LexBHAJAN SINGH @ HARBHAJAN SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
--
[2011) 7 S.C.R. 1
BHAJAN SINGH @ HARBHAJAN SINGH & ORS.
A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal No. 562 of 2007)
JULY 4, 2011
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
B
ss. 3021149 and 3071149 - Double murder and attempt c
to murder - Six accused armed with deadly weapons went to
the house of complainant and attacked his family members
resulting in death of two of his sons and serious injuries to his
grandson - Conviction by trial court of three accused ulss 3021
34 and 307134 and acquittal of the other three - High Court 0
convicting all the six u/ss 3021149 and 3071149- HELD: High
Court has rightly held that the judgment of trial court in
acquitting three of the accused was perverse, as it was a clear
case of common object which all the six accused shared and
by application of s. 149 all the six were liable for inflicting E
injuries on the two victims which resulted in their death and
serious injuries to the other- Judgment of High Court affirmed
- Appeal against acquittal -
Scope of interference by
appellate court -Reiterated.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
ss. 154 and 157 - Recording of FIR and sending of
special report to Magistrate - Delay- Effect of- HELD: Every
delay is not fatal, unless prejudice to the accused is shown -
F
In the instant case, two sons of the complainant were done to
death by accused and his grand son seriously injured and was G
shifted to hospital -
After making all the required
arrangements, the complainant made his way to police station
which was 6 km from the v!llage - In the circumstances, there
1
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 7 S.C.R.
A was no delay in lodging the FIR nor in sending the special
report to Magistrate.
s. 157 - Sending of report of commission of offence to
jurisdictional Magistrate - Delay - HELD: The expression
8
'forthwith' in the section does not mean that prosecution is
required to explain delay of every hour in sending copy of FIR
to Magistrate - In the given case, if number of dead and
injured is high, delay in dispatching the report is natural -
Purpose of s. 157 - Explained.
C
Evidence:
Testimony of eye-witness and injured witness vis-a-vis
medical evidence - Legal position - Explained - HELD: In
the instant case, two persons died on the spot and other
o received grievous injuries - In such a fact situation the witness
is not supposed to give exact account of the incident, and
minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the
core of prosecution case, may not prompt the court to reject
the evidence in its entirety - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3021149
E and 3071149.
F
Witness:
Testimonies of injured witness and related witness -
Evidentiary value of - Explained.
The six accused-appellants were prosecuted for
committing offences punishable u/ss 302/149 and 307/149
IPC. The prosecution case as narr.ated by the
complainant (PW-9) was that at 5.00 P.M. on 6.11.2002, the
accused armed with swords, spear, 'gandasa' and
G 'mogra' and accompanied by two ladies, came to his
house and exhorted that they would teach them a lesson
for tethering their cattle in the street, and attacked his
family members resulting in the death of two of his sons
('GS' and 'NS') at the spot and grievous injuries to his
H
---
BHAJAN SINGH @ HARBHAJAN SINGH & ORS. v.
3
STATE OF HARYANA
grand-son (PW-10) who was taken to the hospital and A
had to be operated upon the following day. The accused
were· arrested and upon their disclosure statements;
weapons of crime, namely, -two swords, one spear, one
'gandasa' and one 'mogra', were recovered. The two
ladies were discharged and the six accused-appellants B
were put to trial. Accused 'JS' in his statement u/s 313
CrPC stated that he was called from his house, -which
was nearby, by PW-10 and when he came out, 'GS', 'NS'
and PW-10 pounced upon him and in order to save
himself, he took out his 'kirpan' and welded it at random c
in self-defence and the three opponents suffered injuries.
The trial court convicted three accused u/ss 302/34 and
307/34 IPC and acquitted the remaining three giving them
the benefit of doubt. The convicts filed appeals against
their conviction; whereas the State appealed against 0
acquittal of three accused. The High Court convicted all
the six accused u/ss 302/149 and 307/149 IPC and
sentenced them to imprisonment for life and to .pay a fine
of Rs.10,000/- each.
In the instant appeals filed by aExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.