Page 1

1

                        REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1145 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P (CRIMINAL) NO.4877 OF 2012)

GURPAL SINGH     .…APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB               ....RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

AMITAVA ROY, J.

The  subject  matter  of  scrutiny  is  the  judgment  and  order

dated  01.10.2008  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and

Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 378-DB of 2004

concurring  with  the  verdict  of  the  Trial  Court  in  convicting  the

appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and 307 IPC while

acquitting the co-accused Harpartap Singh, his son.  Following his

conviction,  the  appellant  had  been  awarded  sentence  of  life

imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence under

Section 302 IPC and five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of

Page 2

2

Rs.2,000/- with default sentence under Section 307 IPC.  Both the

sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.  The High Court

has concurred with the sentence as well.   

2. We have heard  Mr. Yatindra Singh, Senior Advocate, learned

Amicus  Curiae  for  the  appellant  and  Mr.  Saurabh Ajay  Gupta,

learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The incident witnessing the death of Jatinder Singh and the

injuries sustained by Lakhwinder has the genesis in a trifle.   On a

statement rendered with regard thereto by Gurdial Singh(PW1), the

First Information Report was registered against the appellant and

his  son  Harpartap.   It  was  alleged  that  over  a  lingering  land

dispute  between  the  informant  and  the  appellant,  who  are

brothers, on 06.07.2002, while Jugraj,  the son of the informant

was in his fields, the appellant had hurled  abuses to him. Jugraj

having  felt  humiliated  and  anguished,  on  returning  home,

complained about the same to his father Gurdial, the informant.

The houses of the brothers were adjacent to each other.  When the

appellant returned home from his fields, the informant went to the

terrace of the roof of his house and summoned the former to that

of his.  The appellant and his son Harpartap responded to the call

Page 3

3

whereafter informant enquired of Gurpal as to why he had abused

his  son.   This  enraged  the  appellant  and  while  arrogantly

proclaiming that he was not only justified to do so but that he

would continue to conduct himself as done, rushed downstairs of

his house and brought his DBBL  gun.  His son Harpartap, the

acquitted  co-accused  was  also  with  him.   It  is  alleged  by  the

prosecution that  on the exhortation of  Harpartap,  the appellant

opened  fire,  which  hit  the  informant  on  the  side  of  his  head.

Meanwhile drawn by the commotion, Paramjit Kaur, the wife of the

informant, Jatinder Singh and Lakhwinder Singh, friends of Jugraj

rushed to the terrace.  On seeing them, the appellant fired from his

gun  towards  them,  which  hit  Paramjit  and  Jatinder  on  their

abdomen and Lakhwinder on his mouth and head. On hue and cry

being raised, the appellant and the accused fled the scene.   

4. The injured were rushed to the Guru Nanak Dev Hospital,

Amritsar where they were treated.  However, Jatinder succumbed

to  the  injuries  sustained.   After  completing  the  investigation,

charge-sheet  was  laid  against  both  the  accused  persons  under

Sections 302 and 307 IPC.

Page 4

4

5. The accused persons denied the charge and, therefore were

tried.  The prosecution  examined several witnesses including the

informant,  the  injured  and  the  doctor  who  had  performed  the

post-mortem examination and had attended the injuries of others

involved.  The accused persons were examined under Section 313

Cr.P.C. and on the completion of the trial, the Trial Court convicted

the  appellant  under  Sections  302,  307  IPC  but  acquitted  the

co-accused Harpartap.  To reiterate, the High Court has affirmed

the conviction and the sentence recorded by the Trial Court.  

6. The learned Amicus Curiae has persuasively argued that the

prosecution  has  utterly  failed  to  prove  the  charge  against  the

appellant  which  is  patently  deducible  amongst  others  from the

exoneration  of  the  co-accused  Harpartap,  who  allegedly  had

instigated the former to open fire on the deceased and the injured.

Apart  from contending  that  all  the  purported  eye-witnesses  are

relatives inter se, and therefore inherently partisan and thus are

wanting  in  creditability,  the  learned  senior  counsel  in  the

alternative has urged without prejudice that even if the prosecution

case, as projected, is accepted in its entirety, no case for murder or

attempt therefor has been proved and, therefore in any view of the

Page 5

5

matter, the sentence needs to be reduced appropriately.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent, as against this, has

urged  that  in  the  face  of  telltale  testimony  of  the  injured

eye-witnesses, supported on all fours by the medical evidence, the

charge  levelled  against  the  appellant  stands  proved  beyond

reasonable doubt and thus the concurrent determinations of the

courts below do not warrant any interference in the appeal.

8. We have examined the evidence pertaining to the incident as

available on records.  The eye-witnesses including the informant

have  offered  a  consistent,  coherent  and  convincing  narration

thereof which does not admit of any doubt of their trustworthiness.

The plea of  their  family  relationship  to  discredit  them does  not

commend for acceptance in the attendant facts and circumstances.

Noticeably, in course of the investigation, amongst others, the 12

bore DBBL gun loaded with two live cartridges used for the offence

had been recovered from the appellant.  The site plan prepared by

the  investigating  officer  also  pins  the  place  of  occurrence  as

deposed by the witnesses.  Further four cartridge shells have also

been recovered from the said spot.  

Page 6

6

9. The medical evidence reveals injuries on the deceased and the

injured compatible with the weapon used.   The charges levelled

against the appellant thus have been proved beyond doubt.  The

co-accused Harpartap has been acquitted in view of  absence of

any  incriminating  evidence  against  him.  His  acquittal,  having

regard to the state of evidence has no bearing on the inculpatory

involvement  of  the  appellant  somuch so,  that  his  conviction  in

isolation is sustainable.

10. However,  in  the  singular  facts  of  the  case  and noticing  in

particular,  the  progression  of  events  culminating  in  the  tragic

incident, we are inclined to reduce the sentence awarded to him.

Incidentally,  the  occurrence is  of  the year  2004 and meanwhile

twelve  years  have  elapsed.   Further,  having  regard  to  the  root

cause of  the incident and the  events  that  sequentially  unfolded

thereafter,  we are  of  the  comprehension that  the  appellant  was

overpowered by an uncontrollable fit of anger somuch so that he

was deprived of his power of self-control and being drawn in a web

of action reflexes, fired at the deceased and the injured, who were

within his sight.  The facts do not commend to conclude that the

appellant had the intention of eliminating any one of those fired at,

Page 7

7

though  he  had  the  knowledge  of  the  likely  fatal  consequences

thereof.  Be that as it may, on an overall consideration of the fact

situation and also the time lag in between, we are of the view that

the conviction of the appellant ought to be moderated to one under

Section 304 Part 1 IPC and 307 IPC.  Further, considering the facts

of the case in particular, according to us, it would meet the ends of

justice,  if  the sentence for the offences is reduced to the period

already undergone.  We order accordingly.   

11. Ex-consequenti, the appeal is partly allowed.  The conviction

of the appellant is converted to one under Section 304 Part 1 and

307  IPC  and  the  sentence  is  reduced  to  the  period  already

undergone.  In this view of the matter, as a corollary, the appellant

is hereby ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required

to be detained in connection with any other case.

                                               .............................................J.                          (DIPAK MISRA)

                           …...........................................J.

                 (AMITAVA ROY)

NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 2, 2016.