LexSHER SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1228 SHER SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 1071 of 2009 Etc.) DECEMBER 16, 2010 [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: ss. 3021149, 3231149 and 148 - Several persons attacking complainant party and causing death of one of them and injuries to two others - Conviction by trial court - High Court converting conviction uls 3021149 into s.304 (Part//)/ o 149 - HELD: High Court was influenced in its decision as the injuries were largely caused on non-vital part of the body - However, keeping in view the large number of injuries and multiple fractures and some injuries on vital parts as also the report of the doctor that the injuries were sufficient in the E ordinary course of nature to cause the death, the intention of the accused to kill was evident - Pleas of alibi of two accused and shifting of the site of incident by prosecution not established - Judgment of High Court set aside and that of trial court restored - Evidence - Medical evidence. F Evidence: Several accused attacking complainant party and causing death of one of them - Plea of accused that injuries on one of the defence witnesses were not explained by G prosecution - HELD: On facts, in spite of the suggestion on the day of incident, the X-Ray of the defence witness was taken after a month - Besides, the X-Ray film not being available, the doctor could not comment on duration of the injuries - There was no evidence to connect the injuries with H 1228 SHER SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 1229 the incident and, as such, prosecution was not called upon A to explain the injuries - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3021149, 3231 149 and 148. FIR - Delay in registration of - HELD: On facts, even presuming that there was some delay, it looses all 8 significance - Presence of the two injured witnesses, who were the wife and the son of deceased, was admitted by the defence - The place of incident, Primary Health Centre, the Civil Hospital, and the Police Station, all were far from each other - Besides, when the deceased is the husband and the eye- C witness is the wife, she would be overwhelmed and completely distraught by the turn of events and if there is some delay in recording her statement, that cannot be taken against prosecution in any way - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.3021149, 3231149 and 148. D The appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1071 of 2009 and 1294/2009, along with others, were prosecuted for causing death of one 'US' and causing injuries to his wife (PW-1) and son (PW-6). The case of the prosecution was that on 29.9.1991, when the complainant party were E harvesting their 'Bajra crop', accused 'BS' and others armed with 'axe', 'bankri', 'jailli' and 'lathis' reached there at 6.00 A.M. and attacked 'US' exhorting that he had interfered in the purchase of agricultural land. When PW• 1 and PW-6 tried to intervene, they were also attacked. F The accused then lifted 'US' to the tube well of accused 'BS' and leaving him there ran away. On coming to know of the incident, some persons from the village reached there and took the three injured to the Primary Health Centre. PW-1 and PW-6 were discharged after their G medical examination, but 'US' was referred to the Civil Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries at 1.10 P.M. the same day. Initially, a charge-sheet against accused 'BS' and his sons, 'MR', 'DR' and 'SR' was filed. Subsequently, accused 'SS', 'RJ', 'HR' and Smt. 'R' were H 1230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A also summoned u/s 319 CrPC. The stand of the accused was that there was a dispute between deceased 'US' and accused 'BS' because of sale of certain land, and at about 6.00 A.M. on the day of the incident when DW-9 was working in her fields and accused 'DR' was B ploughing the land, the complainant party armed with 'kasis' and 'bankris' attacked DW-9 and accused 'DR'. Meanwhile new arrivals inflicted injuries on the complainant party in defence. Accused 'SS' and his son 'HR' pleaded alibi. However, the trial court convicted and c sentenced accused 'DR', 'MR', 'SR', 'SS' and 'HR' u/ss 302/149, 323/149 and 148 IPC. Accused 'RJ' and Smt. 'R' were acquitted. On appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction u/s 302/149 IPC and convicted the accused u/ s 304 (Part 11)/149 IPC with a sentence of 5 years RI and 0 fine of Rs.50,000/- each, while maintaining the other se
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.