Skip to content


Dalip Singh and ors. Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMedia and Communication;Criminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 188 of 1977
Judge
Reported inAIR1986SC316; 1986CriLJ313; 1985(2)Crimes860(SC); 1985(2)SCALE664; 1985Supp(1)SCC471; 1985(17)LC1047(SC)
ActsIndian Penal Code- Sections 148, 149, 302 and 307
AppellantDalip Singh and ors.
RespondentState of Punjab
Excerpt:
.....to complete his part of the contract, and if he failed in that, his suit was liable to fail. the trial court had found on the evidence that the respondent was at no time ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. this finding was never challenged before the high court and the high court did not hold that the finding was incorrect. [234 c] ardeshir mamna v. flora sassoon, l.r. 55 i.a. 360, referred to. (per bachawat j. dissenting) : there was no specific issue on the question whether the respondent was ready and willing to perform the contract. the trial court was clearly wrong in inferring that the respondent was not ready and willing to perform the contract from the fact that from april 30, 1959 upto the middle of july 1959 the respondent had not taken any steps in the..........group was returning from ludhiana in a jeep driven by pw.10 after purchasing a tyre and a tube for bachan singh's truck. bachan singh was sitting on the back side of the jeep and in front of him was sitting one malkiat singh, pw.9. gurbachan singh, pw. 11 was sitting next to him. as the jeep approached the culvert on the way, amrik singh started firing from his gun. then followed indiscriminate firing by the other appellants as a result of which bachan singh received fatal injuries. gurbachan singh also received a gunshot injury on his right arm and fortunately for the driver he was hit on his turban and was, therefore, not injured. the driver speedily drove away the jeep and medical treatment was provided but bachan singh succumbed to the injuries while pw.11 survived.2. the defence was.....
Judgment:

Ranganath Misra, J.

1. The four appellants were put on trial for offences punishable Under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution alleged that they alongwith one Piara Singh, since murdered, had collected themselves fully armed near a culvert on the Ludhiana-Ahmedgarh road at about I.P.M. on April 16, 1971. The complainant's group was returning from Ludhiana in a jeep driven by PW.10 after purchasing a tyre and a tube for Bachan Singh's truck. Bachan Singh was sitting on the back side of the jeep and in front of him was sitting one Malkiat Singh, PW.9. Gurbachan Singh, PW. 11 was sitting next to him. As the jeep approached the culvert on the way, Amrik Singh started firing from his gun. Then followed indiscriminate firing by the other appellants as a result of which Bachan Singh received fatal injuries. Gurbachan Singh also received a gunshot injury on his right arm and fortunately for the driver he was hit on his turban and was, therefore, not injured. The driver speedily drove away the jeep and medical treatment was provided but Bachan Singh succumbed to the injuries while PW.11 survived.

2. The defence was one of denial and false implication. At the trial PWs. 9, 10 and 11 were examined as eye witnesses and the trial Court relied upon their evidence as also the medical and circumstantial evidence available on record and convicted the appellants for the offences charged and sentenced them to one year's rigorous imprisonment Under Section 148 and imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2000/-each Under Section 302/149, I.P.C. and directed that the sentences shall run concurrently. In appeal there was a review of the evidence and the High Court was satisfied that the witnesses were reliable and the prosecution had proved its case beyond doubt. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

3. This appeal has been filed on special leave from this court. At the hearing Mr. Frank Anthony mainly pressed the point that the evidence was not very clear as to whether a rifle in the hands of Amrik Singh or 12 bore guns in the hands of the other accused persons had really been used for causing the injuries. According to him there is confusion as to which of the fire arms had been used for causing the injuries on the deceased as also PW.11. This aspect had not been pressed at the earlier stages and it is a new contention advanced. Besides, the accused persons were on the way side culvert and the jeep was on its move on the road. The firing started somewhat suddenly and in these circumstances there is possibility of mistake as to whether it was a rifle or the other guns that had been put to service. This contention, however, does not impress us inasmuch as the oral evidence is very clear and is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. We agree with the High Court that the appellants along with Piara Singh had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of fatally injuring the deceased and member of his party. There is clear motive and once we reject the sole contention advanced by Mr. Frank Anthony, the appeal has no merit and has to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the appeal and confirm the conviction and sentence of the appellants.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //