1

      NON-REPORTABLE

  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1349 OF 2015

PAPPU @ HANS RAJ                            ...APPELLANT(S)

                               VERSUS

THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.           ...RESPONDENT(S)

                            WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  1348 OF 2015

DALJIT KUMAR ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATH,J.

1. These  appeals  arise  out  of  the  judgment  of  the

Punjab and Haryana High Court in and by which the High Court

has affirmed the conviction of the appellants under Section

302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon each of

them.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.09.2003, calf

of the buffalo of deceased Amar Nath entered in the field of

accused Makhan Ram whereupon accused Makhan Ram beat up the

animal.  When  deceased  Rajji,  wife  of  deceased  Amar  Nath

2

enquired from accused Makhan Ram, he beat her also by pulling

her long hair. Deceased Amar Nath and Rajji narrated the whole

incident to complainant Sarabjit Kaur (PW-2) and they started

to convene a panchayat along with Ram Lubhaya, husband of

complainant (PW-5). When deceased Amar Nath and Rajji reached

near the house of Chanan at about 1.30 p.m. accused Makhan Ram

(A1) armed with datar, accused Ricky (A-2) armed with Kirpan,

accused Daljit Kumar (A-4) armed with takua accused Pappu (A6)

armed  with  Datar,  accused  Seebo,  mother  of  A-1,  accused

Kulwinder Kaur, sister-in-law of A-1 came from the opposite

side.  Accused  seebo  and  Kulwinder  Kaur  exhorted  other  co-

accused to catch hold of deceased Amar Nath and Rajji and kill

them.

3. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence,

the Trial Court vide its judgment dated 21.09.2007 convicted

Makhan Ram (A-1), Daljit Kumar (A-4), Pappu alias Hans Raj

appellant herein (A-6) under Section 302 IPC and sentenced

them to undergo life imprisonment. The Court acquitted the

accused Ricky (A-2), Seebo (A-3) and Kulwinder Kaur (A-5) from

all  the  charges  holding  that  the  prosecution  has  not

established the guilt against those accused. The High Court

dismissed the appeal preferred by accused Makhan Ram, Daljit

Kumar and the appellant-Pappu alias Hans Raj.  Being aggrieved

the appellants – Pappu @ Hans Raj and Daljit Kumar are before

this Court.

4. We have heard Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay & Mrs. S.Sarada Devi,

learned counsel for the appellants as well as Ms. Jaspreet

3

Gogia, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondent.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted

that the appellant-Pappu was not named in the F.I.R. and that

the appellant had no motive against the deceased Amar Nath and

Rajji.  No  recovery  was  made  from  him  and,  therefore,  the

conviction  of  the  appellant  -  Pappu  @  Hans  Raj  is  not

sustainable.

6. The eye witnesses namely, Sarabjit Kaur (PW-2) and Ram

Lubhaya (PW-5) have stated about the overt-act of appellant-

Pappu @ Hans Raj and the accused Daljit Kumar. As per their

evidence, the appellant-Pappu @ Hans Raj inflicted injury on

the deceased Rajji.  Likewise accused-Daljit Kumar inflicted

injuries on deceased Rajji with takua. As seen from the post-

mortem examination conducted on the dead body of Rajji, she

sustained incised wound 18 cms x 3 cms was present on lower

part of left side of the head and left side of the face,

extending from left cheek anteriorly cutting left maxillary

bone.  The second injury relates to the horizontal incised

wound on upper part of left side of the neck just below the

left ear extending from  under surface of the mandible just

anterior  to  angle  of  left  mandible  anteriorly  and  passing

posteriorly upto the nape of the neck. The injuries inflicted

on Rajji by the appellants clearly show that the intention of

the  appellants  in  inflicting  the  fatal  injury.  Upon

consideration of the evidence of the eye witnesses and the

nature of injuries, the Trial Court as well as the High Court

recorded concurrent findings that the appellants-accused are

4

liable to the convicted under Section 302 IPC.

7. We  do  not  find  any  good  ground  warranting

interference   with  the  concurrent  findings  of  the  Courts

below.  The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

….......................J. [R. BANUMATHI]

…......................J. [INDIRA BANERJEE]

NEW DELHI 3RD OCTOBER, 2018