DARBARA SINGH AND ANOTHER ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 586 · Decided: 21-04-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DARBARA SINGH AND ANOTHER ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
APRIL 21, 1992 
B 
[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI ANDS. C. AGRAWAL, JJ.) 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: 
Sections 34,148,149,302,304 and 323: 
C 
Murder-Common intention-Inflicting injuries with knowledge that the 
injuries may cause the death of victim-&cept one, other accused did not 
have such knowledge-Effect of-Modification of sentence in respect of those 
accused-Accused who had knowledge and who inflicted vital injury-Ab-
-
sence of common intention in causing such injury-Sentenc~Altered. 
--(, 
D 
E 
F 
The appellants and two others were charged . with and tried for 
ofTen~es under Sections 148, 302, 149 and 323/149 IPC for causing the 
murder of one S and causing simple hurts to one R, both related to the 
accu.sed. The Trial Judge acquitted one of the five accused since no part 
of the actual occurrence except exhortations were attributed to him and 
convicted the o~er four accused under section 302/34 and 323/34 IPC, and 
sentenced them to life imprisonment and 6 months rigorous imprisonment 
respectively. 
On appeal, the High Court acquitted one more accused on the 
ground that the medical evidence did not corroborate the claim that he 
used his kirpan with force as alleged by the prosecution. The appeal 
preferred by the complainant against this acquittal, was dismissed by this 
Court. 
The other three accused whose conviction and sentenc~ were con· 
G firmed by the High Court, have preferred the present appeals. 
It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the prosecution 
case has been discredited by the Courts rendering the same unacceptable 
resulting in the acquittal of two accused and for the same reasons, they 
also deserved a·cquittal. It was also contended that the evidence.regarding 
H 
recovery of weapons did not inspire confidenct. 
586 
I 
-
r-
-
-/ 
DARBARA SINGH v. STAIB 
587 
Disposing of the appeals, this court, 
HELD: 1. There may be a tendency here and there to implicate a 
person in addition to·actual assailants in a crime but substitution is rare 
and that cannot be the case here. As is evident the parties are closely related. 
The crime was committed in broad day light. The witness is a stamped 
witness. There was no reason for the prosecution to falsely evolve a case 
against the appellants. The medical evidence is consistent and corrobora-
tive in connecting all the three appellants. On the eye-witness account and 
th~ corroboration it receives from medical evidence, their guilt is estab-
lished even if the evidence of recovery of weapon is kept aside. (592 C-G] 
2. Out of 13 injuries on the dead body six were incised wounds and 
the remaining were blunt weapon injuries. Amongst the incised wounds the 
first one was by itself sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause 
death of the deceased. That injury was positively attributed to the appel-
A 
B 
c 
lant in the second case who opened the attack but the remaining five 
incised wounds were not positively attributed to him alone. It can safely D 
be assumed that some may have fallen to his share to be inflicted and 
others to the co-accused who has since been acquitted. Even though the 
Doctor has stated that all the incised wounds could have been caused by 
Kulhar P.I, that by itself cannot go to conclude that all the incised wounds 
were caused by the appellant in the second case. Since he inflicted the first E 
incised wound on the head of the deceased, which was sufficient by itself 
i°n the ordinary course to cause death, he has rendered himself liable to be 
adjudged guilty under section 302 IPC. [592·-H; 593 A-C] 
3. Since extensive damage had been done to the limbs of the deceased 
after the infliction of vital injury No.I, it can safely be inferred that despite 
F 
the assailants' chosing non-vital parts of the body for inflicting those 
injuries, they must be attributed the knowledge that by their concerted act 
they were likely to cause death of the deceased, for which act they could be 
punished under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. The act was 
done while the deceased was alive. The outcome of injury No.I may or may G 
not have been perceived by the assailants except the appellant in the 
second case, but they were satisfied in chosing and inflicting injuries on 
non-vital parts which. injuries were caused by breaking the bones of his 
arms and legs. (593 F-H] 
4. Due to his young age, being in teens, the appellant in the first case H 
588

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