LexGURMAIL SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 13 S.C.R. 517 GURMAIL SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1782 of 2008 etc. NOVEMBER 21, 2012 [SWATANTER KUMAR AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: A B ss. 3021149 - Death caused by 8 accused - By fire-arm c and sharp-edged 'gandasa' - Land dispute between nval parties - Leading to one murder by a relative of the accused - Prosecution against three of the accused abated due to their death - Trial court convicted one appellant-accused u/s. 324 and u/s. 25 of Arms Act and acquitted the other appellant- 0 accused of all the charges - Another accused was convicted uls. 304 (Part I) - High Court convicted all the accused including the two appellants-accused uls. 3021149 - On appeal, held: The conviction of the appellants-accused u/s. 3021149 is co"ect - The facts of the case prove that the E accused assembled with a common object of committing murder - Arms Act, 1959 - s. 25. s. 149.,. Applicability of - Held: To bring a case withins. 149, there lnust be in existence an unlawful assembly; an offence is committed by a member of such assembly and the F offence committed must be in prosecution of a common object of the unlawful assembly or must be such that the members of the unlawful assembly knew that it was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. The two appellants-accused alongwith six others were prosecuted for having caused death of one person and for causing Injuries to others. The prosecution case was that there was a land dispute pending in a court 517 G H 518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R. A between the accused party and the complainant partly. The dispute had also led to murder of the son of the deceased by a relative of the accused party to which the deceased was the eye-witness. One of the appellant- accused also sustained injuries during the incident. B During trial, three of the accused died and thus the prosecution abated against them. The trial court believed the prosecution story. However, it held that no case was made out that the accused persons formed unlawful assembly with any common object. The Court convicted c one accused u/s. 304 (Part-I) IPC. Appellant-accused in Appeal No. 1782/2008 was punished u/s. 324 IPC and the appellant-accused in Appeal No.1783/2008 was acquitted Qf all the charges. Appeals were filed by the convicts as well as the State. High Court upheld all the conclusions 0 of the trial court except the conclusion regarding formation of unlawful assembly with a common object and held that presence of eight persons armed with guns and gandasas with a motive to wreak vengeance on the deceased and his family, pointed to the existence of an unlawful assembly having a common object and thus the E ingredients of s. 149 IPC were made out. Further it held that an offence u/s. 302 IPC was made out against the accused (including the two appellants) and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Hence the present appeals. F Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The appellants are liable to be convicted for an offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC. The record does not show any undue delay either in lodging the FIR or in G dispatching the special report to the lllaqa Magistrate. It is wrong to make a fetish out of every delay in lodging an FIR. Given the facts of this case, there was no unreasonable or unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. [Paras 37, 40 and 71] [530-C; 531-B; 540-F] H GURMAIL SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 519 Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana (2012) 6 SCC 204: A 2012 (4) SCR 408 - relied on. 2. It is not correct to say that there was no motive for the appellants to commit the crime. It is quite clear that there was a land dispute between the families of rival B parties. Evidence in this. regard was led by PW-3, a Court Ahlmad working in the concerned court. The existence of a land dispute was also testified to by PW-4. That the land dispute was not a trivial matter is clear from the fact that it even led to the murder allegedly by a relative of the C accused. The deceased was an eye-witness to the murder. Thus, not only was there a motive for committing the crime but the motive had already led to a murder on an earlier occasion. [Paras 41 & 42) [531-C-E] 3. The courts below have not doubted the presence D of PW4 -complainant at the scene of the crime and there is no reason to differ with this concurrent finding only because he did not suf
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.