LexSURESH SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
t
I
SURESH SINGH AND ANR.
A
.,..J
v.
STATEOFHARYANA
OCTOBER 1, 2007
. [C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.)
B
>-
Penal Code, 1860:
s. 304 (part-II) rlw s. 149-Conviction under-Plea for a liberal c
view in awarding punishment-Conviction u/s 3021149 converted by
High Court into one u!s 304 (part-II) with regard to one accused and
304 (part II) rlw s. 149 with regard to other five accused-Slentence
of 7 years RI imposed on all the six accused-Accused convicted uls
304 (part JI) died-Three others having served the sentence, their D
appeal became in.fructuous-Remaining two pleading/or a liberal view
_;...
in awarding punishment on the ground that they were not convicted
for the substantive offence but with the aid of s. 149-HELD: On facts,
sentence reduced to RI for 5 years.
The two appellants (A-3 and A-6) were prosecuted with four others E
(A-1, A-2, A-4 to A-5) for causing the death of the son of the complainant
(PW-3) and grievous injuries to PW-3 and PW-5. The trial Court
convicted all the six accused inter alia uls. 302 r/w s. 149 IPC and
sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life. On appeal, the High F
Court converted the conviction of A-1 to one u/s. 304 (part-II) IPC and
that of A-2 to A-5 to one u/s. 304 (Part-II) read with s.149 IPC, and
sentenced all the accused to rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
However, the accused, not satisfied with the judgment of the High Court,
filed the instant appeal.
G
During the pend ency of the case before the Supreme Court, A-1
died; and A-2, A-4 and A-5 having already undergone the sentence
awarded, their appeal became infructuous.
495
H
~
496
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 10 S.C.R.
\
A
It was contended for the remaining two appellants (A-3 and A-6)
that since the conviction as recorded by the High Court against them
~
was not for a substantive offence punishable u/s. 304 (part-II) IPC, but,
as members of unlawful assembly, for an offence punishable u/s. 304
(Part-II) r/w s. 149 IPC, a liberal view be taken in awarding the
B punishment
Disposing of the appeal the Court
HELD: 1.1. It cannot be said that by recording a finding of guilt
'"""'
against the appellants, any illegality has been committed either by the
C trial court or by the appellate court. both the Courts considered the
evidence on record, including substantive evidence of two injured eye-
witnesses, PW3 and PWS and believed them. Injuries have been
established through the evidence of the doctor (PW-11 ).
D
{Para 16] (504-F,G]
1.2. Regarding sentence, however, it has to be kept in mind that
neither of the appellants has been convicted for a substantive offence
punishable under Section 304 (par1 II) IPC. Both of them were convicted
under the vicarious Iiablility mentioned in Section 149, IPC and they were
E accordingly convicted for an offence not amountingto murder punishable
under Section 304 (part II) read with Section 149, IPC along with other
offences. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if instead of rigorous
imprisonment for seven years as imposed by the High Court for the said
offence, the appellants are ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment
F for five years. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the High Court
against the appellants for an offence punishable under Section 304 (part
II) read with Section 149, IPC is maintained, but they are ordered to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 'five years instead of seven years.
Conviction, sentence and fine for other offences, imposed on the
G appellants by the High Court call for no interference and accordingly
that part of the order is confirmed.
H
[Paras 17 and 18] (SOS-A, B, C]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1313 of 2007.
f
SURESH SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA [THAKKER, J.] 497
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2006 of the High Court A
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 50-DB of
1997 and Criminal Revision No. 528 of 1997.
Kawaljit Kochar and Kusum Chaudhary for the Appellants.
Rajeev Gaur 'Naseem', Rajesh Ranjan, and T.V. George for the B
Respondent.
~
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises out of judgment and order dated
February 28, 2006 in Criminal Appeal No.50-DB of 1997 passed by
c
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana convicting the appellants and other
accused persons for various offences. The said appeal was filed by the
accused personExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.