HARDEEP SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2008] 9 S.C.R. 1114 · Decided: 11-06-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 9 S.C.R. 1114 
"( 
A 
HARDEEP SINGH & ORS. 
.. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 468 of 2007) 
B 
June 11, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
"( -
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 read with s. 34 - Murder -
Three accused persons armed with weapons causing fatal in-
c juries to deceased - Exhortation by the fourth accused.- lnju-
ries caused by first two accused on the head as also legs of 
the deceased - However, third accused caused injuries only 
on arm - Incident witnessed by deceased's son and his wife -
Conviction of first three accused uls. 302 r/w s. 34, however, 
D 
acquittal of the fourth one - Correctness of - Held: There was 
i 
no discrepancy in the evidence of eye-witnesses - They suffi-
i 
ciently established the role played by first two accused - Evi-
dence cannot be discarded on the ground that the witnesses 
being a close relative, thus a partisan witnesses - s. 34 is 
E 
applicable - Thus, conviction of first two accused u/s. 302 r/w 
s.34 justified- However, in view of the injuries inflicted by the 
third accused, his conviction altered to one u/s. 304 (Part II) -
Custodial sentence of eight years awarded. 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 34 - Common intention - Appli-
• ' 
F 
cability of - Requirement for - Stated. 
According to the prosecution case, on the fateful day, 
when the deceased was going for a visit along with his 
son-PW 7 and his wife, all of a sudden accused GS, HS , 
HJ and JS armed with weapons reached there. GS ex-
G horted the other accused to kill the deceased. HJ and JS 
inflicted gandasi blows on the legs of the deceased and 
as a result he fell down. Thereafter, HJ and HS inflicted 
blows ori the head of the deceased. HS and JS assaulted 
the deceased on his arms. The complainant and his 
H 
1114 
HARDEEP SINGH & ORS. v. STATE. OF 
1115 
y 
HARYANA 
-
mother shouted. The accused fled away with their weap-
A 
ons. The deceased succumbed to his injuries. FIR was 
lodged. Investigation was carried out. The doctor con-
ducted the post mortem and found 14 injuries on the body 
of the deceased. Appellants were convicted u/s 302 read 
with s. 34 IPC. GS was acquitted. The State and the ap-
B 
.-. 
y 
pellants filed appeals. PW 7-complainant filed Revision 
challenging the acquittal of GS and sought enhancement 
of sentence of accused persons. The High Court dis-
missed both the appeals as also the Revision. It held that 
the evidence of PWs 7 and 8 sufficiently established the c 
accusations. Hence the present appeals. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Relationship is not a factor to affect credibil-
~ 
ity of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would D 
not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an 
innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false 
implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a 
careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether 
it is cogent and credible. [Para 7) [1122-A & BJ 
E 
1.2 The ground that the witness being close relative 
and consequently being a partisan witness, should not 
> 
be relied upon cannot be accepted. [Para 10) [1123-A] 
,.. 
Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab AIR (1953) 
SC 364; Gu/i Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 1974 (3) 
F 
SCC 698; Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras AIR (1957) SC 
614; Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1952) SC 54; 
Masalti and Ors. v. State of UP AIR (1965) SC 202; State of 
Punjab v. Jagir Singh AIR (1973) SC 2407; Lehna v. State of 
Haryana 2002 (3) SCC 76; Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. 
G 
State of Orissa 2002 (8) SCC 381; Babula/ Bhagwan Khandare 
~ 
and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 2005 (10) SCC 404; Salim 
Saheb v. State of MP 2007(1) SCC 699 - referred to. 
2.1 Section 34 IPC has been enacted on the prin-
H 
1116 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 9 S.C.R. 
~ 
A ciple of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The -
Section is only a rule of evidence and does not create a 
substantive offence. The distinctive feature of the Sec-
tion is the element of participation in action. The liability 
of one person for an offence committed by another in the 
B course of criminal act perpetrated by several persons 
arises u/s. 34 if such criminal act is done in furtherance of 
""" 
a common intention of the persons who join in commit-
'( 
ting the crime. Direct proof of common intention is sel-
dom available and, therefore, such intention can only be 
c inferred from the circumstances appearing from the 
prove
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.