PIPAL SINGH ETC versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 545 · Decided: 12-12-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

PlPAL SINGH ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
DECEMBER 12, 2000 
(S. RAJENDRA BABU AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code. 1860 
Section 302 r/w Section 3-1--Conviction under- Acquittal of other 
accused Held, even in view of the acquittal conviction by involving Section C 
34 In the facts of the case justified Conviction cannot be altered to under 
Section 304 Part II. 
Section 34- .Co11mon intention-Determination of -To determine the 
common intent: '>11, the nature of injuries, background of the incident and the D 
nature of weapon used to cause the injuries besides other factors are needed 
to be considered. 
Appellants along with several others were charged with offence under 
Section 302/34 and 323/34. Trial Court convicted the appellants along with 
some others for the offences, while others were acquitted. In appeal, High E 
Court held that the appellants had common intention to cause murder of the 
deceased and confirmed the conviction on finding that two injuries were caused 
by the appellants which were fatal in the ordinary course of nature. In appeal 
to this Court, the appellants contended that they could not be convicted under 
Section 302 by involving Section 34 in view of acquittal of other accused and 
that they could be convicted only under Section 304 Part II. 
F 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. Even where some out of several accused are acquitted, it is 
open to the Court to consider whether remaining accused were guilty of an 
offence by involving Section 34 IPC by reason of having committed the offence G 
along with others acquitted. With a view to determine the common intention, 
the nature of injuries, background of the incident and the nature of weapon 
used to cause the injuries besides other factors are needed to be considered. 
There is no principle in law which prevents from adopting this course. 
545 
f547-CI H 
546 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
2. In view of the evidence alleged against the accused, and the manner 
B 
in which they have committed the same, it is clear that Section 304 Part II 
would not arise. [547-E[ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 432 
of 1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.8.97 of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court in Crl. A. No. 406of1994. 
WITH 
C 
Criminal Appeal No. 433of1999. 
K. Sarda Devi for the Appellants. 
Ms. Rupind~r Wasu and Rajiv Dutta for the Respondent. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by : 
RAJENDRA BABU, J. Pipal Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 432 
of 1999 and Mukhtiar Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 433 of 1999, 
were accused along with several others for having caused the death of 
Sardara Ram and injuries to Sukhdev Raj when they were entering their own 
E land. The learned Sessions Judge sentenced the appellants along with certain 
others to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs: 5000 each or in 
default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one 
year under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC for murder and further 
sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for simple hurt 
F 
under Section 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and both the sentences to 
run concurrently. On appeal the High Court reappraised the evidence adduced 
before the trial court and came to the conclusion that the appellants had a 
common cause and had come together duly armed at a place which was in 
possession of the deceased with the common intention to commit the crime 
and they left the scene of the occurrence also together with their respective 
G weapons. The High Court recorded the two injuries found on the dead body 
of the deceased, viz., (i) T-shaped incised wound 15 ems x 2 ems by I 0 x 2 
ems on right parietal region, underlying bone, scalp and brain were cut, and 
(ii) incised wound 5 x 1.5 ems, 5 ems behind injury No. I and that injury No. 
(ii) was bone deep and the doctor opined that injuries Nos. (i) and (ii) were 
fatal in the ordinary course of nature. The evidence put forth before the court 
H was that while Pipal Singh caused the first injury, injury No. 2 was said to 
PIPAL SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB (RAJENDRA BABU, J.) 
547 
-----
have been caused by Mukhtiar Singh. That evidence had been believed by A 
\ 
the High Court. 
_j 
The learned counsel for the appellants put forth two contentions, namely, 
(I ) the effect of acquittal of other accused in the case on sentencing accused 
under Section 302 !PC by involvi

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