LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus JOGINDER SINGH AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ST A TE OF PUNJAB \ v. JOGINDER SINGH AND ANR. OCTOBER 29, 2003 B [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. AGRA WAL, JJ.] Penal Code, I 860 : c S. 304(Part-II)-Quarrel between accused and victim over money- ' Accused pressing neck of victim, who was a frail person-Death of victim-· Trial court convicting accused and his companion uls 302 rlw s.34- Acquittal by High Court disbelieving prosecution case-Held, High Court seriously flawed in disbelieving evidence of eye witness-As regards delay D in sending FIR, keeping in view the disturbed conditions prevailing in the locality, few hours delay is of no. consequence-Acquittal of accused was not correct as prosecution has satisfactorily proved that accused strangulated the deceased-Companion of the accused did not cause any injury to deceased-Both the accused and his companion came to house of deceased E just to demand the money borrowed by the latter-It is not possible to assume that the companion of accused had common intention with him for commission of any offence-As regards the accused, he was not armed with any weapon-When deceased was not in a position to pay the money, accused got flared up and pressed his neck which caused his death-Post- F mortem report shows that deceased was frail and slight pressure on his neck must have resulted in death-It cannot be said that by using such force accused had any intention to cause death, though he could be attributed with knowledge that his act would cause death of the victim-Accordingly accused is guilty of offence punishable u!s 304 Part-I/ and is sentenced to six years RI-Delay in filing FIR-Common intention. G CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. ( 1783 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 6.9.95 of the Punjab and Haryana H High Court in Crl. A. No. 258-DB of 1993. ~ 1164 ST A TE v. JOGINDER SINGH 1165 Bimal Roy Jad, Ms. Sunita Pandit for the Appellant. Vivhu Bakhru, Vivek Sibal and A.P. Medh for the Respon\J..c:nts. The Order of the Court was delivered : This •s an appeal preferred by the State of Punjab against the acquittal of two a.ccused persons namely Joginder Singh and Nachhattar Singh. These two accused persons were tried by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, for having caused death or Makhan Singh. The Sessions Judge found both A B of them guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and C sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by the same they filed appeal before the High Court and the High Court was pleased to find them not guilty and acquitted them of the charges framed against them under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The acquittal of these accused is challenged before us. The incident happened at about l 0 p.m. on 20.4.1992. The deceased Makhan Singh was the son of PW-2 Gurdial Singh. On the date of incident Makhan Singh and his brother Amrik Singh returned to their house after D the days work. They were about tv take meals. when accused Joginder Singh and Nachhattar Singh came there and demanded hundred rupees E from Makhan Singh which he had borrowed from accu~ed Joginder Singh. Makhan Singh was not in a position to pay Rs. I 00, but Joginder Singh insisted that money should be paid immediately and he started abusing Makhan Singh and others. Joginder Singh then caught hold of him by tuft and dragged him towards his house. PW-2 Gurdial Singh and his son F Amrik Singh followed and Gurdial Singh implored not to kill his son. Joginder Singh kicked Makhan Singh on his chest and pressed his neck with his hands. According to the prosecution Nachhattar Singh set on the legs ofMakhan Singh. Bearing alarm raised by PW-2 Gurdial Singh, three other persons came to the scene of occurrence. Accused Joginder Singh G and Nachhattar Singh ran away from the place. Makhan Singh who was lying on the floor unconsciously was brought to the house of PW-2. An attempt was made to pour water in his mouth but he died immediately. PW- 2 contacted Dharam Singh, Sarpanch, of the village in the night itself and as it was the time of disturbed conditions in that area he could not go to H 1166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R . .. , · A the police station to lodge FIR and on the next day. at 7.20 a.m. he gave first infonnation statement which was recorded by the ASL PW-I to PW-6 were examined on the side of the prosecution. PW- who conducted the post-mortem examination found as many ·as nine B inj
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.