LexNARAIN SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962 -- 1'·aliOnal lion dJ ' SIL_n Co.Lid • •• Th4ir Workmm ' Mudhcliar J. 1982 6,8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS'[1963j discontent, which is something which must be avoided in the interest of the industry as well as the workmen. For the reasons stated above we quash the award ill so far as it relates to the fixation of targets in the various departments of the appellent, fixation of rate of incentive bonus for time-rate workmen as well as piece·mte workmen and extension of the scheme to non-productive depart- ments and remand the dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication after appointing assessors, considering all relevant material placed before it by the parties to the dispute and make a fresh award in the light of our observations. The rest of the award is affirmed. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal allowed case nmanded in part. NARAIN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAI: (JAFAR IMAM, J.C. S:Q:AH and J,R. MUDHOl.1Ll.R, JJ.) Criminal Trial-Murder-Prosecution evidence discar- dea-Convictwn on statement of accusea....:.statement pertly exculpatory and partly inculpatory-lf must. be used as a whole-,--Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898(Act V of 1898), •• 342. The appellant and three others were charged with the murder of B. The prosecution case was that there was a dispute between B and the accused over diverting the flow of water in the fields, that the appellant armed with a stick and the others with spear, kaholi and salang assaulted B and B died of the injuries infliced. In his state· ment under s. 342 Code of Criminal Procedure the appel- ant stated that B had thrown him on the i:round and had - "'""-. 9 S.d.R. St:tPR:EME dOURT REPORTS attempted to strangulate him whereupon the took out his kirpan and struck B in self defence. The Sessions Judge disbelieved the prosecution evidence and acquitted the three other accused persons ; but he convicted the appellant under s.304 Part II Indian Penal Code relying on a part of his statement in which he admitted having strick blows but rejecting the part that B attempted to strangulate him. He held that the only apprehension which the appellant could 'have was of simple hurt which did not give him the right to eause the death of B. On appeal the High Court confirmed the conviction. Held, that the conviction of the. appellant under s.304 Part II Indian Penal Code could not stand. In convicting the appellant the courts l>elow had accepted a case which was not the case of the prosecution but had relied only upon a part of the statement of the appellant made in his qefence. It was not open to the courts to dissect the statement and to pick o•lt the incriminating part and. to reject the excul· patory part on the ground that it was not supported by evidence. If in his statement the accused confesses to the commission of the offence charged he may be oonvicted upon that confession, but if he does not confess and sets up his own version and seeks to explain his conduct pleading that he has committed no offence, the statement can only be taken into consideration in its entirety. Taking the statement ot the appellant in its entirety, he had an apprehension that i w.as attempting to strangulate him and this gave him the right of defence of person extending even to causing the death of the assailant. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JurusnroTlON: Criminal Appeal No. 218 of 1959. Appeal by special leave from the .Tudgm.ent and order dated September 8, 1959, of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Appeal No.354 of 1969. Frank .Anthony, K. 0. Agarwala and P. O. Agarwala for the appellant. R. K. Khanna and P. D. Menon, for the respondent. 1962. August 21. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 1963 Narain Sinifi •• Stah of PfifljJJb . 1901 JV ar"ain s ingl~ .... ·. v . . ~tati t>j Pun}ab $heh J. 680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS Ll963] SHAH, J.--After arguments were concluded. in ' ·this appeal we ordered that the appellant Narain t)ingh be acquitted of the offence under s. 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code of which he wag convicted and the sentence passed on him be set as1qe. We proceed to set out our reasons in support of ~he order. Narain Singh and bis three nephews-Mebar Singh, Mewa Singh and Pakhar Singh-were tried before the Court of Session, Ludhiana for offences punishable under s. 302 read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the charge that on October 31, 1958, they had in furtheranc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.