GURDIAL SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 862 · Decided: 21-08-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GURDIAL SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
AUGUST 21, 1995 
B 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code. 1860/Amts Act, 1959 : 
Ss. 302 read with s.34, s.326/s. 25-Three accused firing at vic-
C tim-Death caused-Autopsy-Report indicating gunshot injuries caused by 
different types of fire anns collectively sufficient to cause death-Trial Court 
convicting one accused under s. 302 l.P.C. ands. 25 Amis Act-Other two 
accused acquitted-Held, appellant is liable for his individual act only-In 
view of medical report it cannot be conclusively infe1Ted that death was 
D caused by injuries inflicted by appellant only-He can neither be convicted 
under s.302 simpliciter not under s.302 read with s.34 as acquittal of other 
accused is not based on mistaken identity-Conviction u/s. 302 set asid~Ap­
pellant convicted under s.326 !PC conviction under s.25. Anns Act main-
tained. 
E 
F 
The appellant, alongwith two others, was charged for offences 
punishable under s.302 read with s.34 IPC and s.25 Arms Act. The prosecu-
tion case was that on the date. of the incident, PW. 3 and his son were in 
their shop. At 6.30 p.m., when the son of PW. 3 came out of the shop, the 
three accused reached there on a scooter, shot him with their respective 
fire arms and ran away. The victim died instantaneously, PW. 3 lodged an 
F.I.R. with the police. The deceased was taken to the hospital. The doctor, 
PW. 1, conducting the autopsy, found four injuries on the person of the · 
deceased which according to him were caused by two types of fire arms 
and were collectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause 
death. The investigation led to the arrest of the appellant and the recovery . 
G of an unlicensed 12 bore gun with 25 cartridges from his possession. The 
case was committed to the Special Court, which convicted the appellant 
under s.302 IPC and s.25, Arms Act and sentenced him to life imprison-
,.. 
ment and rigorous imprisonment for one and half years under the two 
counts respectively. The other two accused were acquitted. Aggrieved, the 
H appellant filed the appeal •. 
862 
'\ .
f 
Gl:JRDIALSINGH v. STATE 
863 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The finding of the trial court that the appellant shot at 
the deceased with a gun causing injuries on his person is unassailable in 
view of the evidence of PW .3 supported by other evidence on record, 
namely, the evidence of the doctor (P.W.1) who held post-mortem examina-
tion and found, besides other injuries, two lacerated punctured wounds -
corresponding with each other - which according to him could be caused 
by a gun, if fired from a close range; the F.I.R. lodged with promptituted; 
the evidence of PW.4 showing the arrest of the appellant the same night 
and recovery of a 12 bore gun with 25 cartridges, from his possession; the 
report of the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory proving that the 
empties recovered from the spot had been fired from the gun recovered 
from the appellant, and the earth seized from the spot found by the 
Chemical Examiner to contain human blood. [865-E-H] 
A 
B 
c 
1.2. However, the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 302 
IPC, even with the aid of Section 34 IPC, as the prosecution laid evidence D 
to prove that only the three arraigned person were responsible for the 
murder and the acquittal is not based on the ground of mistaken identity. 
In view of the opinion of the doctor it cannot be conclusively inferred that 
the death was caused by the injuries inflicted by the appellant alone so as 
to make him liable under s.302 I.P.C. simpliciter. He did not state that the E 
two gun shot injuries attributable to appellant's firing were sufficient to 
cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The appellant would, there-
fore, be liable for his individual act only, which unmistakably makes out, 
in view of the weapon used by him and the nature of injuries caused, an 
offence under s.326 I.P.C. [868-A-B] 
Maina Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1976) SCC 827; Harshad Singh v. 
State of Gujarat, (1977) Crl. Law Journal 352 and Piara Singh v. State of 
Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 401; referred to. 
F 
1.3. The conviction of appellant under Section 302 IPC is set aside. He 
is convicted under Section 326 IPC. More than 11 years having elapsed G 
since the offence was committed, the appellant is sentenced to rigorous 
imprisonment for seven years. Since the gun used by the appellant was an 
unlicensed one, the convic

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