Sukhdev Singh And Ors. vs State Of Punjab
- SCC1988 Supp (1) SCC 168
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where two eyewitnesses testify that an accused stood guard outside a location and exhorted others to commit murder, and their testimony bears a ring of truth and is accepted by both the Sessions Judge and High Court with cogent and convincing reasons, the conviction of that accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code may be sustained on the basis of such direct evidence, notwithstanding that the accused did not personally inflict the fatal blows.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. Special leave was granted to the appellant Sukhdev Singh and the petition for grant of special leave by the other co-accused Harnek Singh and Deepa @ Ranjit Singh against their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for having committed the murder of Dr.Harbans Singh in furtherance of their common intention has been dismissed.
2. In this appeal, the only question involved is whether the conviction of the appellant Sukhdev Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Dr. Harbans Singh could be sustained. His conviction rests upon the direct testimony of the two eye-witnesses PW 2 Gian Singh and PW 3 Darshan Singh. Their evidence shows that on February 24, 1976 at about 6.30 p.m. , the two co-accused Harnek Singh and Deepa entered the dispensary situate in a busy locality of village Sahnewal and shot Dr. Harbans Singh with their pistols at close range. The appellant stood guard outside the dispensary and exhorted them to kill the deceased. The first information report was lodged at the nearby police station within minutes which directly implicates the appellant. The prosecution evidence discloses that there was long-standing dispute over property between the appellant and the deceased and thus he had strong motive to kill the deceased. The appellant was the real person behind the murder of Dr. Harbans Singh and the two co-accused apparently were hired assasins. The learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court have given cogent and convincing reasons for acting upon the testimony of PW 2 Gian Singh and PW 3 Darshan Singh who were both natural witnesses and there is a ring of truth in their testimony. We agree with the reasoning and conclusion reached by the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court and there is no reason for us to come to a contrary conclusion.
3. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bond of the appellant stands cancelled and he shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence.
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