LexINDER SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I )· A INDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB FEBRUARY 23, 1995 B [DR. A.S. ANAND AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Section 302-Pre- planned murder-Accused . assaulting the deceased with dete1mination-Extensive injury-Instantaneous death of deceased-These factors disclosed intention of the accused to cause -. ) c fat al injury to the deceased-Conviction upheld. 7 The appellant was convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. According to the prosecution, the deceased had gone to see off a D tractor driver and did not return home till night. His father, PW4 and mother, PWS went out in search for him. They met the deceased on the way and started towards their home. The appellant suddently emerged \. from behind a heap of manure and assaulted the deceased on his neck. He ""- also did not spare PW4, his own brother. On alarm being raised the E appellant fled away with his weapons. When PW4 and PWS went near the deceased they found him dilad. A First Information Report was lodged and a post· mortem was held. On the basis of the evidence adduc:ed on behalf of the prosecution including that of PW4 and 5, the Trial Coon came to the condusion that F the charge levelled against the appellant was fatty established. \. In the appeal before this Court, on behalf of the appellant it was contended that the intention of the appellant was only to give a thrashing -->-- to the deceased as he was suspected to have stolen his cauliflowers; and that he could not have intended the death of the deceased. G Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. It is establish_ed that the appellant was lying in wait, r duly armed with a barchha and emetged all of a sudden to attack the deceased. The very fact that he did not even spare PW4 his own -'brother H by causing injuries to him when he tried to in'tervene to save the deceased 288 J ,, INDERSINGHv. SfATEOFPB. 289 shows the determination of the appellant. The nature of the weapon and A the seat of the injury, which had caused such extensive damage that the deceased died instantaneously is also indicative of the intention of the appellant. [293-GH, 294-A] 1.2. The deceased had fallen down on receipt of a dang blow and was unarmed. The injury on the neck was caused by the appellant to the B deceased while he lay on the ground. The force with which the injury was given, is amply exhibited by the damage caused and the instantaneous death of the deceased. All these factors disclose the intention of the appellant to cause the fatal injury to the deceased and there is nothing on the record to suggest that the particular injury was "intended" on the C particular part of the body of the deceased. [294-B] 2. The blow aimed by the appellant on the deceased was with the intention of causing the death of the deceased and in any event the appellant must have known that the injury that he was causing with the barcha on the neck of the deceased was so dangerous that it must in all D probability result in the death of the deceased. [294-C] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 36of1985. From the Judgment and Order dated 10.11.84 of the. Judge, Special E Court at Ferozepur in Sessions Case No. 31 of 1984 and Sessions Trial No. 24/84 and F.I.R. No. 184 of 1.4.1984. M.S. Gujral and P.N. Puri for the Appellant. R.S. Suri for the Respondents. F The following Order of the Court was delivered : For the murder of Amar Singh - nephew of appellant Inder Singh, being the son of his brother Goma Singh, PW4, on 31st March, 1984, at about 11.30 p.m. the appellant alongwith Guddar Singh and Banta Singh, G were tried for offences under Section 302134 IPC. The Trial Court ac- quitted Guddar Singh and Banta Singh but convicted the appellant for an offences under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer life imprison- ment. Through this appeal under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984, the appellant questions~ conviction H 290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 2 S.C.R. A and sentence. According to the prosecution case, on the night intervening 31st March, 1984, Amar Singh (deceased) had gone to see off the tractor driver of Seth Madanlal to Jalalabad. He did not return till about 11.30 p.m. His father Gama Singh, PW4 and mother Smt. Rano, PW5 went out in search B for his towards the bus stand. They met Amar Singh on the w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.