Supreme Court of India
State Of Punjab vs Karnail Singh on 28 March, 1995
Equivalent citations: AIR1995SC1970, 1995CRILJ3624, AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 1970, 1995 AIR SCW 3066, 1995 AIR SCW 3075, (1995) 3 SCR 524 (SC), (1995) 2 LABLJ 824, (1995) 3 SERVLJ 46, (1995) 30 ATC 272, (1995) 2 LAB LN 55, 1995 SCC (SUPP) 2 601, (1995) 3 SCT 122, (1995) 71 FACLR 314, (1995) 1 CURLR 1019, (1995) 3 JT 632 (SC)
Author: G.N. Ray
Bench: G.N. Ray
JUDGMENT G.N. Ray, J.
1. Criminal Appeal No. 226/88 has been preferred by Sant Singh and Criminal Appeal No. 337/87 has been preferred by the State of Punjab. Since both the appeals arise out of one common judgment, both the appeals have been heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment.
2. In Session Trial No. 19/83 before the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, respondent Karnail Singh and two other accused, namely, Amar Singh and Harpal Singh were tried of charge under Section 302 and Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Trial Court convicted accused No. 1 Karnail Singh under Section 302, for murdering Bant Singh and his two sons Darashan Singh and Gurdev Singh by firing with a double barrelled gun. Considering the gravity of the offence and the brutality in committing the said murder, the Trial Court convicted Karnail Singh and sentenced him to death but the Trial Court acquitted the other two accused namely Amar Singh and Harpal Singh. Complainant Sant Singh who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 226/88 before this Court, however, preferred an appeal challenging the order of acquittal passed against the other two accused but such appeal was dismissed, and the order of acquittal was upheld by the High Court so far as Amar Singh and Harpal Singh are concerned. The High Court, however, proceeded on the footing that a case of private defence was made out so far as Karnail Singh is concerned and since Karnail Singh had exceeded the right of private defence, according to the High Court, he deserved to be convicted under Section 304, I.P.C. Part 1 and accordingly the High Court allowed the appeal so far as Karnail Singh is concerned and set aside his conviction under Section 302 and also the death sentence awarded to him and the High Court convicted Karnail Singh under Section 304, Part I and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and also a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment.
3. Against the aforesaid conviction of Karnail Singh under Section 304, Part I and also confirmation of the acquittal of the other two accused, complainant Sant Singh has preferred the said Criminal Appeal No. 226/88 and the State of Punjab has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 337/87 challenging the order of conviction against Karnail Singh under Section 304, PartI.
4. Mr. Kohli, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 226/88 has placed before us the judgment of the Courts below and has also taken us through the evidence adduced in the case. From the evidence it transpires that two of the victims were fired from close range and the doctor holding post mortem examination of the dead bodies has noted blackening of skin of the deceased. It has also been established that one of the deceased Gurdev Singh had died due to receipt of gun shot injury on his back indicating that he was fleeing and not attacking. It also transpires from the evidence that the deceased were not armed and it has not been established that there was any danger or threat from the deceased for which killing of the father and the two sons at the spot was justified.
5. From the aforesaid facts, it appears to us that there was no reason for the High Court to proceed on the footing that there was an occasion of self-defence. In our view, the High Court has clearly gone wrong in proceeding on the footing that the accused Karnail Singh had acted in exercise of right to private defence but he had exceeded such right of private defence and for the aforesaid reason, the conviction under Section 304, Part I was warranted.
6. It appears to us that it is a case of murder simpliciter for which Karnail Singh deserves to be punished under Section 302, I.P.C. We, therefore, allow both the appeals by setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and we convict Karnail Singh under Section 302, I.P.C. for the said triple murder and sentence him to suffer life imprisonment. It may be rioted that although this is a case of triple murder, we do not think that in the facts of the case death sentence should be awarded. If accused Karnail Singh has been released in view of the impugned judgment of the High Court, he should be taken into custody to serve out the sentence of life imprisonment.
7. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.