LexNISHAN SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
· {1008] 4 S.C.R. 500
,\
NISHAN SINGH
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 325 of 2007)
'·
B
MARCH 7, 2008
(S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.)
Penal Code, 1860:
i
' ~
c
Triple murder, one after another - Accused persons in
first murder case attacked by member of victim party resulting
in death of two persons - FIR - Trial Court convicting accused
persons for commission of offence punishable u/s.302 and
s.302 r!w s.34 /PC - Affirmed by High Court - Summoning
accused on the basis of statement of Prosecution witness
D without complying with provisions uls.319 (4) Cr.P.C. -
Correctness of - Held: Correct - Accused was named in FIR
~
but was not charge-sheeted ·- However, evidence of PW1
.,
categorically attributed the role played by him in the
commission of mucder of one and injuring others - On the
E basis of deposition of PW1, fresh charges were framed against
him and he was examined in chief again -
Hence,
requirtJments of sub-section 4 of S.319 Cr.P.C. complied with.
Murder - Plea of false implication - Held: When three
F
murders one after another took place, each had a link with the
other, it cannot be held th~t the informant whose son was also
"'
one of the deceased, would falsely implicate the accused-
Appellants.
Injured witness - Testimony of - Held: PW4-an injured
G witness, had given a complete account of entire occurrence,
there does not exist any reason to disbelieve his testimony.
Murder - Common intention - Held: Both the accused
•
came together- One of them exorted other to open fire - Other
accused opened fire resulting in killing of one and injuring
H
500
NISHAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB
501
.
~
another -
Evidently more than one person involved in A
committing the crime - Hence, s.34 attracted.
Murder - Non-examination of independent witnesses ...:.
Effect of - Held: That by itself not sufficient to disregard the
statement of prosecution witnesses totally.
Acquittal of co-accused - Effect on prosecution case -
Held: Acquittal of one accused would not lead to conclude that
•
~
the entire case of prosecution was false.
B
Infliction of injuries causing death of the victim -
Conviction uls.302 or Part-II of s.304 - Held: Injuries inflicted · C
were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death
of the victim - Hence, Part-II of S.304 /PC not attracted.
· According to the prosecution, on the fateful day,
there was an altercation between one 'RS' and his 0
brothers on one side and the deceased 'R' on the ·other.
Accused 'RS' picked up knife from orie 'P' and inflicted
an injury on the body of the deceased. Other accused also
gave blows from 'dang' injuring the deceased. As a result
of the injuries, deceased died on the spot. As an· off-shoot
to the murder of 'RS', brother of the deceased 'SS' armed E
with 'gandasa' came there and started abusing accused
persons. and gave gandasa blow on the head of one 'D'
(PW4), an accomplice of the accused persons in first
murder case and 'P', had fired a shot at '8', brother of
accused 'H' injuring him. While PW4 and 'H' were" F
proceeding to a hospital in a tractor for treatmentof the
injured persons, on the way, one 'N' at the instance of
brother of the deceased 'RS' fired a shot hitting 'H' as a ;
result whereof the tractor went out of control and dashed I
against a house. 'H' died on the spot. Other injured were ; G
shifted in a mini bus and taken to the Hospital and. an FIR ·
was lodged in the Police Station. Accused-appellant 'N'
•
was charged for commission of an offence punishable u/
s. 302 IPC; brother of the deceased 'RS' was charged u/'..
ss. 307 and 302/34 IPC and another accused 'M' was H
502
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 4 S. C.R.
A charged for commission of offence punishable u/s.302 r/
,.
w S.34 IPC. Trial Court convicted 'N' for commission of
the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code;
'P' was convicted for commission of the offence under
Section 302/34 and 'M' was acquitted of the charges
~
B framed against him. Aggrieved, the accused persons filed
three appeals, of which two were filed in relation to fi~t
incident and another was filod in relation to 3rd incident,
which were dismissed by the High Court. Hence the
~ '
present appeals.
)
c
It was contended for the accused-appellant in the
first murder case that as after summoning the appellant
·in terms of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
-
PVli1 was not examinExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.