LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus GURLABH SINGH AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 853 " STATE OF PUNJAB A v. GURLABH SINGH AND ANOTHER (Criminal Appeal Nos. 178-179 of 2009) MAY 12, 2009 B [S.B. SINHA, HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 300, thirdly - Fatal gun shot injury to victim - Shot fired by accused on exhortion by co-accused c - Co-accused armed with gun - Conviction of accused u/s. 302 and co-accused uls 302134 as a/so s.29 Arms Act - High Court convicting accused u/s. 304 (Part I) and co-accused u/ s. 304 (Part I) IW s.34 holding that accused exercised right of private defence - Justification of - Held: On facts, case falls D under s.300, thirdly-All injuries were simple in nature - High Court erred in holding that accused exercised right of private defence - More so, said case not pleaded by accused - Depositions of informant and prosecution witness consistent and corroborated by medical evidence - Non-disclosure of E injuries sustained by gunman not fatal to prosecution case - Co-accused was holder of licenced gun and kept it loaded - _. It was in possession of third party and used for wrongful purpose. In these appeals, the order of High Court convicting F the accused GS u/s. 304 (Part I) and accused RN u/s. 304 (Part I) rw s.34 and sentencing both of them to rigorous imprisonment for eight years, is under challenge. Allowing the appeal of the State and dismissing the G .. appeal of the accused, the Court HELD: 1.1. The fact that the deceased along with the other students had boarded a bus and were going to their 853 H 854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R. A college is not in dispute. PW-1, in his evidence clearly stated that the bus was stopped by the accused persons, who were traveling in a gypsy and the deceased was dragged out. [Para 11) [862-A-B] 8 1.2. It is assumed that a scuffle ensued between the accused on the one hand and the deceased and the prosecution witnesses on the other. It, however, stands admitted that the barrel of the gun was towards the earth. The first shot which was fired, did not have any space to exist as a result whereof it bursted. While the scuffle was C going on to snatch the gun, it would be wholly unlikely that the second shot would hit the top of head of the deceased in such a manner. Autopsy Surgeon, PW-4 in his report showed the place where the deceased suffered the gun-shot injury, in the sketch attached thereto. The D place of injury was the top of the head. If the barrel of the gun was facing the ground any accidental fire could have hit the lower part of the body and not the head of the deceased. Therefore, the submission that deceased not only alighted from the bus but assaulted them and MS E with a sharp edged weapon and tried to snatch the gun from him cannot be accepted. [Para 14) [863-F-H; 864-A] 1.3. Both the courts below relied upon the depositions of BS-PW 1, informant and MH-PW 2. No F inconsistency in their statements having been pointed out and even otherwise having regard to the defence raised by the accused, there is no reason to differ therewith. [Para 15) [864-B-C] 1.4. The first informant was a student. He even, as G stated by the Investigating Officer, was very perplexed and made his statement when asked to do so very hurriedly. A supplementary statement was also prepared but the same was not signed by him. If, therefore, injuries sustained by MS had not been disclosed, the same would H .. .. STATE OF PUNJAB v. GURLABH SINGH AND ANR. 855 not make much difference for the purpose of arriving at A a different conclusion. [Para 15] [864-D] 1.5. Right of private defence cannot be raised because one of the accused had suffered some minor injuri~s or the prosecution has not explained the same. 8 All the injuries were simple in nature. They were not such which would have prompted the accused to take recourse to their right of private defence. [Paras 16 and 20] [865-B; 867-E] 1.6. GS filed application for getting himself examined C in the Hospital. The said application was dismissed. It itself goes to show that the Magistratd did not find any truth therein. Moreover, the occurrence took place a week before. Although the accused raised a plea that they also intended to lodge the first information report but the same D was not proved. It may be true that MS was discharged during the course of trial but that should not have deterred accused persons from examining him, particularly when they exa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.