Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dealt with a criminal appeal by special leave against the conviction of two accused persons for offences including murder of a police constable. The incident occurred on March 12, 1990, when a group of accused misbehaved with ladies accompanying a cinema audience in Yamuna Nagar. The cinema manager and police head constables intervened to control the accused. The accused initially relented but later resumed misbehaviour, leading to intervention by head constables Balbir Singh and Ram Het. When the accused were being taken out, some abused the police and others tried to flee. During the chase, Bhupinder Singh jumped into a parked tanker lorry and took out a wooden balli from its tool box. Roshan Lal snatched the balli from Bhupinder Singh and inflicted a blow on the head of Head Constable Balbir Singh. Other accused assaulted the deceased with kicks and blows. Balbir Singh was shifted to hospital but died. Post mortem examination revealed a stitched wound on the left temporal region of the skull, bone deep, and doctors opined the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The trial court convicted Roshan Lal under Sections 302 and 332/34 IPC and Bhupinder Singh and two others under Sections 302/34 and 332/34 IPC. The remaining accused were acquitted. The High Court affirmed the convictions of the two appellants. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries on the accused, that Bhupinder Singh could not be held liable for the fatal blow under Section 34 IPC, and that the offence did not amount to murder under Section 302 IPC. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions. It held that the prosecution had explained the minor injuries on the accused as sustained during the scuffle while they tried to escape, and this explanation was supported by medical evidence. The Court also held that Bhupinder Singh's act of retrieving the wooden balli indicated common intention with Roshan Lal to cause the death of the deceased, even though Bhupinder Singh himself did not strike the fatal blow. Considering the weapon used, the situs of injury, and the force of the blow, the Court held that the offence fell under Section 302 IPC. The Supreme Court found the concurrent findings of the lower courts to be unexceptionable, based on proper appreciation of evidence and cogent reasons. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. Bhupinder Singh, who was on bail, was directed to surrender to his bail bonds to serve out his sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - Liability for act done in furtherance of common intention - Accused who retrieved wooden balli from tanker and handed it to co-accused who dealt fatal blow shared common intention to kill - Held that simply because accused did not strike the deceased himself but co-accused snatched the balli and struck, accused could not be absolved; totality of circumstances proved common intention (Paras 7). B) Criminal Law - Burden of Proof - Injuries on Accused - Duty of prosecution to explain injuries on accused - Prosecution explained that minor injuries were sustained during scuffle when accused attempted to flee and were apprehended; medical evidence corroborated minor nature - Held that non-explanation of trivial injuries did not vitiate conviction when prosecution explanation was plausible and accepted (Paras 6). C) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Offence of murder - Fatal blow with wooden balli on head caused lacerated wound, bone deep, sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature; situs and force indicated intention to kill - Held that offence fell under Section 302 IPC (Paras 8). D) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Concurrent Findings - Supreme Court not to reappraise evidence unless perverse - Concurrent findings of trial court and High Court based on proper appreciation of evidence and cogent reasons - Held that no ground to interfere with convictions (Paras 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution's failure to explain injuries on the accused persons vitiated the conviction; whether Bhupinder Singh could be held guilty under Section 34 IPC for the fatal blow inflicted by Roshan Lal; whether the offence fell under Section 302 IPC
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It upheld the concurrent findings of guilt of the lower courts. Bhupinder Singh, who was on bail, was directed to surrender to his bail bonds to serve out his sentence.
Law Points
- Common intention under Section 34 IPC can be inferred from conduct
- prosecution need not explain every minor injury on accused if explanation is plausible
- fatal head injury with wooden balli amounts to murder under Section 302 IPC
- concurrent findings of lower courts on appreciation of evidence not interfered with unless perverse
