BISHAN SINGH AND ANR. versus TI-IE STATE

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 798 · Decided: 09-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
BISHAN SINGH AND ANR. 
v. 
TI-IE STATE 
OCTOBER 9, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-ss. 147, 3081149, 323 and 325-Accused 
persons waylaid complainant and caused injuries to him-Case of 
C previous enmity-Conviction under ss. 147 and 3081149 by courts 
below-Correctness of-.:Held: Though overt-act attributed against 
each of the accused having la this, out of seven injuries only one 
grievous injury caused that too not on the vital part of the body-Thus, 
accused not guilty u/s. 308 but u/ss. 323 and 325-With regard to 
D sentence imposed, considering the circumstances .. substantive sentence 
reduced to the period undergone with fine of Rs. 15, 0001- each. 
According to the prosecution case, accused had enmity with the 
complainant. On the fateful day accused assaulted the complainant 
with Ia this causing injuries to him and took money from him. Brother 
E of the complainant intervened and he also suffered injuries. FIR was 
lodged. Informant alleged that the accused attacked him with the 
intention to cause his death and had earlier also threatened him. Trial 
court convicted the appellant for commission of an offence under s. 
147 ands. 308/149 IPC and imposed rigorous imprisonment for one 
F year for offence under s. 147 and rigorous imprisonment for four 
years for offence under s. 308/149 IPC. High Court upheld the order. 
Hence the present appeal. 
G 
H 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Before an accused can be held to be guilty under 
Section 308 IPC, the ingredients, namely, requisite intention or 
knowledge on the part of the accused to cause culpable homicide is 
required to be proved. Six persons allegedly accosted the injured. 
798 
BISHAN SINGH v. STATE [SINHA,J.] 
799 
They had previous enmity. Although overt-act had been attributed A 
against each of the accused who were having lathis, only seven 
injuries had been caused and out of them only one of them was 
grievous, being a fracture on the arm, which was not the vital part 
of the body. Therefore, the accused could not be said to have 
committed any offence under section 308 IPC. The same would fall B 
under Sections 323 and 325 thereof. 
[Paras 11 and 121 [802-D, E, Fl 
2. While imposing punishment in a case of this nature, the court 
is required to take into consideration the factors which may weigh 
with the court for taking a lenient view in the matter. The incident is C 
of 1984. 23 years have elapsed. Appellants had all along remained 
on bail. It is not stated that they had ever misused the privilege of 
bail. The incident does not reflect any cruelty on their part or any 
mental depravity. They had been in custody for more than five 
months. In a situation of this nature, it may not be proper for this 0 
Court to send the accused persons back to prison. However, the 
injured had suffered pains at the hands of the appellants. Therefore, 
while their substantive sentence may be reduced to the period 
undergone, they should pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- each failing which 
they should undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year E 
each. If the aforementioned amount is realized, a sum of 
Rs. 25,000/- out of the sum, may be paid to the informant. 
[Para 14] [802-G, H; 803-A, B, C] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
F 
1390of2007. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 14.3.2007 of the High 
Court ofUttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 343/2001. 
Gaw-av Agrawal for the Appellants. 
Rachna Srivastava, A.AG and Anuvrat Shaima for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
G 
H 
800 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] I 0 S.C.R. 
A 
2. Bishan Singh son ofBachchi Singh and Govind Ballabh son of 
B 
Krishnanand, the two surviving accused, who were tried and convicted 
for commission of an offence under Sections 14 7 and 3081149 of the 
Indian Penal Code (IPC) are before us; the other four accused, namely, 
Arjun Singh, Shivraj, Govind Singh and Bhairav Dutt having expired. 
3. One Harish Bhatt was the complainant. On 30.09.1984 at about 
06.30 p.m. when he was going towards his village, the accused persons 
allegedly assaulted him with lathis and took out a sum ofRs.400/- from 
his pocket. His brother Ghanshyam Dutt Bhatt intervened. It was alleged 
that the accused persons were inimically disposed of towards the injured 
c and had attacked him with an intention to cause his death. The injuries 
suffered by Harish 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.