- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Jagpal Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab
Factual and Procedural Background
The incident occurred on March 26, 1971 at about 7–8 p.m. in Village Govindpura, when five accused, including the present three appellants—Jagpal Singh, Baldev Singh and Gurmel Singh (s/o Chanan Singh)—allegedly formed an unlawful assembly to kill Kapur Singh. Shots were fired; Kapur Singh escaped into the house of Udham Singh, but Surjit Kaur (Udham Singh’s wife) standing nearby was fatally hit. A separate trial was held for these three appellants because they had absconded for a considerable time. The Sessions Court convicted them under Sections 302/149, 307/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and imposed life imprisonment (Section 302), three years’ rigorous imprisonment (Section 307) and two years’ rigorous imprisonment (Section 148). The High Court of Punjab & Haryana affirmed the convictions and sentences. The present appeal challenges the High Court’s judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the evidence proved the participation of each appellant in the murder of Surjit Kaur and the attempted murder of Kapur Singh so as to sustain their convictions under Sections 302/149, 307/149 and 148 IPC.
- Whether, under Section 301 IPC (doctrine of transfer of malice), appellant Jagpal Singh is liable for murder when the shot aimed at Kapur Singh accidentally killed Surjit Kaur.
- Whether the convictions of Baldev Singh and Gurmel Singh (s/o Chanan Singh) could be upheld on the basis of “omnibus” allegations unsupported by reliable evidence.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. The Court reviewed the testimony of two prosecution eye-witnesses—Kapur Singh (PW 2) and Dalip Singh (PW 3)—and the defence witness Udham Singh (DW 1). PW 3 specifically stated that Jagpal Singh fired the shot that hit Surjit Kaur, while PW 2 could not identify the shooter.
2. Although DW 1 claimed that neither eyewitness was present and no appellant shot his wife, both lower courts had rejected his testimony; the Supreme Court saw no reason to disturb that credibility finding regarding Jagpal Singh.
3. Applying Section 301 IPC, the Court held that when unlawful gunfire aimed at Kapur Singh killed Surjit Kaur, the intention to kill transferred, making Jagpal Singh directly liable for murder under Section 302 IPC (simpliciter) and for the attempted murder of Kapur Singh under Section 307 IPC (simpliciter).
4. For Baldev Singh and Gurmel Singh (s/o Chanan Singh), the Court found the evidence “omnibus” and unreliable; on a “careful analysis,” it was “not safe” to maintain their convictions.
5. Consequently, the Court retained Jagpal Singh’s life sentence under Section 302 and three-year rigorous imprisonment under Section 307, but set aside his conviction under Section 148 IPC. Convictions and sentences of the other two appellants were quashed.
6. Observing uncertainty about appeals by two additional co-accused (Bhupinder Singh and Gurmel Singh s/o Kehar Singh), the Court extended the same benefit of acquittal to them, subject to the condition that no appeal by them was pending or had been dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Holding and Implications
Holding: Jagpal Singh’s appeal is dismissed with modification; he remains convicted under Sections 302 and 307 IPC with existing sentences, while his conviction under Section 148 IPC is set aside. Appeals of Baldev Singh and Gurmel Singh (s/o Chanan Singh) are allowed, and their convictions and sentences are quashed. Conditional acquittal is also extended to Bhupinder Singh and Gurmel Singh (s/o Kehar Singh).
Implications: The judgment results in immediate release of the acquitted accused, subject to appellate contingencies, while affirming Jagpal Singh’s liability through the doctrine of transfer of malice under Section 301 IPC. The decision primarily affects the parties; it does not purport to establish new precedent beyond reaffirming established principles.
Order
1. This criminal appeal is preferred by the three appellants challenging the correctness and validity of the judgment, rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 1976 on its file convicting the three appellants under Section 302 read with Sections 149, 307 read with Sections 149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of the appellants to undergo life imprisonment, three years' rigorous imprisonment and two years rigorous imprisonments respectively. According to the prosecution, these three appellants along with two others on March 26, 1971 at village Govindpura at about 7 or 8 p.m formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with a common object of causing the death of one Kapur Singh, committed rioting, attempted to cause the death of Kapur Singh and caused the death of Mrs Surjit Kaur. The trial court on the evaluation of the evidence found these three appellants (who were tried separately since they had been absconding for a long time) guilty under all the charges and convicted and sentenced them. The High Court confirmed the judgment of the trial court. It is brought to our notice during the hearing of the appeal that the two other accused were separately tried and convicted and sentenced. It is not known as to whether those two appellants have preferred any appeal before this Court or not.
2. To substantiate the charges levelled against these appellants, two eye-witnesses were examined, namely, Kapur Singh (PW 2) and Dalip Singh (PW 3). The evidence discloses that these appellants and the other two came to the house of Kapur Singh (PW 2) to attack him and fired shots. But Kapur Singh to save his life went into the house of Udham Singh, husband of the deceased Surjit Kaur. The appellants along with the two other accused went in front of the house of the deceased and fired shots from their weapons. At that time, Surjit Kaur was standing by the side of a door of a room. It is said that one of the shots fired by appellant 1, Jagpal Singh, hit at the deceased who succumbed to the injuries, sustained by her. Though Kapur Singh (PW 2) has admitted that he could not state as to who shot at the deceased, PW 3, Dalip Singh, has deposed that it was appellant 1, Jagpal Singh. The defence has examined the husband of the deceased as DW 1. The husband of the deceased (DW 1) has categorically stated that the deceased was not shot by any one of the appellants and that both the eye-witnesses were not in his house at the time of occurrence. But both the courts below have not placed any reliance on the evidence of Udham Singh.
3. On going through he entire evidence and other connected records placed before us, we are fortified in holding that appellant 1, Jagpal Singh shot at Surjit Kaur even though he aimed at only Kapur Singh. Therefore, under the doctrine of transfer of malice as contemplated under Section 301 of the IPC, Jagpal Singh has made himself punishable under Section 302 IPC (simpliciter). So far as the rest of the appellants are concerned, the allegations are omibus. On a careful analysis of the entire evidence particularly of Udham Singh, we are of the opinion that it is not safe to convict the other two appellants, namely, Baldev Singh and Gurmel Singh s/o Chanan Singh.
4. In the result, we convict Jagpal Singh alone under Sections 302 (simpliciter) and 307 (simpliciter) instead of Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 307 read with 149 IPC and retain the sentence of imprisonment for life and the sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment. The conviction under Section 148 IPC as against this appellant, Jagpal Singh, is set aside. As we have now come to the conclusion that it is not safe to convict the other appellants, we act aside the conviction recorded against these two appellants under Sections 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149 and 148 IPC as well the sentences imposed on them therefor. Accordingly, the appeal of Jagpal Singh is dismissed subject to the above modification and the appeal so far as the other two appellants are concerned is allowed.
5. Counsel for the appellants is not able to say as to whether those two appellants have preferred any appeal before this Court or not. Therefore, we extend the benefit of acquittal to Bhupinder Singh and Gurmel Singh s/o Kehar Singh provided they have not preferred any appeal before this Court with regard to this case. In case any appeal preferred by them challenging their convictions concerning this case is pending or dismissed then the benefit of acquittal extended by us to them cannot be enured.
6. In the result, the appeal of Jagpal Singh is dismissed as indicated above and the appeal in respect of the other two appellants is allowed. As we have now extended the benefit of acquittal to the other two accused, namely, Bhupinder Singh and Gurmel Singh s/o Kehar Singh and their convictions and sentences recorded as against them are also set aside and they are directed to be set at liberty forthwith provided their convictions are not confirmed by the dismissal of SLP, if any preferred by them, or in an appeal or if any appeal is pending before this Court.
7. The bail bonds are discharged.
Alert