JAGTAR SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2015] 7 S.C.R. 1013 · Decided: 19-06-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 7 S.C.R.1013 
JAGTAR SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No.86 of 201 ~, 
JUNE 19, 2015 
[R.K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
A 
8 
Penal Code, 1860- s. 304 Part II read with s. 34 - Land 
dispute between parties - On the fateful day, appellant and 
his brother caught hold of PW3 and when PW 3's uncle tried C 
to intervene, appellant inflicted injuries to uncle, who later 
succumbed to it- Conviction and sentence of both appellant 
and his brother u/s. 304 Part II rw s. 34 - However, High Court 
upheld conviction of the appellant, while acquitted his brother· 
- On appeal, held: Evidence proved the appellant guilty for D 
committing the offence - He was aggressor and had hit the 
deceased - Both ocular and documentary evidence proved 
that motive did exist prior to commission of the crime -
Material evidence duly proved by the eyewitnesses could E 
not be ignored - However, such was not the case of co-
accused and thus, he was given the benefit of doubt- Having 
regard to the nature of injury caused by the appellant to the 
deceased and the manner in which it was caused and taking 
into account the cause of death-shock and hemorrhage, the F 
courts below justified in bringing the case u/s. 304 Part II -
Also the punishment of five years appears to be just and 
proper - Thus, conviction and sentence awarded to the 
appellant by the courts below upheld. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The evidence proved that it was the 
appellant who took the lead, caught hold of deceased 
1013 
G 
H 
1014 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A by his hand, pulled him down to the ground and hit him 
on his head. Due to the head injury, the deceased first 
became unconscious and later succumbed to it. The 
ocular evidence on this issue was properly appreciated 
by the trial court and the High Court for holding the 
B appellant guilty for committing the offence. No 
inconsistency or exaggeration was noticed in the 
evidence adduced by the prosecution on the said issue 
so as to disbelieve the evidence of eyewitnesses account 
and thus, the finding of the High Court is accepted. [Paras 
C 17, 18] [1020-H; 1021-A-C] 
1.2 There was no case to differ with the finding of 
the two courts below on the issue of motive. There was 
enough evidence both ocular and documentary to prove 
D that the motive did exist prior to commission of the crime. 
E 
Thus, in the light of the facts, duly proved by the 
prosecution with the aid of their eyewitnesses, there was 
no good ground to differ with the finding of the High 
Court. [Paras 20, 21, 22] (1022-C-G] 
1.3 The evidence on record in no uncertain terms 
proved that it was the appellant who was the aggressor 
and hit the deceased. This evidence was rightly made 
basis by the two courts to hold the appellant guilty for 
F committing the offence. When the evidence directly 
attributes the appellant for commission of the act, it 
c~nnot be appreciated as to how and on what basis the 
material evidence duly proved by the eyewitnesses 
could be ignored. Such was not the case so far as co-
G accused is concerned. The prosecution witnesses too 
did not speak against the co-accused and hence, was 
given the benefit of doubt. Also the State did not file any 
appeal against his acquittal and hence, that part of the 
H order has attained finality. [Para 24) [1023-B-D] 
JAGTAR SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 
1015 
1.4 The submission for conversion of the conviction A 
of the appellant to s.323/325 IPC or in the alternative to 
reduce the quantum of sentence to the extent of 
appellant already undergone i.e. three years, cannot be 
accepted. Having regard to the nature of injury caused 
by the appellant to the deceased and the manner in B 
which it was caused and taking into account the cause 
of death-shock and hemorrhage, the courts below were 
justified in bringing the case under Section 304 Part II 
instead of bringing the same either under Section 302 
or/and Section 304 Part I. It is apart from th~ fact that the C 
State has not filed any appeal against the impugned order 
seeking conviction of the appellant under Section 302 
or under Section 304 Part I or even for enhancement of 
punishment awarded to the appellant under Section 304 0 
Part II. [Paras 25, 26] [1023-E-H; 1024-A) 
1.5 The punishment of five years appears to be just 
and proper. It could have been even more because 
eventually the incident resulted in death of a person 
though the appellant did not intend 

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