LexTHE STATE OF PUNJAB versus TEJINDER SINGH AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~ ,,. A THE STATE OF PUNJAB v. TEJINDER SINGH AND ANR. ·-- AUGUST 21, 1995 B [M.K. MUKHERJEE AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.) ~ Indian Penal Code, 1860: S. 304(Part-I) read with s.34-Victim assaulted by two accused-Death c cause~Trial by Special Court-Motive-Nature of Injuries-Conviction of one accused u/s. 302-Acquittal of other for lack of motive and on prob- abilities of injuries being handiwork of one person-Held, if eye witness account sustains the prosecution case, motive pales into insignificance- Evidence. of eye witnesses supported by medical evidence and other factors D establishing participation by both-Accused in the crime-Accused not in- tending to commit murder-Both convicted u/s. 304(Part-I). ~ Legal Maxims: 'Falsus in uno Falsus in omnibus'-Discussed. ".- Accused no. 1 and 2 were charged under s.302 IPC for committing E murder of the son of PW.4 who possessed land adjoining to that A.1. The prosecution case was that four days prior to the incident an altercation took place between the son of P.W. 4 and A.1 over the boundary of their plots. On the fateful day, at about 8.45 a.m. P.W. 4, his wife (P.W.S), and son were in their field. P.W. 4 was at the handpump when he saw A.1 and A.2 armed with gandasasa approaching towards his son from the nearby F plot shouting that would not spare him. Both. the accused started asS'ault- ing the son of P.W. 4 with their gandasasa, as a result of which the latter fell down. PWs.4 and 5 raised alarm and both the accused ran away. The victim was taken to the hospital where be succumbed to bis injuries in the afternoon. The investigation led to the arrest of A.l and A.2 and to their G trial before the Special Court. The trial Court convicted A.1 under s.302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. A.2 was acquitted. Ag- grieved, A.1 filed the appeal against his conviction, where the State filed ,.../- the other appeal against acquittal of A.2. Dismissing the appeal of A.1 and allowing that of the State, this H Court 856 ' - .. ,. STATE v. TF.JINDER SINGH 857 HELD : 1.1. The trial Court was right in fully relying upon the A evidence of the two eye witnesses, PWs. 4 and 5, as against A.1 and was fully justified in concluding that A.I. had assaulted the deceased with a gandasa causing injuries on his person. But disregarding the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 as against A.2 on the ground that he had no motive does not stand to any reason and militates against one of the postulates of criminal trial that if the eye-witnesses' account of an incident sustain the prosecution case, question of motive pales into insignificance. The finding of the trial court that all the injuries found on the person of the deceased could be the handiwork of one person is a speculative one. [860-H; E-F] B 1.2. PWs.4 and 5 unequivocally stated that both A-1 and A-2 inflicted C gandasa blows on the deceased, which necessarily meant that similar in- juries would be caused thereby. Inspite of searching cross-examination the defence could not succeed in eliciting any favourable answer so as to indi- cate that the evidence of PWs. 4 and 5 was unworthy of credit. On the contrary, the injuries found on the person of the deceased on post mortem examination fit in with the evidence of the two eye witnesses. Besides, D presence of human blood on the earth collected from the spot and on the gandasasa seized fl,"om A.l and A.2 as disclosed by the report of chemical examination, lends assurance to the evidence of PWs. 4 and 5. [859-G-H; 860-A-B] 1.3. It is true that in a given case ocular version may be believed E against one and not against others arraigned for justifiable reasons as the maxim "Falsus in uno, Falsus in omnibus" is not appl!cable in criminal trials but in the instant case, the reasons given by the trial Court for disbelieving the evidence of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 so far as A-2 is concerned, being patently wrong, he is also liable to be convicted along with A-1 for F assaulting the deceased withgandasa resulting in his death. [860-H; 861-A] 2.1. The evidence of P.W. 4 and P.W.5 and the nature of injuries indicate that the deceased was assaulted both with the sharp edge and blunt edge ofthegandasas. If the appellants had intended to commit murder, they G would not have used the blunt edge when the task could have been expedited and assured with the sharp edge. Further, except one· injury on the head, all ...... i' other injuries we
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.