LexPARAMJIT SINGH@ MITHU SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY (HOME)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A PARAMllT SINGH@ MITHU SINGH v_ STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY (HOME) OCTOBER 31, 2007 B [P.P. NAOLEKAR AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: C S. 302134-Murder-Four accused attacking victim with 'gandas '-Death of victim-HELD: In order to convict an accused vicariously u/s 34, it is not necessary to prove that each and every one of the accused had indulged in inflicting deadly injuries-It is enough if evidence discloses that overt act of any of the accused in the group was done in furtherance of common intention-On facts, D common intention of appellant is evident from the fact that he was -r-. - armed with 'gandas ', a deadly weapon, and inflicted two injuries on i ;.___ the victim-All accused attacked the victim and caused injuries in furtherance of common intention to murder him-Thus, nature .of injuries caused by appellant and their sufficiency in ordinary course E to cause death pales into insignificance. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: S.154-FIR-Delay in lodging-HELD: Sequence of events clearly reveals that there was no unexplained or unreasonable delay_ F in lodging FIR. · . FIR and DDR maintained under Punjab Police Rules-Difference in contents of-HELD: Photocopy of DDR indicating different version and filed four years after closure of evidence cannot be relied on- G Besides, the Punjab Police Rules whereunder DDR is prepared cannot override provisions of Cr PC-Version of contents of FIR cannot in all cases be tested with reference to entries made in DDR. Evidence: H 776 r., A PARAMJITSINGH@MITHUSINGHv. STATEOF 777 ~-;- PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY (HOME) Oral evidence of eye witness not corresponding to number and A situs of injuries found on dead body of victim-HELD: would not make presence of witness at scene of occurrence doubtful. Investigation-HELD: A defect or procedural irregularity in investigation itself cannot vitiate or nullify the trial. B ,,;., The appellant (A-4), his two brothers (A-1 and A-2) and a nephew (A-3) were prosecuted for offence punishable under s.302/ 34 IPC for causing death of their own brother. The prosecution case was that father of A-3 wanted to sell his house which was resisted by the deceased. On this, the accused developed a grudge against c him. On 6-5-1989 about 7 P.M. the accused attacked the deceased with 'gandasas' and a 'Sumewali Dang' in the presence of PW-3 who raised an alarm whereupon PW-4 and a female member of the family reached the place of occurrence. The accused fled away. The victim was first taken to his farm house and then to the primary health D J t centre. The doctor (PW-6) referred the victim to the Civil Hospital. Later, the victim died in the Civil Hospital the same night and thereafter PW-3 lodged an FIR at about 1.15 A.M. en 7.5.1989. The trial court acquitted all the accused holding, inter alia, that there was delay in lodging the FIR; the prosecution version that the accused E were armed with 'gandasas' was not supported by the contents of the DDR which mentioned that accused were armed with 'sotis'; presence of PW-3 and PW-4 at the place of occurrence was unlikely as they did not intervene when the victim was being assaulted; and ocular version of PW-4 did not correspond with the medical evidence F .... as regards the number and the situs of the injuries on the dead body . .. On appeal, the High Court reversed the findings of the trial court and convicted A-3 u/s 302 and A-4 u/s 302/34 IPC. In the instant appeal filed by A-4, supporting the findings of the trial court, it was additionally contended for the appellant that the G ,,. .. ~ injuries inflicted by him were not sufficient to cause death of the victim and, as such, the common intention to kill was not evident and, therefore, the appellant could not be convicted u/s 302 with the aid ofs.34 IPC. H 778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R. A Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The sequence of the events clearly reveals that there was no unexplained and unreasonable delay in lodging the FIR. The evidence available on record reveals that the incident took place on 6.5.1989 at 7.00 p.m in a village. The injured was first taken to B his farm house a1;1d thereafter to the Primary Health Center, in a bullock cart at 9.10 p.m .. PW-6, the doctor, who attended the injured sent the ruqa to the police station at 9.25 p.m., and referred the injured to the Civil Hospital. The evidence of PW
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.