LexSARWAN SINGH & ORS ETC versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I- • SARWAN SINGH & ORS ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB August 30, 1978 [JASWANT SINGH AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.J Penal Code, (Act 45), 1860 Section 300 rjw 149-Scope of. 383 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 357(3) (=s. 54 of 1898 Code) object ~t order, to pay compensation to the victim or niembers of the family explained. The deceased Mewa Singh is the brother of the two accused Sarwan Singh and Bachan Singh and the paternal uncle of two other accused Karnail Singh .-and Zora Singh sons of Sarwan Singh, Malkait Singh the other accused is the ·son-in-law of ·Sarwan Singh. They are thus close relatives and there was a dispute over a common khal of the land and pahi. The deceased had put an application before the Revenue Authority a·gairist the accused and the matter was pending when the occurrence took place on 8-9-1969. The deceased was attacked by the accuse~ with deadly weapons resulting in as many as 27 injuries of which injuries 2 and 3 were grievous. The deceased died thei nex~ day in the civil hospital. The cause of <lea.th was shock and haemorrhage and the injiiries were ante-mortem and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The trial court found all the five accused guilty under s. 302 read with s. 149 I.P.C. and punished them tl.loking the view that once the existence of injuries sufficient· to cause death is proved, the intintion to cause death Will be· presumed unless the evidence or the circumstances 'varrant an opposite conclusion. The High Court in appeal found that the common object was clearly to kill the deceased and that the offence fell under s. 300. Thirdly read with 'S. 34 IPC and_ accepted the trial court's Judgment. Dismissing the appeals by special leave the Court, A B c D E HELD: (1) If a person causes an injury with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and when the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is 'Sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause d_eath, the offence would F faJI under clause (iii) of s. 300 and would be punishable under s. 302 '1.P.C. ""----' !387B] - (2) In order to find the person guilty of offence under s. 300 read with s. 149, the prosecution must establish that the offence was committed by any member of a·n unlawful a•sembly in prosecution of the common object of the assembly or such as the members of that assembly· knew it to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. It is, therefore, necessary for the pn;>secution to establish that the common object of the unlawful assembly "\!r\1s to commit an offence under s. 300 or that the members of the assembly knew it to be likely that an offence under s. 300 punishable under s. · 302 IPC would be committed in prosecution of the common object. [387B-D[ G (3) If _the injuries that are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death are traced to a particular iccilsed, ho wD1 be gunty of an otfcnc~ H under s. 300 punishable under s. 302 without) the aid of s. 149, when the injuries caused are cumulatively sufficient to cause death, it is necessary before holding 384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 1 S.C.R. A each of the accused guilty under s. 300 read with s. 149 to find that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause death or that the members of the unlawful assembly kne\v it to be likely that an offence punishable under s. 302 IPC would be committed in prosecution of the common object. [387D- Fl In the instant case, on an analysis of the injuries (a) it cMinot be said that B any of the persons that inflicted injuries intended to cause d·eath or touch injury as is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. (b) T·he circumstance that unexpected quarrel was between the members of the sa-me family over a dispute as to water rights shows that no offence under s. 300 read with sec. 149 IPC punishable under s. 302 IPC has been made out. (c) the common object of the asserrtbly was to cause bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Though the doctor ha<S stated that the injuries were sufficient C in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, it is difficult to hold that the injuries, cun1ulatively, were 'Sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The common object of the assembly in the circumst.ances can only be said to cause injuries· v::hich are likely to cause dea•th \Vhich will be· an offence punishable under section 304(
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.