  imposes a\tsentence, of
\nwhich fine does not form a part, the Court may, when passing
\njudgment, order\t the  accused  person  to  pay,\t by  way  of
\ncompensation, such amount, as may be specified in the order,
\nto the\tperson who  has sufered any loss or injury by reason
\nof the\tact  for  which\t the  accused  person  has  been  so
\nsentenced. The\tobject\tof  the\t section  therefore,  is  to
\nprovide compensation payable to the persons who are entitled
\nto recover  damages from  the person  sentenced even  though
\nfine does  not form part of the sentence. Though section 545
\nof 1898\t Code enabled the court only to pay compensation out
\nof the\tfine that would be imposed under the law, by section
\n357(3) when  a Court  imposes a sentence, of which fine does
\nnot form  a part,  the Court  may direct  the accused to pay
\ncompensation. In  awarding compensation\t it is necessary for
\nthe court  to decide  whether the case is a fit one in which
\ncompensation  has  to  be  awarded.  If\t it  is\t found\tthat
\ncompensation should  be\t paid,\tthen  the  capacity  of\t the
\naccused to  pay a  compensation has  to\t be  determined.  In
\ndirecting compensation,\t the object  is to  collect the fine
\nand pay\t it to\tthe person  who has  suffered the  loss. The
\npurpose will not be served if the accused is not able to pay
\nthe fine  or compensation  for, imposing  a default sentence
\nfor non-payment of fine would not achieve the object. If the
\naccused is  in a  position to  pay the\tcompensation to\t the
\ninjured or  his dependents  to which  they are\tentitled to,
\nthere could  be no  reason for\tthe Court not directing such
\ncompensation. When  a person,  who  causing  injury  due  to
\nnegligence or  is made\tvicariously liable  is bound  to pay
\ncompensation it is only appropriate to direct payment by the
\naccused\t who  is  guilty  of  causing  an  injury  with\t the
\nnecessary Mens\tRea to\tpay compensation  for the person who
\nhas suffered injury.\n<\/p>\n
     In awarding  compensation as cautioned by this Court in
\na decision  reported in Palaniappa Gounder v. State of Tamil
\nNadu, the  Court<\/a> should not first consider what compensation
\nought to  be awarded  to the  heirs of the deceased and then
\nimpose a  fine which  is higher than the compensation. It is
\nthe duty of the Court to take into account the
\n391<\/span>
\nnature of  the crime,  the injury  suffered, the justness of
\nthe claim  for compensation,  the capacity of the accused to
\npay and order relevant circumstances in fixing the amount of
\nfine or\t compensation. After  consideration of all the facts
\nof the\tcase, we  feel that in addition to the sentence of 5
\nyears rigorous\timprisonment, a\t fine of Rs. 3,500\/- on each
\nof  the\t accused  under\t section  304(1)  I.P.C.  should  be
\nimposed. The  fine will be paid as compensation to the widow
\nof the\tdeceased, Mewa Singh. Tn default of payment of fine,
\nthe accused  will undergo  further Simple imprisonment for 6
\nmonths.\n<\/p>\n
S.R.\t\t\t\t\t  Appeals dismissed.\n392<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sarwan Simgh & Ors Etc vs State Of Punjab on 30 August, 1978 Equivalent citations: 1978 AIR 1525, 1979 SCR (1) 383 Author: P Kailasam Bench: Kailasam, P.S. PETITIONER: SARWAN SIMGH & ORS ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB DATE OF JUDGMENT30\/08\/1978 BENCH: KAILASAM, P.S. BENCH: KAILASAM, P.S. SINGH, JASWANT CITATION: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-227297","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSarwan Simgh & Ors Etc vs State Of Punjab on 30 August, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarwan-simgh-ors-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-on-30-august-1978\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sarwan Simgh & Ors Etc vs State Of Punjab on 30 August, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarwan-simgh-ors-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-on-30-august-1978\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1978-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-14T00:15:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarwan-simgh-ors-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-on-30-august-1978#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarwan-simgh-ors-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-on-30-august-1978\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sarwan Simgh & Ors Etc vs State Of Punjab on 30 August, 1978\",\"datePublished\":\"1978-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-14T00:15:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarwan-simgh-ors-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-on-30-august-1978\"},\"wordCount\":3016,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarwan-simgh-ors-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-on-30-august-1978#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarwan-simgh-ors-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-on-30-august-1978\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarwan-simgh-ors-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-on-30-august-1978\",\"name\":\"Sarwan Simgh & Ors Etc vs State Of Punjab on 30 August, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1978-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-14T00:15:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarwan-simgh-ors-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-on-30-august-1978#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarwan-simgh-ors-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-on-30-august-1978\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarwan-simgh-ors-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-on-30-august-1978#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sarwan Simgh & Ors Etc vs State Of Punjab on 30 August, 1978\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sarwan Simgh & Ors Etc vs State Of Punjab on 30 August, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarwan-simgh-ors-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-on-30-august-1978","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sarwan Simgh & Ors Etc vs State Of Punjab on 30 August, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarwan-simgh-ors-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-on-30-august-1978","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1978-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-14T00:15:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarwan-simgh-ors-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-on-30-august-1978#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarwan-simgh-ors-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-on-30-august-1978"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sarwan Simgh & Ors Etc vs State Of Punjab on 30 August, 1978","datePublished":"1978-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-14T00:15:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarwan-simgh-ors-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-on-30-august-1978"},"wordCount":3016,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarwan-simgh-ors-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-on-30-august-1978#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarwan-simgh-ors-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-on-30-august-1978","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarwan-simgh-ors-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-on-30-august-1978","name":"Sarwan Simgh & Ors Etc vs State Of Punjab on 30 August, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1978-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-14T00:15:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarwan-simgh-ors-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-on-30-august-1978#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarwan-simgh-ors-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-on-30-august-1978"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarwan-simgh-ors-etc-vs-state-of-punjab-on-30-august-1978#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sarwan Simgh & Ors Etc vs State Of Punjab on 30 August, 1978"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227297","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=227297"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227297\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=227297"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=227297"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=227297"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}