GURPAL SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2016] 8 S.C.R. 139 · Decided: 02-12-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 8 S.C.R. 139 
GURPAL SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of2016) 
DECEMBER 02, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 and s.307 - Family dispute over 
land between informant and appellant who were brothers -
On the 
fateful day, when son of the informant was working in fields, 
appellant started abusing hi111 - Informants son ca111e home and 
complained to the informant - Informant went to the terrace of his 
house and sum111oned appellant - Appellant and his son responded 
A 
B 
c 
to his call and proclai111ed that they would continue to do same -
Thereafter appellant rushed downstairs and brought his gun and 
opened fire which hit the informant on the side of his head - Wife of D 
the informant and friends of the informant rushed to the terrace -
On seeing the111, appellant fired towards them which hit one of the 
friends resulting in his death and injury to another - Conviction of 
appellant by courts below and acquittal of co-accused-son -
Conviction challenged - Held: Evidence of eye-witnesses was 
consistent, coherent and reliable - Medical evidence also proved 
prosecution case beyond doubt - Acquittal of co-accused has no 
bearing on the inculpatory involvement of the appellant - The 
involvement of appellant in the crime was proved beyond doubt -
However, the facts do not lead to the inference that the appellant 
had the intention of eliminating any one of those fired at, though he 
had the knowledge of the likely fatal consequences thereof - In 
view of the fact situation and also the time lag in between, 
conviction of the appellant 111oderated to one uls.304 Part 1 and 
307 and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The eye-witnesses including the informant have 
offered a consistent, coherent and convincing narration thereof 
which docs not admit of any doubt of their trustworthiness. The 
plea of their family relationship to discredit them does not 
139 
E 
F 
G 
H 
140 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
commend for acceptance in the attendant facts and circumstances. 
Noticeably, in course of the investigation, amongst others, the 
12 bore DBBL gun loaded with two live cartridges used for the 
offence had been recovered from the appellant. The site plan 
prepared by the investigating officer also pins the place of 
occurrence as deposed by the witnesses. Further four cartridge 
shells have also been recovered from the said spot. [Para 8][143-
B-C] 
2. The medical evidence reveals injuries on the deceased 
and the injured compatible with the weapon used. The charges 
levelled against the appellant thus have been proved beyond 
doubt. The co-accused has been acquitted in view of absence of 
any incriminating evidence against him. His acquittal, having 
regard to the state of evidence has no bearing on the inculpatory 
involvement of the appellant somuch so, that his conviction in 
isolation is sustainable. The occurrence is of the year 2004 and 
meanwhile twelve years have elapsed. Further, having regard to 
the root cause of the incident and the events that sequentially 
unfolded thereafter, the appellant might have been overpowered 
by an uncontrollable fit of anger somuch so that he was deprived 
of his power of self-control and being drawn in a web of action 
reflexes, fired at the deceased and the injured, who were within 
his sight. The facts do not commend to conclude that the appellant 
had the intention of eliminating any one of those fired at, though 
he had the knowledge of the likely fatal consequences thereof. 
On an overall consideration of the fact situation and also the time 
lag in between, the conviction of the appellant moderated to one 
under Section 304 Part 1 IPC and 307 IPC. Further, considering 
the facts of the case in particular, it would meet the ends of justice, 
if the sentence for the offences is reduced to the period already 
undergone. The conviction of the appellant is converted to one 
under Section 304 Part 1 and 307 IPC and the sentence is reduced 
to the period already undergone. [Paras 9, 10 and 11][143-D,E-
G; 144-A] 
CRIMIN AL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
1145of2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.10.2008 of the High Court 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 378-DB 
H of2004. 
GURPAL SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
141 
Yatinder Singh, Sr. Adv.( AC), Arijeet Singh, Ms. Apraj ita 
A

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