Supreme Court Partly Allows Criminal Appeal Under Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984, Upholds Male Appellant's Conviction Under Section 302 IPC While Acquitting Female Appellant Under Sections 302/34 IPC. Eye-witness testimony and prompt FIR established guilt of the male appellant for inflicting axe blows, while mere handing over of clothes and a vague remark to the male appellant did not establish common intention for murder under Section 34 IPC.

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court of India heard a criminal appeal under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984 against the judgment of the Special Court, Hoshiarpur in FIR No. 103 of 1984. The case arose from the murder of Surjit Singh, who was killed by axe blows on 25 May 1984. The deceased, his brother Jaswinder Singh (appellant No.2), and another brother lived together with their parents. Surjit Singh managed family affairs, which caused resentment in Jaswinder Singh leading to quarrels. On the day of the incident, Surjit Singh was sleeping on a cot in the dalan of the house. Present in the house were his wife Raj Rani, his two sisters Kewal Kaur and Jaswinder Kaur, and the appellants. At about 3.30 p.m., appellant No.1 Jaswinder Kaur brought some clothes, gave them to appellant No.2 and told him as to what he was waiting for. Appellant No.2 then picked up an axe and inflicted two blows on the neck and one near the right shoulder of the deceased, causing his death. Raj Rani, along with a Panchayat member Tarsem Singh, went to Dasuya Police Station and lodged an FIR promptly. The trial court convicted appellant No.2 under Section 302 IPC and appellant No.1 under Section 302/34 IPC. The prosecution relied on three eyewitnesses, PW-4 Raj Rani, PW-5 Kewal Kaur and PW-7 Jaswinder Kaur. The trial court did not accept the alleged extra judicial confession before PW-6 Sarwan Singh or the recovery of the axe, finding that evidence unsatisfactory. It also rejected the defence evidence of DW-1 Mangal Singh and DW-2 Jarnail Singh, who claimed the appellants were in the family field at the relevant time. On appeal, the appellants contended that the defence witnesses, being equally related to both the accused and the deceased, had no reason to lie and that their evidence established alibi. They also alleged that Raj Rani had an illicit relationship with Kewal Singh, which created enmity. The core legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the conviction of appellant No.2 under Section 302 IPC was sustainable on the evidence of the three eyewitnesses despite the defence of alibi, and whether the conviction of appellant No.1 under Section 302/34 IPC could be upheld merely on the act of handing clothes and making a vague remark. The Court examined the reliability of defence witnesses and found that the father and brother had strong motive to save appellant No.2, as the father had already lost one son and did not want to lose another. The Court also noted that the defence witnesses took no steps to report the alleged false implication to any authority, which weakened their credibility. The allegation of illicit relationship was denied by all three eyewitnesses and was not believable because other family members would have reacted if it were true. The Supreme Court found the testimony of the three eyewitnesses to be consistent, natural and trustworthy. Raj Rani's prompt lodging of the FIR within an hour and the detailed account in the FIR reinforced her credibility. The Court held that appellant No.2's conviction under Section 302 IPC was fully justified. However, regarding appellant No.1, the Court held that the evidence only showed that she whispered something to her husband, gave him a bundle of new clothes, and told him what he was waiting for. From these facts, no inference of incitement or common intention to murder could be drawn; the probable intention was that she wanted him to leave the house because both disliked the importance given to the deceased in household management. Consequently, the Court set aside her conviction under Section 302/34 IPC. The appeal was partly allowed, appellant No.2's conviction and sentence were confirmed, appellant No.1 was acquitted, and her bail bonds were cancelled.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. It confirmed the conviction and sentence of appellant No.2 under Section 302 IPC and dismissed his appeal to that extent. It set aside the conviction and sentence of appellant No.1 under Section 302/34 IPC, allowed her appeal, and ordered cancellation of her bail bonds.

Law Points