LexSWARN KAUR versus GURMUKH SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 10 S.C.R. 664 SWARN KAUR V. GURMUKH SINGH AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1624 of 2008) JULY 3, 2013 [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304 (Part II) - Conviction under ss. C 302134 and 201134 by trial court - Acquittal by High Court - Held: Inflicting of injury by the accused and the ultimate death of the deceased due to the said injury has been proved without any iota of doubt - The conduct of the accused in deliberately failing to identify the dead-body of the deceased, o lodging missing report of the deceased and the conduct of negotiating with the wife of the deceased, go against the accused - They are guilty of causing death of the deceased - However, nature of injury and weapons used do not suggest intention of causing death - Hence conviction altered to one E under s. 304 (Part II) - Accused sentenced to 7 years RI and fine of Rs.50,0001- each imposed - Direction to pay Rs. 2 lakhs to the complainant (wife of the deceased) out of the fine amount. Respondents-accused, alongwith two other F accused, were prosecuted for the offences punishable ul ss. 302/34 and 201/34 IPC. The prosecution case was that respondent-accused No.2 had taken the deceased alongwith his group on pilgrimage tour, as a cook. The deceased was beaten by the accused party as they were G not satisfied with the quality of food prepared by him. Thereafter, he was taken towards a rivulet in a jeep-taxi belonging to PW-6. On the next morning, the body of the deceased was found near the rivulet. Information about the same was given to the police. In the meantime, H 664 SWARN KAUR v. GURMUKH SINGH AND ORS. 665 accused persons also gave missing report of the A deceased to the police. PW 17 (police official) directed them to go to the rivulet so as to find out whether the dead-body was that of their missing companion. The accused persons, after in~pecting the body said that it was not that of the deceased. The accused persons, B after returning home, initially told the appellant- complainant (wife of the deceased) that the deceased was missing. Two of the accused again met her and told about the death of the deceased. They also negotiated for a settlement by way of payment of a sum of Rs. c 1,00,000/- as compensation. The appellant-complainant thereafter lodged FIR. She identified the deceased from the photo of the dead-body which was found near the rivulet. Trial court found the respondents-accused Nos.1 to D 5, guilty of the charges u/ss. 302/34 and 201/34 IPC. Accused Nos. 6 and 7 were acquitted of all the charges. High Court set aside the conviction of the respondents- accused. Hence the present appeal by the complainant. E Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. In view of the admitted facts of the case, the High Court failed to analyze all the circumstances which were existing, while only a few of them were noted F by the High Court while examining the correctness of the judgment of the trial court. Each one of the circumstances which were demonstrated to have been proved, sufficiently established the guilt of the accused and consequently, the conclusion of the trial court in G having found the accused guilty, was perfectly justified and the interference with the same by the High Court without sufficient reasoning was therefore, liable to be set aside. [Paras 20 and 37] [678-F; 685-H; 686-A] Brahm Swaroop and Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh H 666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 10 S.C.R. A (2011) 6 SCC 288: 2010 (15) SCR 1; Podda Narayana and Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1975 SC 1252: 1975 Suppl. SCR 84; Gumam Kaur vs. Bakshish Singh and Ors. AIR 1981 SC 631: 1980 Suppl. SCC 567 - referred to. 8 1.2. There is no dispute about the engagement of the services of the deceased as a cook to go along with the pilgrimage tour organised by the second accused on 27.03.2002. Therefore, the said circumstance was fully established. As far as the second circumstance viz., that C· the deceased was found in the company of the accused when they were travelling together in the jeep taxi is concerned, the evidence of P.W.6 was unassailable. When once the travel undertaken by the accused along with the deceased in the jeep taxi belonging to P.W.6 was 0 found to be true, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of P.W.6, as regards the brutal assault and the injuries inflicted upon the deceased
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.