GURDIAL SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2011] 1 S.C.R. 556 · Decided: 24-01-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 1 S.C.R. 556 
A 
GURDIAL SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
~ 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 2006) 
B 
JANUARY 24, 2011 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI, P. SATHASIVAM AND 
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.) 
'). 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304 Part I read with s. 34 - Attempt 
-
c made by accused to construct drain towards.the victim's house 
in violation of injunction order passed in favour of the victim 
..;.. Altercation between the parties - Accused and others armed 
with 'gandasa' and 'dangs' inflicting injuries on the victim and 
on the eye-witnesses- Conviction ofaccused uls.302134 with 
D life imprisonment by courts below on the basis of evidence 
of the injured eye witnesses - On appeal held: Incident took 
place all of a sudden - No prior intention on part of the 
accused to commit murder - Thus, conviction modified from 
s. 302134 to s. 304 Part I read with s. 34 with 5 years rigorous 
E imprisonment -
Evidence -
Witnesses -
Sentence/ 
Sentencing. 
Despite an injunction order of the court, the 
appellants made an attempt to construct a drain towards 
-+ 
F the house of 'BT'. This led to an altercation between the 
parties. The appellants- 'BS', 'GS' and 'OS' and others 
armed with 'gandasi' and 'dangs' caused injuries to 'BT' 
and the eye-witnesses. 'BT' later succumbed to his 
injuries in the hospital. The trial court convicted the 
G 
appellants for offences punishable under Section 302/34 
IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment, however, 
).. . 
acquitted the others. The High Court upheld the order 
passed by the trial court. Therefore, the appellants filed 
the instant appeals. 
H 
556 
' . 
GURDIAL SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
557 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
A 
--< 
HELD: 1.1 The conviction of the appellants cannot 
,._ 
, be faulted in the light of the fact that the prosecution story 
rests on the evidence of three injured witnesses. The 
incident is virtually admitted by both sides although in 
B 
different circumstances. However, a case under Section 
/ 
302 IPC is not spelt out. It is clear from the prosecution 
...-
story that the incident happened all of a sudden when 
'BT' objected to the construction of the drain by 'GS' and 
.. 
others in violation of an injunction order in ope~ion. 'BT' 
was apparently attacked as he was making his way to his c 
fields when he objected to the taking of measurements 
as a prelude to the diversion of the drain. The evidence 
shows that some altercation took place on which the 
three appellants - 'GS' armed with a 'gandasi' and the 
other two with 'dangs', caused injuries to 'BT' arid the 
D 
.J, 
prosecution witnesses. However, the weapons used were 
in fact implements of common use which are normally 
carried by villagers all over India a:;d they do not reflect 
any prior intention on the part of the accused to commit 
murder. It also appears that 'GS' had used the 'gandasi' 
E 
from its blunt side as would be clear from the evidence 
-of the doctor. PW4, the doctor who had examined 'BT' in 
---+ 
the Hospital opined that both the injuries on the deceased 
were caused by a blunt weapon. Therefore, if the 
'appellants had intended to murder 'BT' there was nothing 
F 
to stop 'GS' from using the 'gandasi' from its true side as 
that would have made it a much more effective weapon. 
Therefore, the appellants are liable for the offence under 
Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC. Keeping in 
. ~ 
view the fact that the appellants have already undergone 
G 
about 5 years of the sentence and also the age factor of 
'GS' in particular, the ends of justice would be met if the 
appellants are imposed a sentence of 5 years R.I., under 
Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 of the IPC. [Para 
5] [561-F-H; 562-A-F] 
H 
558 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 261 of 2006. 
\-
From the Judgment & Order dated 31.05.2005 of the High 
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal 
B No. 205-DB of 1997. 
WITH 
Crl. A. No. 878 of 2007. 
R.P. Wadhwani, Dharam Bir Raj Vohra, Kuldeep Singh, 
C Ajay Pal, Sanjay Jain, Vinay Arora, Vivek Kochal for appearing 
parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
HARJIT SINGH BEDl,J. 1. The appellants herein, Gurdial 
Singh now aged 85 years, his brother Bakshish Singh, now 
'aged 70 years, and Darshan Singh now aged about 35 years 
were brought to trial and convicted for offences punishable 
under Section 302/34 etc. of the IPC and sentenced to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.