BISHAN DAYAL AND ORS. versus STATE OF DELHI (ADMN.)

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 548 · Decided: 20-12-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BISHAN DAY AL AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF DELIB (ADMN.) 
DECEMBER 20, 1991 
B 
[KULDIP SINGH, P. B. SA WANT AND N. M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 : 
·sections 34, 302 and 394-Committing robbery and voluntarily causing 
hurt-Leading to death of victim-Common intention-Nature of injuries-
-! 
C Victim lYalking quite some distance after the injuries-Common intention to 
commit murder-.,..Whether established . 
. There was a high way robbery committed by five persons. As a result 
of the injury inflicted by the accused, one person died. Charge sheet was 
filed. The Sessions Court convicted and sentenced all the five persons 
D under Sections 302, 395, 396, 397, 143 and 149 IPC. · 
All the accused preferred appeals before the High Court. The High 
Court acquitted one of the five accused and held that the remaining 
accused committed the offences. It also held that as there were only four 
E accused, conviction under Section 149 cannot be maintained, but they 
· could be convicted for murder with the help of Section 34 IPC as there was 
common µttention of robbry and committing murder of the deceased. 
Accordingly, the High ·court convicted the four accused under Section 
302134 and 394 IPC, and sehtenced them to imprisonment for life. Their 
F 
__.conviction under other sections was set aside. 
Aggrieved against the High Court's decision, all the four accused 
preferred appeals before this Court. 
Disposing or the appeals, this Court, 
r 
. 
G 
HELD :·1. The High Court has itself arrived at the conclusion that 
~ 
all the accused appellants had committed robbery, but so far as inflicting 
injuries on the dceased is concerned, it was not possible to say as to which 
of the appellants inflicted the stab blows. Apart from the two injuries 
inflictd on non-vital parts of the body, it is clearly borne out from the 
record that after receiving the stab injuries the deceased had travelled a 
H distance or approximately 116 paces from the place of stabbing. The High 
548 
~-· 
BISHAN DAYAL11. STATE 
549 
Court after considering the statements of eye witneaes observed that it A 
"" 
could not overlook the fact that none of these witnesses suspected that the 
injuries suffered by t .. e deceased could be fatal especially when be was 
found in a position to walk. In view of the above circumstances and the 
nature of injuries, the High Court was wrong in holding that the accused· 
appellants had a common intention to commit murder of the deceased so 
as to bring their case within the purview of Section 34 IPC. Thus the B 
conviction of the appellants cannot be maintained under Section 302 read 
with Section 34 IPC. (551-F, 552-B, CJ 
~ 
2. The High Court was right in holding that as there were only four 
persons the conviction under Section 149 IPC cannotJ>e maintained. 
(551-A, 552-A] c 
3. The accused-appellants are guilty or offence under Section 394 
IPC. The High Court has already found the accused-appellants guilty 
under Section 394 IPC apart from Sections 302/34 IPC. The conviction 
and sentence of all the accused-appellants under Section 302 read with 
D 
Section 34 IPC is set aside. The conviction of all the accused-appellants 
~ 
under Section 394 IPC is upheld but the sentence is reduced from impris-
onment for life to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. Each one or the 
accused persons' is also sentenced to pay a line of Rs. 500 under Section 394 
IPC; in default of payment of line to further undergo rigorous impr~n-
ment for a period of two months. (552-D·GJ 
E 
4. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 1980 having died, the 
•-/ 
appeal preferred by him abates. (550-B] 
CRIMJNAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 401 
of 1979. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.8.1978 of the Delhi High Court 
in Criminal Appeal No. 430of1977. 
A_ 
WITH 
Criminal Appeal Nos. 602n9, 57/80 and.267/82. 
G 
R.K. Jain, R.P. Singh, K.V. Venkataramani, K.R. Nagaraja and Ashok 
Bhan for Ms. A. Subhashini for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by : 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
550 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1991] SUPP. 3 S. C.R. 
KASLIW AL, J. All the above four appeals relate to the same incident 
and are directed against the same Judgment of Delhi High Court dated 
26.8.1978 as such they are disposed of by one single order. It may be 
mentioned that so far as Appeal No. 57 of 1980 is concerned, the accused 
appellant Amar Singh Solanki having died, his legal representatives have filed 
an applica
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.