LexPAL SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 231 PAL SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 191 of 2014) FEBRUARY 25, 2014 [DR. 8.5. CHAUHAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860: s.302 - Charge sheet filed against five accused including the petitioners ulss. 148, 3021149, 1208 - Trial court convicted all accused under the charged offences C - During pendency of appeal before High Court, one accused died - High Court acquitted two accused while upheld conviction of petitioners u/s. 302- Plea of petitioners that conviction uls.302 simpliciter for which no charge was ever framed was not proper - Held: Initially, the charges were o framed by trial court uls.302 rlw s.34 and s.120-8 against all the accused persons - Fresh charges were subsequently framed ulss.148, 302, 3021149 and 120-8 - Therefore, the ultimate situation remained that there was ,charge u/ss. 302, 3021149 and 120-8 - It was also on, rec'otd that these two E petitioners had iron rods while tfle otlier three accused were · empty handed - Evidence on record was that petitioner no. 1 raised an exhortation that d~deased be caught hold and should not escape alive and 1gave two iron rod blows on his head - Petitioner no.2 gavfJ two iron rod blows on the person F of deceased put of which one hit his forehead - Version of prosecution apd injuries found on the person of deceased stood proved !by evidence of PWs as well as by deposition of the doctor- Conviction u/s.302 simpliciter is permissible if the court finds that injuries caused by accused were sufficient in G the ordinary course of nature to cause death - Applying this test, both the petitioners can be convicted uls. 302 simpliciter as both of them could be convicted u/ss. 302134 since both came fully armed with iron rods and gave two blows each on 231 H 232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R. A the vital part of the body i.e. head and forehead which proved fatal for the deceased - No interference called for. Nanak Chand v. State of Punjab AIR 1955 SC 27 4: 1955 SCR 1201; Suraj Pal v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1955 SC 8 419 1955 SCR 1332; Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1956 SC 116: 1955 SCR 1140; Dhari & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Al~ 2013 SC 308: 2012 (8) SCR 1219; Amar Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1987 SC 826; Nagamalleswara Rao (K) v. State of A. P. AIR 1991 SC 1075:1991 (1) SCR 87; Nethala Pothuraju v. State of A.P. C AIR 1991 SC 2214: 1991 .(1) Suppl. SCR 4; Mohd. Ankoos v. Pubic Prosecutor AIR 2010 SC 566: 2009 (15) SCR 616 ; Jivan Lal v. State of M.P. (1997) 9 SCC 119: 1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 537 ; Hamlet v. State of Kera/a AIR 2003 SC 3682; Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. AIR 1967 SC 1326; Gurpreet D Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 2006 SC 191: 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 90; S. Ganesan v. Rama Raghuraman & Ors. AIR 2013 SC 840: 2012 (7) SCR 541; Sanichar Sahni v. State of Bihar AIR 2010 SC 3786: 2009 (10) SCR 112; Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 2013 SC 840: 2012 (7) SCR 541 ; E Dhaneswar Mahakud & Ors. v. State of Orissa AIR 2006 SC 1727: 2006 (3) SCR 849 - relied on. Case Law Reference: 1955 SCR 1201 relied on Para 8 F 1955 SCR 1332 relied on Para 9 1955 SCR 1140 relied on Para 10 2012 (8) SCR 1219 relied on Para 11 G AIR 1987 SC 826 relied on Para 11 1991 (1) SCR 87 relied on Para 11 1991 (1) Suppl. SCR 4 relied on Para 11 H 2009 (15) SCR 616 relied on Para 11 PAL SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB 233 1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 537 relied on Para 11 A AIR 2003 SC 3682 relied on Para 11 AIR 1967 SC 1326 relied on Para 11 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 90 relied on Para 11 B 212 (7) SCR 541 relied on Para 11 2009 (10) SCR 112 relied on Para 12 2012 (7) SCR 541 relied on Para 13 c 2006 (3) SCR 849 relied on Para 15 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 191 of 2014. From the Judgment and Order dated 04.07.2013 of the D High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2005. Pramod Swarup, Pareena Swarup, Syed Tabinda, Sushma Verma, Akshay Verma, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Satpal E Singh for the petitioners. The Order of the Court was delivered by DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This special leave petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 4.7.2013 F passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. D-14-DB of 2005, maintaining the conviction and sentence of life imprisonme
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.