LexSUNDER SINGH AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962
Pa/akdha-ri Sint.h
v,
The State of
Uttar Pradesh
Kapur J.
1902
. Ji.nuo')' lfl.
Q54 SUPREME COUR't·REPORTS [1!56~) SUPP.
revision does not, unless specifically ordered, arrest
the operation cif the order of passing of the sen-
tence of conviction.
In the present case the limi-
tation started from the date of conviction by the
Panchavati Adalat and not from 'the date of dismis-
sa1 of i{evision by the High Court.
We.ther~fore allow this appeal, s·et aside the
order ·of the High Court aJJ,d restore that of the
learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated February
u, 1958.
Appeal Allowed.
ONDER SINGH AND OTHERS
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. C. DAS GUPTA and
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.)
Criminal
'I'rial~Acquittal of one
acc1ued-No appeal
against acquittal--Appeal to High Oaurt by other convicted
accu~ed-Power of High Court-Whether can con8ider correctness
of th' acquittal-Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (Act jj of
1898), s. 423.
Four. persons S, G, L and R were tried for offences
under s. ?.02 read with 34 ln.dian P<;_nal Code. The Sessions
Judge gave the benefit of doubt to I) and acquitted him but
·he convicted the other three of the' offences charged and
sentence them to death.
No appeal was
preferred against·
the acquittal o( R. but the three convicted persons appealed
ro the High Court .. •The High Court was of the view,that the
se~sions Judge was wr0ng in giving the benefit of doub.t, to R,
th::it R was present at the scene of offence and all the four
accused had the common intention alleged by the prosecution,
Relying upon the evidence of the eye witness it dismissed the
appeal, but reduced the sentence of G.to life imprisonr:ient.
The appellants conten~ed that the High Court ha.d .. 110 Juris-
diction or authority to embark upoh an enquiry Into 'the
propriety or validity of the acquittal of Rand that its.finding
that R had
ta.ken part in
t~e offen~e .as . allege~\ b¥ the
prosecution had introduced a serious 1nf!rm1ty in the Jµdgment
of the High Court.
1
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
65.i
field, that it was open to the High Court, when consi-
dering the whole of the evidence in resprct of the accused per-
sons, to consider it so far as it related to the acquitted accused
also. One of the grounds on which the appellants had attacked
the prosecution evidence was that it had not been accepted
by the Trial Court against R.
In dealing with this question
the High Court had necessarily to deal with the case against
R and there was no legal bar ag,1inst it doing so.
Besides,
the Trial Court had not held that the evidence against R was
false ; it had merely found that the case against his was not
free from reasonable doubt.
The King v. Plumber (1902) 2 K. B. D. 339; Pritam
Singh v. State of Punjab, A. I. R. 1956 S. C. 415 and
Bimbadhar Pradhan v. The State of Ori8sa, ( 1956) S. C.R. 206
referred to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRISDICTIO"'° : Criminal
Appeal No. 100 of 196l.
Appeal by special leave. from the Judgment
and Order dated February 24, 1961, of the Punjab
High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1961 and
Murder Reference No. 9 of 196l.
Jai Gopal Seth1:, C.. L. Sareen and R. L. Kohli,
for the appellants.
A. S. R. Chari, Gopal Singh and P. D .. Menon,
for the respondent.
1962. January 19.-The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
1962
Su11tfer Singh
v.
Thi Stale of Punjab
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. The three appellants,
o,/md,.gadka• J.
Sunder Singh and his sons Lal Singh and Gurmukh
Singh along with one Rachhpal Singh were tried
before the learned Additional
Ses~ions Judge,
Karna! with having committed the offence of
murdering Malook Singh, Anup Singh and Darbara
~ingh on January 13, 1960, at about 11 A.M.
in the Abadi of village Hahri. The prosecution
case, was that these three murders were committed
by the four accused persons in furtherance of their
common intention; at the time when the offence
was committed, Sunder Singh and Gurmukh Singh
were armed with •Lathis' and Lal Singh and
1962
SutUkr Sf,,g!r
v.
Tiu Stalt of />un.jnl1
Gaitndragadlutr .J.
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
Rachhpal Singh wero armed with guns. According
to tho charge farmed against tho accused persons,
LR! Singh firoo upon Malook Singh and Darbara
Sinizh and thereby killed them, while Raohhpal
Singh fired upon Anup Singh and killed him. This
firing took plaoe in pursuance of the <'ommon
intRntion of All tho accusl"d per8ons. Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.