LexGURU DEV SINGH versus STATE OF M.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 6 S.C.R. 941 GURU DEV SINGH v. STATE OF M.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 1125 of 2011) MAY 10, 2011 [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302134 and 323134 - Three accused attacking the victims with deadly weapons - One of the victims found dead in the following morning - One of the accused died pending trial - Conviction of two by trial cowt u/ss 302134 and 307134 A B c - High Court maintaining conviction u/s 302134, but setting 0 aside conviction u/s 307134 and instead convicting the accused uls 323134 - Appeal by one accused - HELD: There is categorical evidence of the injured eye-witness that the accused persons caused serious injuries on the head and other parts of body of the deceased with 'kirpan', 'lohangi and E lathi' - The other eye-witness stated that the accused after causing injuries to the deceased threw him in the 'nala' - Medical evidence, the statement of eye-witnesses, the statement of accused leading to recovery of crime weapons, clearly establish that the deceased received serious injuries from the weapons used by the accused, due to which he died F - Appellant is guilty of offences punishable u/ss 302134 and 323134 /PC and the order of conviction and sentence passed by High Court against him is upheld. s.300- Exceptions I to IV- Three accused attacking two G victims with deadly weapons resulting in death of one of the victims - Plea of accused that there was provocation from the side of the victims and the incident happened due to sudden fight - HELD: The defence is not corroborated by evidence ~1 H ... 942 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 6 S.C.R. A on record - From the evidence it is found that provocation came from the side of accused and not from the victims - It was also not a sudden fight as it has been proved that accused were armed with deadly weapons like 'kirpan: 'lohangi' and lathi and they surrounded the victims and gave blows to B vital parts of deceased with intention to kill him - Thus, none of Exceptions to s.300 is attracted. FIR Delay in lodging the FIR - Victim attacked at about 8 C P.M. in the night and found dead on the following morning and FIR recorded thereafter - HELD: There is proper and reasonable explanation that as the victim was not found at the place of incident, he was searched throughout the night and only after tracing him in the 'nala' on the following morning o and finding him dead, FIR was lodged immediately thereafter. The appellant-accused No.2 (A-2) along with A-1 and 'B' was prosecuted for the murder of one 'BS', the brother of the complainant (PW-3). The prosecution case was E that on 17.11.1986, 'BS' along with one 'SS' had gone to purchase seeds of 'chana' and at about 8.00 p.m. when they reached near the place of incident, A-1 armed with 'Kirpan' (sword) accused 'B' armed with lathi and A-2 armed with 'Lohangi' met them; that accused 'B' had enmity with 'BS' as the latter wanted the sister of 'B' to F marry one 'LS' but 'B' was opposed to it. All the three accused with their respective weapons attacked 'BS' and PW-1. 'BS' fell down due to serious injuries; PW-1 managed to run away and told the incident to PW-3. Thereupon, PW-3 along with PW-1 and others reached G the place of incident but they could not find 'BS' there. On the following morning the dead body of 'BS' was found in the 'nala' and the FIR was lodged. Accused 'B' died pending trial. The trial court convicted A-1 and A-2 u/ss.302/34 and 307/34 IPC and sentenced them to H imprisonment for life and RI for 7 years, respectively, for GURU DEV SINGH v. STATE OF M.P. 943 .$1:.· ., ' [It . (_., ~_J I ' \ the ,!ylo counts. On appeal, the High Court maintained the A l~6nviCfiO'rf1~n(Fsentence u/s 302/34 IPC but set aside the conviction and sentence u/s. 307/34 IPC and instead lJc:~fl~J9t~~ ~~~~ 1 ~cs~sed u/s 323/34 IPC. bt.~uir.-'the'iii~ta'nt ~~peal filed by A-2 it was ·contended for 'ttie1 appeli'~Wt'thaf ·fffere were vital discrepancies in the 8 1evi'denct!· agjciiiegeH 6y ~he eye-witnesses namely, PW-1 1a'nd1f>wl2)i'f1 1d;1,'tt1erefore; their evidence could not be 1rJ1focl'tlt>6n 1and'turth 1etPw-1 was an interested witness '.las1'th'e'.re;wasria 1mutu~ffigJl'fiietween the parties in which :pw!f ~!s8a 1p'a~; that th'~ ~b 1cused also received injuries c 1arrcf th'e~')lr~ecuU~n~fifrrlisile'a"n'o explanation therefor; tffaf'the're'waS'·cf~iaf'frFlodgibg'tlf~i· FIR; and that, in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.