LexBALWANT SINGH AND OTHERS versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
"'-.. [2008] 2 S.C.R. 497 BALWANT SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF PUNJAB (Criminal Appeal No. 621 of 2006) FEBRUARY 6, 2008 [P.P. NAOLEKAR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 34 - Accused armed with deadly weapons causing fatal injuries - Conviction under A B s. 302 by courts below- On basis of testimony of two witnesses c - Correctness of - Held: Testimonies of two witnesses corroborated each other - Though one of the witnesses did not see fatal injuries caused to deceased, but there is strong circumstantial evidence that they were caused by accused - Accused armed with deadly weapons had gone to the house 0 of deceased indicates their deadly intentions - More so, particular injury not being attributable to particular accused is not material because on facts,, s. 34 is attracted - Hence, conviction upheld. It is the prosecution case that PW 1 and PW 3 are E sisters. On the fateful day, PW 1, her sons along with PW 3 and her son KS went to a village where PW 3 had a house. When they reached there, the accused persons- BS, HS, MS and BL were present near the house of PW 3 ""' with deadly weapons. PW 1, her son and KS remained in F the house while PW 3 along with her son and her nephew went out to purchase vegetables. Meanwhile, accused persons inflicted injuries to KS with deadly weapons. HS inflicted injuries on the head and forehead of KS as a result he fell down. BS inflicted injuries on the right ear of KS G while MS on the right cheek and the ear of KS. PW 1 was "-,. also inflicted injuries when she intervened to save KS. When PW 3 and others returned to the house, they saw KS lying on the ground and BL and MS giving gandasa G7 H 498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S~C.R. . A blow to KS. Thereafter, all the accused gave thrust blows ~ as well as kick blows to KS. The motive was to usurp the property of PW3 by killing KS. PW3 and others raised an alarm. On hearing the same the accused persons ran away. KS succumbed to his injuries. PW 1 lodged FIR. B _ Investigations were carried out. Accused were arrested. They made disclosure statement and weapons were recovered. The trial court convicted the appellant-accused persons under section 302 IPC. The High Court upheld _... the order. Hence the present appeal. C Appellant-accused persons contended that PW1 who lodged the FIR turned hostile as also PW2-son · of PW 1 and as such only the testimony of PW3 and PWB- the mother and the sister of deceased was left; that from the evidence of PW 3 it appears that she did not see the D main incident in which the fatal injuries were caused; and that it was not clear which of the accused caused which E particular injury. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Having gone through the testimony of PW3 and PWB-the mother and the sister of deceased, there is no reason to disbelieve the same, especially since they broadly corroborate each other. The evidence of PW 3 has been corroborated by the evidence of the doctor and F PWB-daughter of PW 3 and there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence also. PWB stated in her evidence that she saw the accused armed with kirpans and gandasas going towards the house of her father. From this an inference can be drawn that the accused armed with weapons were G going with deadly intentions towards the house. PWB also stated that when they came back after 30 to 45 minutes they were armed with the same weapons with blood stains -r and the clothes also had blood stains which they later changed and ran away. This· evidence of PW 8 corroborates the evidence of PW 3 though it is true that H 111"'" • / BALWANT SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF 499 . PUNJAB [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.] .,._ she did not see the main incident in which the fatal A injuries were caused. [Paras 9 and 12] [502-E, F; 504-G, H; 505-A, B] 1.2 From the evidence of PW 3 it appears that she did not see the main incident in which the fatal injuries B were caused. These fatal injuries are mentioned in the evidence of the doctor who conducted the post mortem . ..._Thus, it appears that there were three injuries on the head of KS. It may be that PW 3 was not present when these injuries were caused to KS, but there is strong c circumstantial evidence that they were caused by the accused. The circumstantial evidence mentioned therein is sufficient to uphold the conviction because it contains all the links in the chain which connect
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.