LexHARJIT SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. HARJIT SINGH AND ORS. A v. STATE OF PUNJAB AUGUST 16, 2002 [N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] B Penal Code, 1860: Section 34-Common intention-Could be inferred from the objective conduct displayed by accused-Mere participation in crime with others not C sufficient· Jn absence of common intention between parties, one accused cannot be vicariously liable for commission of criminal acts of other accused- Such accused would be liable for individual acts only. Section JOO-Right of Self defence-Availability of-Discussed Evidence Act, I 872-Section 3-Recovery of weapons-Reliance thereon-When there is no independent witness and place of concealment is accessible to public, the evidence of disclosure statement and consequent recovery of weapons cannot be relied on. Appreciation of evidence-Interference with-Permissible only when it is unreasonable. Six accused persons were convicted under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324, D E 326 read with Sections 148 and 149 IPC by trial Court. It was alleged that accused were members of an unlawful assembly and committed murder and p other offences with common object. On the fateful day H was asserting his right on a piece of land over which he placed his stock of woods. A2, A4 and other co-accused as members of first party came there armed with lethal weapons. They abused H and shouted that they would teach him a lesson. Father of H raised an alarm. Members of complainant party- prosecution witnesses came there. Accused and others inflicted blows on the deceased and G eyewitnesses. It is alleged that A4 inflicted gandhali blows to PW5 and his father and A2 inDicted kirpan blows to H and PW 5. Subsequently members of party No 2, Al armed with revolver, A3 with pistol and A6 with double barrel gun came on the spot on hearing commotion. It is alleged that they were raising lalkaras and were abusing. Also Al and A6 fired at deceased and H 581 582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A members of complainant party whereas A3 fired towards complainant party with co-accused A6 and AS. PW-1 stated that when he saw members of party No 2 who joined later he got his double barrel gun and when H and PW3 fell on the ground after sustaining injuries he fired which hit Al. In the ~lashes H died and members of complainant party and also accused party sustained B injuries. On disclosure statement made by AS weapons were recovered but memoranda ofdisclosure and recovery was not signed by any independent witnesses. Prosecution relied on the evidence of eyewitnesses who were injured in the incident and medical evidence. High Court confirmed the conviction of three accused but set aside the conviction of other co-accused. Hence the present appeals. c Appellants contended that neither the accused-members of the first party nor the accused-members of the second party had a common intention to commit murder of deceased; that the High Court erred in inferring that as A-1 had suffered serious injuries on his legs, he could not have fired in self- defence and rejected his plea of defence whereas admittedly A-1 had not D suffered any injury on any vital part; that the Investigating Officer made no investigations regarding injuries sustained by the members of the accused parties; that the eye-witness account given by PW-I-father of deceased and being his near and dear one should not be believed in the absence of independent corroboration to his version; that PW 1 made a material E improvement in the statement in court that both the members of the parties were raising Lalkaras indicating common intention on their part; that PW- 1 took a false plea that he had to take out his own gun and fire at accused A- l to save the deceased which was an after thought by PW-1 to explain serious injuries caused to A-1 with fire arms whereas the fact of his own firing was not stated by him in his statement made to the police, thus since there are F improvements and omissions in the statement of PW 1 the plea of self defence should be accepted. It was further contended that accused A-2 who was a member of the first party could not be convicted under Section 302 with aid Section 34 IPC by attributing common intention to him with A-1 since A-2, member of the first party, carried kirpan and inflicted simple and grievous G injuries whereas H died by fire arm injuries caused to him by A-1 and this is supported by medical evidence. Disposing of the appea
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.