By the order dated 01.05.2009, notice in the special leave petition was confined to the first respondent – Gurbachan Singh.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/inherent-jurisdiction-and-invalid-decree-a-case-summary/
Our attention is drawn to the order dated 17.12.2008, whereby Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No 19754/2008 preferred against the acquittal of Manjeet Kaur, stands dismissed. Thereupon, Gurbachan Singh and Balvir Singh, Manjeet Singh, and Darshan Singh, who hand come armed with ‘lathi’, ‘toka’, axe, and ‘gandasi’ respectively, had beaten and inflicted injuries on Teja Singh, which resulted in his death on the spot.
l000/-
each, with default stipulation of 2 months simple imprisonment; (b) Section 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC- One and half years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- each, with default stipulation of one-month simple imprisonment; (c) Section 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC- 3 months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.
Conviction of Balvir Singh, Manjeet Singh and Darshan Singh under Sections 149 and 148 of the IPC was set aside, albeit, their conviction under Section 302 was maintained with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC.
As such, the question before us, in this appeal by the State of Rajasthan is whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction and sentence awarded to Gurbachan Singh under Section 302 read with other provisions of the IPC, by convicting him only under Section 323 of the IPC, in view of the finding that he did not share common intention with Balvir Singh, Manjeet Singh, and Darshan Singh to cause the death of Teja Singh, as he only inflicted wounds on his feet with a ‘lathi’. From the testimony of ocular witnesses it can safely be inferred that accused Gurbachan Singh was not sharing the common intention as he was armed only with ‘lathi’ and whatever injuries on the person of the deceased which were given on vital part of the body of the deceased.” The aforesaid reasoning, accepts and in our opinion rightly that Gurbachan Singh was present at the place of the occurrence with Balvir Singh, Manjeet Singh, and Darshan Singh when the violence took place, which resulted in death of Teja Singh on 06.11.2000 at about 7:30 P.M. Harbhajan Singh (PW-1) and his wife Jasveer Kaur (PW-2) have deposed that Gurbachan Singh had come with a ‘lathi’, whereas Darshan Singh were seen with an axe, Balvir Singh with a ‘toka’ and Manjeet Singh with a ‘gandasi’.
Given the aforesaid position, we are of the view that Section 34 of the IPC i.e., common intention, is clearly attracted in the case of Gurbachan Singh, whose case cannot be distinguished, so as to exclude him as one who did not share common intention with Darshan Singh, Balvir Singh, and Manjit Singh. The impugned judgment observes that common intention cannot be inferred from the conduct of Gurbachan Singh, as he was only armed with ‘lathi’ and had struck only on the feet of Teja Singh.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/conviction-upheld-for-murder-and-concealment-of-body/
Lastly, Gurbachan Singh along with co-convicts, had inflicted 8 incised wounds on head and other injuries on vital and other parts on the person of Teja Singh, as recorded in the post-mortem report (Ex.P.14).
Recording the aforesaid, we set aside the impugned judgment passed by the High Court acquitting Gurbachan Singh under Section 302 of the IPC, and he is convicted for murder of Teja Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. In case, Gurbachan Singh does not surrender within the said period, the authorities/court will take action in accordance with law to detain Gurbachan Singh, so as to undergo remaining sentence.
Case Title: THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. GURBACHAN SINGH (2022 INSC 1260)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002201-002201 / 2011
