RAGHUBIR SINGH AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB ETC.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 389 · Decided: 13-03-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAGHUBIR SINGH AND ORS. ETC. 
A 
,.)._ 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB ETC. 
MARCH 13, 1996 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 : 
Sections 302, 149 and 34-Accused person anned with weapo11s fom1-
ing ll11lawflll assembly-Common object limited to attack 011e person-Two c 
of them inflicted fatal blows on deceased when he i11tervened in the qllar-
ref-Held, the accltsed who actually caused fatal iiijwies, would be co11victed 
for murder-Rest of the accused were liable only for causing wievous hun by 
being members of a11 u11lawflll assembly. 
Section 302-Murder--lntention a11d know/edge-Deceased received D 
"I' 
fatal blows whe11 inte1ve11ed in the quarrel-lnjwies on vital pans of the 
bodies with greater force, fow1d to be i11tentional and 11ot accident-Evide11ce 
of injured eye-witnesses was corroborated by the medical evidence-Held, 
even in the absence of the motive guilt of accused can be established, if the 
evidence on record is reliable and trnstlvorthy-hence, accused liable to be E 
convicted. 
The appellants A, R-1, J-1, J-2 and R-2 were alleged to have com-
milted murder of deceased B and caused grievous injuries to PW-6. They 
were tried for various offences and convicted by the Trial Court. R·l and 
J-2 were convicted under section 302 !PC, while the remaining three F 
co-accuse were ae<Jliitted in respect of the offence under section 302/149 
IPC. But all of them were convicted under section 148 IPC. J-2 was also 
convicted under section 325 IPC, while the rest of the accused were 
convicted under section 325/149 IPC. R-1 was convicted for the offence 
under section 323 !PC, while rest of the accused were convicted under G 
Section 323/149 !PC. 
-~ -
According to the Prosecution, H received some threatening letter 
from some extremist and thereafter he started living with his brother B, 
the deceased. He also moved an application before the District Magistrate 
for permission to carry his own weapon for self-defence. The said applica- H 
389 
' 
390 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
lion was objected to by the appellants J·l and R-1 and on that account 
relations between them became strained. PW-6 brought about some com-
promise between J-1 and D, which was also resented to by the accused and 
alleged to be a motive for the assault. On the same day, while PW-6 was 
returning from his tubewell appellant R-1, armed with a gandasi arrived 
B there and started retorting him for bringing about the said compromise. 
On counter-retort from PW-6 appellant R-1 raised a lalkara, on which J-1 
and J-2 armed with gandasi, R-1 armed with datri came over there, with 
two other unknown person. Meanwhile, A Also arrived and raised the 
lalkara, on which R-1 alleged to have given a gandasi blow from its wrong 
side on the right forearm of PW-6, while the appellant J-1 gave a gandasi 
C blow from its wrong side on his left-thigh. All the accused thereafter caused 
injuries to him with their respective weapons. In the meanwhile, the 
deceased and PW-7 reached therP and witnessed the assault and asked the 
appellants not to beat PW-6, on which appellant A again raised a lalkara 
saying that since the real enemy had arrived, he should not be spared. R-1 
D thereupon gave a gandasi blow on the head of the deceased, while J-1 gave 
a gandasi blow from its wrong side on the back of the head of the deceased, 
On receipt of the injuries, the deceased fell down and the appellants, 
7' 
thereafter, left the place alongwith their respective weapons. The deceased 
succumbed to the injuries at the spot itself. 
E 
Statement of PW-6 was recorded and formal F.I.R. was registered. 
F 
G 
During the course of the investigation, R-1 and J-2, gave disclosure state-
ments, through which the weapons were recovered. The Trial Court relied 
upon the evidence and accordingly convicted the appellants. 
Aggrieved by the order, the appellants and the complainant (PW-6) 
both flied appeal before this Court. The appellants challenged the convic-
tion and the complainant challenged the acquittal of three accused from 
the offence under section 302/149. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. The trial court had rightly observed from the evidence 
that all the accused were present at the time of the occurrence with the 
• • 
common motive to attack PW-6 and on a lalkara by appellant A, they 
actually attacked PW-6 and caused injuries. This way, the accused formed 
an unlawful assembly carrying weapons, which were used

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