BALBIR SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 422 · Decided: 10-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
BALBIR SINGH AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
NOVEMBER l 0, 1994 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND FAIZAN-UDDIN, JJ.] 
Indian Penal_ Code, 1860-Sections 302134-Murder-Injlicting blows 
with gandasa on head of deceased-Injury to brain-Intention to cause 
death-Held offence u!s 302134. 
C 
Air Force Act, 1950-Sections 72, 124 and 125-Criminal Procedure 
Code, 1973-Section 475-Criminal Courts and Court Martial (Adjustment 
of Jurisdiction) Rules, .1952-Jurisdiction of Criminal Court-Accused in 
'active service' of Air Force-Trial for murder case-Option to try such as 
accused by a court martial is with Air Force authorities-No option or 
D 
right with accused person to ckzim trial by a particular forum-Inherent 
jurisdiction of Criminal Courts to take cognizance of civil offence however 
not taken away. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Air Force Act, 1950-Sections 72, 124 and 125-Criminal Procedure 
Code, I973-Section 475-Criminal Courts and Court Martial (Adjustment 
of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1952-Member of Air Force in 'active service'-
Trial for murder case-Notice to Air Force Authorities about pendency of 
criminal case-No particular form of notice prescribed-Authorities to be 
made fully aware of pendency of case against such a member of the force. 
Air Force Act, 1950-Sections 4 (1), 9, 72, 124 and 125-Notification 
No. S.R.O. 8-E. on 5.12.1962-Active Service-Definition-Can a person 
governed by the Act be deemed to. be 'on active service' while on casual 
leave-Held, Yes. 
The appellants were held guilty of the offence u/s 302/34 IPC and 
sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. The complicity of the appellants 
in the crime resulting in the death of the deceased had been 
satisfactorily established. The special leave petition has been filed 
against the judgment of conviction and sentence as recorded by the 
trial court and upheld by the High Court. 
The appellants confined their argument to:the nature of the offence 
and tlie sentence and submitted that the offence for which appellant B 
422 
BALBIR SINGH v. ST A TE OF PB. 
423 
could be held guilty of causing only one injury to the deceased would A 
not be the one u/s 302/34 IPC but would fall u/s 325/34 IPC. 
Concerning the case of the appellant N, it was submitted that his 
trial was illegal and vitiated for lack of inherent jurisdiction of the 
criminal court to try the accused, who at the relevant time was in the 
"active service" of the Air Force and could not, therefore, have been B 
tried by the ordinary criminal courts. b was further argued that since 
no notice as envisaged by Section 475 Cr. P.C and the Rules framed 
thereunder read with Sections 124 and 125 of the Air Force Act, 1950 
was given by the criminal court to the Commanding Officer of the Unit 
where the appellant was serving, enabling the Air Force Authorities to 
exercise their option to try the appellant by the Court Martial, the right C 
of the appellant to be tried by Court Martial had been violated, 
rendering his conviction and sentence bad in law. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. According to the medical report, the death was caused D 
by shock and haemorrhage due to the injury to the brain which was 
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Indeed, the 
death did take place almost 16 days after the occurrence but keeping in 
view the testimony of eye witnesses it is obvious that by inflicting the 
blows on the head of the deceased theintention of the appellants was to E 
cause the death of the deceased and the offence therefore was correctly 
found to be one u/s 302/34 IPC. Both the appellants had caused one 
blow each with a gandasa on the head, a vital part of the body, of the 
deceased and the extent of the damage as disclosed by the doctor is 
indicative of the force with which the blows were inflicted. Therefore, 
the conviction of B for the offence of murder was rightly recorded by F 
the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court. There is no reason to 
take a contrary view and the conviction and sentence for the offence u/s 
302/34 IPC is upheld. (427-H, 428-A-C) 
1.2. Notification No. S.R.O. 8-E issued on 5.12.62 by the G 
Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred by. section 9 of 
the Air Force Act, declares that whether or not a person is covered by 
the definition of 'active service' as spelt out in section 4 (1) of the Act, 
they still would be deemed to be so wherever they may be ~serving'. 
Rule 9 of the leave rules for Air Force Service specifically sta
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.