Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from adjoining agricultural plots owned by Tejinder Singh (A-1) and Jagjit Singh, father of the deceased Jasbir Singh. Four days before the incident, an altercation took place between Jasbir Singh and A-1 over the boundary watt of their plots. On July 19, 1984, at about 6.45 a.m., Jasbir Singh accompanied by his father Jagjit Singh went to cultivate their plot. Daljit Kaur, wife of the deceased, reached at about 8.30 a.m. with breakfast. While Jagjit Singh went to the hand-pump to bring water, he saw A-1 and Darshan Singh (A-2) coming from the nearby field armed with gandasas, shouting that Jasbir Singh would not be spared. Both accused then assaulted Jasbir Singh with their gandasas. On alarm being raised by Jagjit Singh and Daljit Kaur, the accused ran away. Jasbir Singh was taken to Civil Hospital at Raman and then referred to Civil Hospital, Bhatinda, where he died in the afternoon. ASI Harbhajan Singh recorded the statement of Jagjit Singh and later investigation led to arrest of both accused on July 22, 1984 and seizure of blood-stained gandasas. Chemical examination confirmed human blood on the earth and the gandasas. The Special Court, Ferozepore convicted A-1 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment, but acquitted A-2 giving benefit of doubt on findings that injuries could be handiwork of one person and A-2 had no motive. A-1 filed Criminal Appeal No.481 of 1985 against conviction, and the State filed Criminal Appeal No.533 of 1985 against acquittal of A-2 and for enhancement of sentence of A-1. Both appeals were heard together by the Supreme Court. The core legal issues were whether the acquittal of A-2 was justified despite reliable eyewitness testimony; whether the offence was murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC; and whether common intention under Section 34 IPC existed. The prosecution relied on the eyewitness accounts of PW4 and PW5, which were corroborated by medical evidence and chemical examination reports. The accused pleaded not guilty, claimed false implication, and A-1 admitted adjoining fields but denied any boundary altercation. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's acquittal of A-2 was not sustainable. The finding that injuries could be handiwork of one person was speculative because both eyewitnesses unequivocally stated that both accused inflicted gandasa blows, which would cause similar injuries. The finding that A-2 had no motive was erroneous because motive pales into insignificance when eyewitness account sustains prosecution case. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in criminal trials, and while ocular version may be believed against one and not others for justifiable reasons, the reasons given here were patently wrong. Therefore A-2 was also liable for assaulting Jasbir Singh with gandasa resulting in death. On the nature of offence, the court noted that the deceased was assaulted with both sharp and blunt edges of gandasas. If the accused had intended to commit murder, they would not have used the blunt edge when the task could have been expedited with the sharp edge. Except one muscle-deep injury on the head, all other injuries were on non-vital parts. These facts indicated absence of intention to cause death or such bodily injury as was sufficient in ordinary course to cause death, but knowledge that death was likely. Consequently, the offence was culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC, not Section 302 IPC. Considering that more than eleven years had elapsed since the offence, the court sentenced each accused to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The court set aside the acquittal of A-2 and the conviction of A-1 under Section 302 IPC, convicted both under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC, directed A-2 to be taken into custody and A-1 to surrender to bail.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Eyewitness Testimony and Motive - Absence of motive for co-accused does not discredit reliable eyewitness account; maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus not applicable - Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 302, 304 Part I, 34 - The trial court acquitted A-2 on findings that injuries could be handiwork of one person and A-2 had no motive; Supreme Court held these findings speculative and patently wrong because the same eyewitnesses were believed against A-1, and motive pales when eyewitness account sustains prosecution case. Held that A-2 was also liable for assault causing death. (Paras 1-3) B) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder - Use of blunt edge of gandasa and non-vital injuries indicate absence of intention to kill but knowledge of likely death; offence falls under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC, not Section 302 IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 302, 304 Part I, 34 - The deceased was assaulted with sharp and blunt edges of gandasas; except one muscle-deep head injury, all injuries were on non-vital parts; this showed the accused did not intend to cause death or such bodily injury as was sufficient in ordinary course to cause death. Held that conviction under Section 302 was altered to Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC. (Paras 1-3) C) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Delay of over 11 years since offence justified lesser sentence than normally deserved; both accused sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years - Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 - Considering that more than 11 years elapsed since the offence, the Supreme Court imposed a sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment on each accused instead of a higher sentence. Held that Darshan Singh be taken into custody and Tejinder Singh surrender to bail to serve sentence. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in acquitting Darshan Singh (A-2) on the findings that injuries could be handiwork of one person and A-2 had no motive; Whether the offence committed by the accused was murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC; Whether common intention under Section 34 IPC could be attributed to both accused
Final Decision
Supreme Court set aside acquittal of Darshan Singh (A-2) and conviction of Tejinder Singh (A-1) under Section 302 IPC; convicted both under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC; sentenced each to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years; directed Darshan Singh be taken into custody and Tejinder Singh surrender to bail.
Law Points
- Reliable eyewitness testimony can establish guilt of all accused even if one lacks motive
- motive pales into insignificance when ocular account is credible
- maxim falsus in uno
- falsus in omnibus not applicable in criminal trials
- court can believe evidence against one accused and not another only for justifiable reasons
- nature of injuries
- use of blunt edge
- and non-vital injuries indicate absence of intention to kill but knowledge of likely death
- offence under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC
- not Section 302 IPC
- delay of over eleven years may justify lesser sentence
