PARAMJIT AND ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 10 · Decided: 26-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
P ARAMJIT AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
SEPTEMBER 26, 1996 
(DR. A. S. ANAND AND K. T. THOMAS, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860--Sections 302 and 299 Expl.2--Murder-ln-
tention--lnjuries caused on vital parts of the body with a sharp edged 
kllif e--Dying declaration narrating not only about motive but also about the 
C manner in which the assault was committed on him--Injwies found on the 
deceased. sufficient to cause death-Evidence of eyewitness corroborated by 
dying declaration and medical evidence--H eld, the appellant had requisite 
intention to cause death of the deceased. 
Sections 34 and 302/34--Common illtention-Appellant 2 taking the 
D deceased in his grip to render him immobile and giving no chance to escape 
Appellant 1 inflicting fatal inju:ies with a knif e--Held, Appellant 2 can be 
said to have shared the common intention with Appellant 1 to commit murder 
of the deceased-Situation may have been somewhat different had Appellant 
2 not been aware that Appellant 1 was anned with a knife. 
E 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872--S ection 32--Dying declaration recorded by 
AS! at 3.45 p.m.-Held, Fact that his blood pressure not recordable at 4.20 
p.m. does not lead to inference that he could not have made the dying 
declaration at 3.45 p.m. 
• 
F 
According to the prosecution case, on 25-12-85 Appellant No.1 
passed some indecent remarks on some girls near the village well. When 
the deceased reprimanded hitm for this misconduct, the Appellants 
declared that they would teach a lesson to deceased for becoming a 'dada'. 
On seeing deceased washing his clothes near the radewala well, in the 
G afternoon, the appellants rushed towards him and announced that they 
had come to teach him a lesso111. Appellant no. 2 took the deceased in his 
grip while Appellant no.1 inflicted fatal injuries with a sharp edged knife 
on the chest and thigh of the deceased. 
The occurence was witnessed by PW 5 and Sunder Lal. The deceased 
H was taken to village Sampla where his statement was recorded by ASI at 
10 
.. 
-
./I> 
PARAMJITv. STATE 
11 
abott 3.45 p.m., on the basis of which a case was registered. On examination A 
of the deceased by PW 1 at 4.20 p.m. at hospital, Sampla, the deceased'$ 
condition was found to be serious and deceased was referred to Medical 
college at Rohtak where he succumed to his injuries. 
On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Designated Court 
convicted Appellant no.1 for offences under Section 302 IPC and under B 
Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 6 of TADA and 
sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and 
to 2 years RI on each of the two counts under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act 
and Section 6 of TADA. Appellant No.2 was convicted under Section 302/34 
IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Hence this statutory C 
appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. Appellant 1 had the requisite intention to commit the 
• > 
murder of the deceased and his offence, therefore, would squarely fall D 
under Section 302 IPC, as rightly held by the trial court. [17-C] 
2. Appellant 2 shared the common intention with Appellant 1 to 
commit the murder of the deceased. [17-D] 
3. PW 5 supported the prosecution case in its entirety. The evidence E 
of PW 5 is fully corroborated by the dying declaration Ex. PO and his name 
i;.. 
finds a mention in the said dying declaration. The medical evidence 
rendered by PW 1 and PW 3 also fully supports the ocular testimony of 
PW 5. [14-H; 15-B] 
4. The non-examination of S who witnessed the occurence alongwith 
PW 5, does not affect the prosecution case. He was given up as won over. 
Since the evidence of PW 5 has impressed the court and his evidence has 
remained totally unshaken, the non-production of S is of no Consequence. 
[15-D] 
5. Besides the evidence of PW 5, there is also the dying declaration 
Ex.PO on the record. That dying declaration fully supports the evidence 
of PW 5. [15-E] 
F 
G 
6. The conviction and sentence of both the appellants is Well merited. 
[17-G] H 
12 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
243 of 1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.4.87 of the Designated Court 
at Rohtak, Haryana in Session Case No.124 of 1986. 
K.B. Rohtagi for the Appellants. 
Prem Malhotra for the Respondent. 
R.C. Verma for complainant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ANAND, J. This 

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