Balkar Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab
- AIRAIR 1994 SC 1133
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Section 34 IPC cannot be applied to hold an accused liable for participation in a criminal act merely on the basis of his presence at the scene of occurrence without proof of any specific overt act attributable to him; there must be evidence of a particular act done by the accused in furtherance of the common intention for Section 34 to apply. Where the evidence in a criminal case constitutes a free fight with multiple persons involved and injuries are sustained by various participants, the burden remains on the prosecution to establish through clear and specific evidence which particular acts were committed by which particular accused, rather than relying on omnibus allegations or the mere presence of the accused at the location. The explanation offered by the prosecution for injuries found on the accused persons, when considered by the trial court and appellate court and found to be satisfactory, will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court in the absence of manifest error or perversity in the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. The four appellants before us were tried along with others for an offence punishable under Sections 307 read with 34, 326 read with 34, 324 read with 34 IPC. The trial court convicted the four appellants. Their appeal was dismissed by the High Court. So far as appellant Harpal Singh is concerned, his case was tried differently because he was child and he was dealt with under the East Punjab Children Act. Therefore, it may be necessary to deal with his case separately. Then there remains the case of Ram Singh, Balkar Singh and Jagir Singh. All the three were convicted under Sections 307 read with 34, 326 read with 34, 324 read with 34 and were sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years, 2 years and 2 years and 1 / 1/2 years respectively. The High Court relied upon the evidence of injured witness Principal witness being Bachan Singh who was examined as PW-1. Some injuries were found on the appellants also. Then the question is whether the prosecution has properly explained the injuries on the accused. The High Court referred to the evidence of Bachan Singh as well as the other witnesses and gave a finding that the prosecution in a way has explained the injuries. The learned Counsel for the appellant, however, submits before us that there is no proper explanation and therefore the necessary inference is that the prosecution has not come forward with the true version and on that ground the convictions and sentences should be set aside. We see no force in his submission. Two courts below have considered this aspect and held that the prosecution has explained the inference.
2. The next question is whether all the three appellants namely Balkar Singh, Jagir Singh and Ram Singh have participated in the crime. So far as Balkar Singh and Jagir Singh are concerned the evidence is clear. PW-1 has deposed that the appellant Balkar Singh caused injury on the left hand of Satnam Singh who was one of the witnesses. Likewise Jagir Singh also caused injury to Darshan Singh and so far as appellant Ram Singh is concerned, PW-1 Bachan Singh, principal witness, stated in his deposition that Ram Singh and Avtar Singh, the acquitted accused, have caused injuries to Darshan Singh. No other particulars are mentioned. Even the weapon in Ram Singh's hand is not mentioned. What kind of injuries and on what part of the body, nothing is mentioned. Therefore it is omnibus allegation. Free fight appears to have taken place during which some of the PWs and some of the appellants received injuries. That being so, it is necessary to examine the overt acts, if any, attributed so that the participation can be inferred. If we apply this type of test, it is difficult to hold that Ram Singh also caused any injury. Some persons in quite good numbers gathered at the place and the said occurrence took place and under the circumstances mentioned above, it is presumed that Ram Singh was also present there. Therefore, the case of Ram Singh can be distinguished. His mere presence cannot constructively make him liable and both the Courts below have simply applied Section 34 without taking into consideration whether any specific overt act is proved against the appellant Ram Singh. Therefore this is ground on which the case of appellant Ram Singh can be distinguished.
3. In the result the convictions and sentences awarded against Balkar Singh and Jagir Singh are confirmed. Appellant Ram Singh is given the benefit of doubt and he is acquitted of all the charges and the convictions and sentences awarded against him are set aside. The appeal is dismissed as against Balkar Singh and Jagir Singh and allowed in respect of Ram Singh.
4. So far as Harpal Singh is concerned the High Court has found that he inflicted a fatal injury with a lethal weapon like a burchhi. Regarding the sentence, the High Court reported his case to the State Government for proper orders as provided under Section 34 of the Children Act in view of the fact that Harpal Singh was a child. We see no ground to interfere in his appeal. His appeal is also dismissed.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free