Surjan Singh & Anr vs State Of Haryana
- SCC(1998) 7 SCC 336
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where eye-witnesses to a criminal incident testify consistently and their evidence does not suffer from serious infirmities, the trial court's appreciation of such evidence may be upheld by the appellate court without requiring re-examination merely because counsel urges that the evidence was not properly appreciated. Where multiple accused persons go together to confront another person, and their subsequent conduct demonstrates a common plan or design resulting in criminal acts committed by one of them against that person, all may be convicted under Section 34 IPC as acting in furtherance of a common intention, even if only one of them directly perpetrated the physical act of violence.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
J U D G M E N T The two appellants and one Kashmir Singh were convicted by the trial court for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 506 both read with Section 34 IPC, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, in Sessions Case No. 31/88. The H igh Court confirmed their conviction. All the convicted accused then filed a Special leave petition in this court. Leave was not granted to Kashmir Singh. It was granted to the appellants only. The prosecution case against the appellants was that on 31.8.88 at about 6.00 p.m., they went to the house of Bhagwan Singh and enquired from him whether he was willing or not to vacate the house in his possession. Bhagwan Singh told them that as he was the real owner of the house, the question of vacating it did not arise. There upon, the appellants exhorted Kashmir singh to finish Bhagwan Singh. Kashmir Singh fired two shots from his pistol and causeed injuries to Bhagwan Singh and Malkiat S ingh. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the two injured eye-witnesses and also led other evidence. After appreciating their evidence, the trial court thought it safe to rely upon it and also upon the evidence of Lattkan singh
- P.W.7 and Jagir Singh - P.W.8, who hadd rushed to the place of the incident on hearing the cries of the injured. The trial court disbelieved tthe defence case that someone else and fired at them and caused injuries and that they were falsely involved because o f property dispute. The trial court convicted them as stated above. The High Court on re-appreciation of the evidence agreed with findings recorded by the trial court and confirmed the conviction.
What was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the evidence of the eye-witnesses was not properly appreciated by courts below and the reasons given for accepting their evidence inspite of many infirmities therein are not proper. H aving gone through their evidence, we find that it does not suffer from any serious infirmity. Their evidence was correctly appreciated by the trial court and the High Court was right in confirming the findings recorded by the trial court. All the three accused had gone together to the house of Bhagwan Singh and the way they acted thereafter leaves no doubt about their acting in furtherance of theeir common intention. As they have been rightly convicted under Sections 307 and 506 both read with Section 34 IPC, this appeal is dismissed.
The appellants are on bail. Their bail is cancelled. They are ordered to surrender to custody to serve out the remaining part of their sentence.
end
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