GURPREET SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 90 · Decided: 09-11-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. AGRAWAL

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
GURPREET SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
NOVEMBER 9, 2005 
[B.N. AGRA WAL AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, I 860-Section 302 rlw Section 34-Death caused-Charge 
framed u/s 302 s1mpliciter-Prosecution-Account of eyewitnesses-
C Corroborated by medical evidence-Defence version unreliable-fatal injury 
not attributed specifically to the accused-Conviction of two accused and 
acquittal of one by courts below-On appeal, held : Prosecution case proved 
beyond reasonable doubt-Facts of the case prove that the accused shared 
common intention-Hence conviction u/s 302 rlw s.34. 
D 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 154-Punjab Police Rules 
E 
Volume JJJ 19 59-Rule 2 4. I-Provision requiring entry of substance of report 
of cognizable offence-Names of eyewitnesses not entered in Daily Diary and 
Mortuary Register-However their names finding place in FIR-Held : Such 
non-disclosure cannot be said to be violative of the provisions-Hence cannot 
affect the prosecution case. 
' 
Juvenile Justice Act, 1986:-:section 2(h)-Conviction u/s 302 rlw s.34 
/PC-Plea that accused was a juv,enile on the date of commission of offence--
Plea not raised before· ·~ourts below-Held': Jn order to ·ascertain the age of 
the accused, report as to his age on the occurrence called from trial court. 
F 
Appellants-accused 'G' and 'M' alongwith two others were charged under 
section 302 IPC for having committed death of one person. Prosecution case 
was that appellants alongwith the two accused confronted the deceased armed 
with 'kirpan' and inflicted multiple injuries on him with the same causing 
his death. Prosecution case was supported by medical evidence. PWs 2 and 3 
G were the eyewitnesses to the incident. Defence of the accused was that it was 
the deceased who assaulted the appellant-accused 'G' as a result of which he 
sustained injuries and was admitted to hospital for 11 days. Assault on the 
deceased was by the villagers who had gathered there at the hue and cry raised 
by him fo.r rescue. He had lodged a complaint to that effect after 11 days. One 
H 
90 
; 
< 
GURPREET SINGH v. ST A TE OF PUNJAB 
91 
of the accused died during trial. Trial Court convicted the appellants-accused A., 
~f the charge and acquitted one accused. Appeal of the appellants before High 
Court was also dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court, appellants-accused contended that the evidence 
of eyewitnesses was not reliable as their names were not disclosed in the 
Mortuary Register nor in the Daily Diary which is in contravention of Section B 
154 Cr.P.C. and Rule 24.1 of Punjab Police Rules, Volume III, 1959 Edition; 
that there was inordinate delay in sending copy of First Information Report 
to the Magistrate; that conviction of the appellants u/s 302 IPC simpliciter is 
unwarranted as there was no evidence to show that any of the two appellants 
inflicted fatal injury; and that their conviction also could not be altered to u/ C 
s 302 r/w Section 34 IPC, by this Court, as no charge was framed thereunder; 
and that at the most appellants could be convicted u/s 326 IPC. 
Appellant-accused 'M' additionally contended that on the date of alleged 
occurrence, he was a juvenile within the meaning of Juvenile Justice Act, 
1986 as on that date he had not attained the age of 16 years. 
D 
Dismissing the appeal of appellant 'G' and adjourning the case of 
appellant 'M' awaiting report from the trial court, the Court 
HELD :1.1. Prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond 
reasonable doubt and conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC is E 
liable to be altered to one under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC as 
fatal injury could not be attributed to them. In the present case, it cannot be 
said that the accused persons were prejudiced merely because charge was 
framed under Section 302 IPC simpliciter and no charge was framed under 
Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. From the evidence of two eyewitnesses, 
namely, PWs 2 and 3 it would appear that the accused persons shared the F 
common intention to cause death of the victim. Accused persons were not in 
any manner prejudiced in their defence. That apart, in their examination under 
Section 313 of the Code, the appellants were specifically told that they along 
with other accused persons armed with kirpan came to the place of occurrence 
and assaulted the deceased whereafter they fled away which shows that G 
appellants shared the common intention to cause death of the deceased. 
(103-E; 102

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