HARBANS KAUR AND ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 450 · Decided: 01-03-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
'HARBANS KAUR 'AND ANR. 
V. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
'MARCH· I, '2005 
• 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYATAND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]. 
Penal.Code,, 1860: ., 
. Sections 323, •325 and 326 r/w. Section 34-lnjuries caused-Resulting 
,C in subsequent death-Incident seen by related eye-witnesses-Conviction by 
Courts below-Sentences of 3 months 2 years and 7 years respective~v--On 
appeal, held: Conviction justified-However in view of background of the 
case, sentence of 7 years reduced to custodial sentence of 4 years. 
Section'34--':Common intention-Applicability of-Held: In order to make 
D the common intention applicable, plan or meeting of mind of all the accused, 
either prearranged or on the spur of moment, is to be established-Proof of 
common intention, in absence of direct proof, can be inferred from the 
circumstances of proved facts and circumstqnces of the case-Evidence. 
Criminal Trial : 
E 
Related witness-Evidentiary value of-Held: such witness cannot be 
treated as untruthful-In case of plea of their partiality, reason for the witness 
to shield the actual culprit is to be shown. 
FIR-Delay in lodging-Effect of-On prosecution case-Held: The delay 
in lodging FIR does not necessarily make the prosecution case suspect-Even 
F a long delay can be condoned if witnesses are shown to have no. motive to 
implicate the accused and congent reason for delay is given-TheAsuspicion 
due to delay will depend on the facts of each case. 
Appellants-accused caused grievous injuries to a person. Father (PW-
6) and wife (PW-7) of the victim were the eyewitnesses to the incident. 
G After some time of the incident, when the condition of the victim 
deteriorated he was taken to hospital. The doctor sent information to the 
Police and on the basis of statement of PW-6, FIR was -recorded. After 
some time the victim died. Appellfl~ts were charged u/s. 304 Part-I IPC 
r/w Section 34. Trial Court, relying on the evidence of eye-witnesses held 
the accused guilty u/s 323, 325 and 326 r/w Section 34 IPC and sentenced. 
H 
~o 
-. 
,_ 
-
HARBANSKAUR v. STATEOFHARYANA 
451 
them to rigorous imprisonment for three months, two years and seven A 
years respectively. High Court confirmed the conviction. 
In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that prosecution 
version did not inspire confidence as the same was based on evidence of 
related witnesses; that there was delay in lodging FIR; that Section 34 IPC 
was not applicable in the facts of the case; and that the sentences imposed B 
were high. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Courts below have rightly relied on the evidence of 
prosecution witnesses. There is no proposition in law that relatives are to C 
be treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to be shown 
when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason 
to shield actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused. No evidence has 
been led in this regard. (454-E) 
l.2. There cannot be any generalization that whenever there is a D 
delay fo lodging the FIR, the prosecution case becomes suspect. Whether 
delay is so long as to throw a cloud of suspicion on the seeds of the 
prosecution case, would depend upon the facts of each case. Even a long 
delay can be condoned if the witnesses have no motive of implicating the 
accused and have given a plausible reason as to why the report was lodged E 
belatedly. In the instant case, this has been done. It is to be noted that 
though there was cross-examination at length no infirmity was noticed in 
their evidence. (454-F-G) 
2.1. Section 34 has been rightly applied in this case. Section 34 has 
been enacted on the principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal f 
act. The Section is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive 
offence. The distinctive feature of the Section is the element of participation 
in action. The liability of one person for an offence committed by another 
in the course of criminal act perpetrated by several persons arises under 
Section 34 if such criminal act is done in furtherance of a common G 
intention of the persons who join in committing the crime. Direct proof 
of common intention is seldom available and, therefore, such intention can 
only be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts 
of the case and the proved circumstances. In order to bring home the 
charge of coinmon intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, 
whether direct or circumstantial, that

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