LexBUDDHU SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011] 5 S.C.R. 962 BUDDHU SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND) (Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2007) APRIL 28, 2011 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ] Penal Code, 1860: s. 304 (part II) - Three accused - First two accused grappled and pinned down the victim - Third C accused dealt a blow of axe which landed on the head of the victim - Victim was seriously injured and died in hospital - Courts below convicted accused u/s. 302 and awarded life imprisonment - On appeal, held: There could not have been the intention to commit the murder of the victim though the D common intention on the part of first two accused could be attributed since they did the overt act of grappling with and pinning down the deceased - Intention of third accused to not commit the murder was also justified by the fact that the accused who dealt a blow of axe did not repeat the assault - E The blow could not be said to be intended towards the head of victim - It could have landed anywhere, however it landed on the head of the victim - Therefore, element of intention is ruled out - Conviction modified and converted into s.304 (part II) - Sentence reduced to period already undergone. F The prosecution case was that there was some dispute between the accused persons and the victim- deceased. Accused 'L' was father of 'B' and 'BS'. On the fateful day; accused 'B' and accused 'L' grappled wi.th the victim and pinned him down, while, accused 'BS' dealt G an axe blow which landed on the head of the victim. The victim got seriously injured on account of that blow and died in the hospital. The trial court found all the accused . guilty under section 302 IPC and awarded life sentence. The High Court affirmed the same. The instant appeals 962 BUDDHU SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW 963 JHARKHAND) were filed by the accused challenging the order of A conviction. · Partly allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: There was nothing on record which could be said against the accused 'L' and 'B' though the common B intention on their part could be attributed sir:ice they had done the overt act of grappling with and pinning down the deceased. Seeing his father and brother grappling with the deceased, accused 'BS' dealt an axe blow. The blow could not be said to be intended towards the head. c It could have landed anywhere. However, it landed on the head of the deceased. Therefore, the element of intention is ruled out. Again the defence raised on behalf of the accused that there could not have been the intention to commit the murder of the deceased is justified by the fact 0 that the accused 'BS' did not repeat.the assault. Under the circumstances, the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the accused persons under'Section 304 Part 111.P.C. The finding of the High Court is modified and the· conviction of the accused is converted from· Section 302 E IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC and they are sentenced to· the period already undergone. [Paras 9, 10] [965-E-H; 966- A-B] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2007 etc. F From the Judgment & Order dated 18.05.2006 of the High Court of Jharkhand in Cr. App. No. 238 of 2000 R. WITH Crl. Appeal No. 1116 of 2007. Ajit Kumar Pande, S.B. Khan for the Appellant. Manish Mohan, K.N. Sinha (for Anil Kumar Jha) for the Respondent. G H 964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SIRPURKAR, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2007 has been filed by accused Buddhu Singh while Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2007 has been filed by his father Ledwa Singh and 8 brother Balchand Singh. The trial court found them guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced each one of them to imprisonment for life. The High Court also affirmed the conviction and sentenced awarded by the trial court. 2. The prosecution case is that the deceased Sugendra C Singh llJas suspected to be practising witchcraft and he was aggrieved against the accused persons for not giving to him theJeast which he was professionally supposed to .be paid on account of getting cured of accused Balchand Singh from some serious illness. The incident seems to have taken suddenly D wit.hout there being any previous history t'."I it. 3. The allegation is that on 30.7.1995 at about 4 p.m. deceased Surendra Singh was standing in front of house of PW5 Nagru Kharia when accused Balchand Singh pushed him E down and accused Buddhu Singh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.