Rattan Singh, Ran Singh And Anr. vs State Of Punjab
- SCC1988 Supp (1) SCC 456
- AIRAIR 1988 SC 2147
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where multiple accused persons participate in causing injuries to a deceased, but the prosecution evidence does not establish that any individual accused inflicted an injury that was individually fatal or capable of causing death according to medical opinion, conviction under Section 302 cannot be sustained; instead, conviction must be limited to the sections appropriate to the injuries that medical evidence shows each accused person actually inflicted, regardless of the collective nature of the assault. Where an accused armed with a blunt instrument causes injuries on the hands or feet of a deceased that result only in fractures, such injuries cannot support conviction under Section 302 and conviction should be limited to Section 325. Where an accused armed with a sharp weapon causes injuries that are established by medical evidence to be non-fatal, conviction under Section 302 cannot be sustained; conviction should be limited to Sections 324 or 326 depending on the nature and gravity of the injury actually caused by that accused. Where accused persons have already served imprisonment in jail pending trial and appeal exceeding the maximum sentence appropriate to their actual culpability as determined on appeal, the sentence imposed by the trial court and affirmed on first appeal may be reduced to the period already undergone, as this will meet the ends of justice.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1.These appeals have been filed by the three appellants against their conviction under Section 302 and sentence of imprisonment for life maintained by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 690 of 1983 decided by the judgment dated 19th March, 1984. These three appellants along with some others were prosecuted for offence under Section 302, 148 read with Section 149. It appears that there was some dispute about the land and the complainant party who were in possession of the agricultural land were sowing field at that moment. The accused persons(were) armed with various instruments of offence like barchi, ballam, lathies and dang. The complainant party attempted to run, but it is alleged that deceased Gaje Singh was hurt and assaulted by a number of persons as a result of which, he received as many as 13 injuries and ultimately resulting in his death. After trial these three appellants along with some others were convicted and sentenced for various offences as per details given below:
Malkiat Singh Under Section 148 I.P.C RI for one year Under Section 302/149 I.P.C. Imprisonment for life. Under Section 325 I.P.C. RI for two years. Under Section 324/149 I.P.C. RI for one year. Under Section 324/149 I.P.C. RI for one year. Ran Singh, Dan Singh Under Section 148 I.P.C. RI for one year each. and Rattan Singh Under Section 302/149 I.P.C. Imprisonment for life each. Under Section 325/149 I.P.C. RI for two years. Under Section 324 I.P.C. RI for one year.
2. On appeal learned Judges of the High Court after considering the evidence acquitted all others, but convicted the present three appellants Ran Singh, Dan Singh and Rattan Singh and that all the three appellants have been convicted under Section 302 and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, it is apparent that these three appellants have been convicted under Section 302 and therefore, it is necessary to find out the injury inflicted by each one of them on the person of the deceased. Admittedly according to the prosecution's own case Ran Singh and Rattan Singh were carrying lathies which could be described as hard and blunt object. Such injuries on the person of the deceased were either on hands or on feet and at best what could be attributed to them could be injuries resulting in fractures. None of these two appellants could be convicted for causing injuries individually which could make out an offence under Section 302. At best they could only be convicted under Section 325 and maximum sentence under Section 325 is seven years.
3. As regards Dan Singh, he was carrying barchi (spear) and two injuries which have been found on the person of the deceased which are described as incised injuries 1 and 2. According to the evidence examined at the trial, this appellant has alleged to have inflicted injury by barchi (spear) on the right arm on the upper part. There is no injury on the upper part of the right arm which could be said to have been inflicted by a sharp edged weapon. Even if any other injury could be attributed, it could only be either 1 or 2 and it is clear that none of these injuries are as per medical opinion fatal, which resulted in death of the deceased. Even if injury No. 2 is attributed to this appellant, he at best could be convicted under Section 326 or if injury No. 1 is attributed to him also, he could be convicted under Section 324 only. In either case, sentence of 5 years could be said to be sufficient.
4. It is reported that all these persons are in jail since October 1982 and therefore have completed more than 5 years imprisonment till today. In the circumstances of the case, in our opinion, even if their conviction is maintained under Section 325 and 326 sentence already undergone will meet the ends of justice. In the circumstances, therefore, the appeals are partly allowed and conviction of the three appellants is altered from Section 302 to Sections 325 and 326. In the circumstances of the case their sentence is reduced to that already undergone. Sentence of fine imposed by the courts below is maintained. If the fine is not paid within three months from today, the appellants will suffer imprisonment for six months in default of payment of fine.
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