Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab

                                                                Gurmail Singh v. State of Punjab

FACTS OF THE CASE

Sohan Singh, PW 5, the complainant, and his co-accused Nachhattar Singh and Parshottam Singh, are married to real sisters. Nindo is the daughter of Sher Singh, accused. Darshan Singh, accused is the son of Sher Singh. A few days prior to the incident which happened on 25-3-1996 a message was received with regard to the proposed marriage of the son of Parshottam Singh, accused, on which the accused had got together in his house to celebrate the occasion by taking liquor. At about 10.00 p.m the accused came out on the street and raised a lalkara that they would teach the complainant party a lesson for having teased Nindo. At that time accused Gurnam Singh and Gurmail Singh were both armed with small knives (kirch) and Sher Singh, Nachhattar Singh, Parshottam Singh, Dharam Pal Singh and Avtar Singh were armed with lathis. Sohan Singh came out into the street to persuade them not to abuse and that they would sort out the dispute in the morning. While he was still talking to the accused Rajwinder Singh, PW 6 and Baljinder Singh also arrived there. Nachhattar Singh, Sher Singh, Dharam Pal Singh and Avtar Singh then raised a lalkara saying that they should not be allowed to go alive and should be taught a lesson for having teased Nindo. Gurnam Singh thereupon gave a knife-blow on the right side of the abdomen of Baljinder Singh and when Rajwinder Singh came forward to help Baljinder Singh, Gurmail Singh gave a knife-blow on the right side just below his chest whereas Gurcharan Singh gave a knife-blow on the lower portion of his right flank. Rajwinder Singh fell down whereupon Sher Singh gave a dang (lathi) blow on his right shoulder. In the meantime, the women folk came out into the street and hurled brickbats in self-defence. As a consequence of this counter-attack the accused ran away from the spot. Baljinder Singh and Rajwinder Singh were shifted to A.P Jain Hospital at Rajpura in a truck but the former succumbed to his injuries on the way.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not the accused is guilty under section 325 of IPC .

ARGUMENTS 

The only other accused whose case requires to be examined on the question of sentence is Accused 3 Jagseer Singh who is convicted for having committed an offence under Section 325, IPC in that he gave a blow on the middle phalanx of right palm of Bogha Singh which resulted in a fracture of the middle phalanx of the right index finger. On this account he is convicted of an offence under Section 325, IPC. It is at this stage that we may point out that in this very occurrence Accused 2, 3 and 4 have suffered injuries. Accused 2 had suffered three injuries, two of which were incised wounds and Accused 3 and 4 each had suffered one injury. If in this background a blow with the blunt side of gandhali caused fracture of the phalanx, undoubtedly the offence would be under Section 325, IPC but in our opinion a sentence of two and a half years appears to be one which requires reconsideration. In our opinion, having regard to all the circumstances of the case while affirming the conviction of Accused 3 Jagseer Singh under Section 325, IPC, his substantive sentence should be reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. We do not think any other modification in the sentence awarded to any other accused in respect of other offences for which they were convicted and sentenced is called for.

Judgement 

All the four appellants preferred Criminal Appeal No. 452-DB of 1981 to the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The High Court was of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that Accused 1 Gurmail Singh caused death of Tej Singh in furtherance of common intention of all the four accused. The finding of the High Court in this behalf may be extracted:

The learned counsel thereafter only urged that Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code should not have been applied by the trial court in relation to the murder charge. We agree with him in this respect. The appellant had not at all come for causing the death of Tej Singh. It was only because Tej Singh tried to intervene in the quarrel that Gurmail Singh suddenly gave him a fatal blow with a barchha. There was at all no meeting of minds of all the appellants for the causing of that injury. Furthermore, even the original common intention of causing the death of anybody cannot be inferred from the circumstances of the present case. There was a small annoyance which the appellants had felt on account of the exchange of abuses on the previous evening. The appellants had already exhibited their real intention by the giving of such blows as had been received by Bogha Singh and Gura Singh. We thus acquit Gulab Singh, Jagseer Singh and Sardul Singh in relation to the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and set aside their sentence in respect of this offence.

Conviction of Accused 1 Gurmail Singh for having committed an offence under Section 302, IPC and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs 3000 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years is set aside but he is convicted for an offence under Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs 500, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

Appeal of Accused 3 Jagseer Singh is partly allowed in that while affirming his conviction for an offence under Section 325, IPC, the sentence awarded to him of two and a half years’ rigorous imprisonment is modified and is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months.

REFERENCES

Admin