Holding

The conviction under section 302 IPC, with the application of section 34 IPC for common intention, is upheld as the circumstantial evidence and corroborated testimonies sufficiently establish the guilt of all accused.

Summary

The appellants, Balwant Singh and his three sons, were armed with kirpans and gandasas and attacked Kuldeep Singh at the house of his mother Amarjit Kaur, inflicting multiple injuries that proved fatal. The prosecution relied on the testimony of two surviving witnesses, Amarjit Kaur and Sukhjit Kaur, whose accounts were corroborated by the post‑mortem report and other circumstantial evidence, while the original complainant and another witness turned hostile. The appellants contended that the witnesses did not see the exact moment of the fatal injuries and that it was unclear which accused caused which injury, arguing that this should preclude conviction. The Supreme Court held that the witnesses' testimonies, together with the medical findings and the chain of circumstantial facts, were sufficient to establish the guilt of all accused under section 302 IPC, and that section 34 IPC on common intention applied irrespective of the specific injury caused by each accused. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.

Issues considered

Whether the conviction under section 302 IPC can be sustained when the surviving witnesses did not directly observe the fatal injuries.
Whether the lack of identification of the specific assailant for each injury defeats the charge of common intention under section 34 IPC.
Whether the circumstantial evidence presented is sufficient to uphold the conviction.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34

Subjects

murdercommon intentionsection 34 IPCcircumstantial evidenceidentification of assailantarmed assault

Judgment

[2008] 2 S.C.R. 497

BALWANT SINGH AND OTHERS A
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 621 of 2006)
FEBRUARY 6, 2008
B
[P.P. NAOLEKAR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]
"'-.. Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 34 - Accused armed
with deadly weapons causing fatal injuries - Conviction under
s. 302 by courts below- On basis of testimony of two witnesses c
- Correctness of - Held: Testimonies of two witnesses
corroborated each other - Though one of the witnesses did
not see fatal injuries caused to deceased, but there is strong
circumstantial evidence that they were caused by accused -
Accused armed with deadly weapons had gone to the house 0
of deceased indicates their deadly intentions - More so,
particular injury not being attributable to particular accused is
not material because on facts,, s. 34 is attracted - Hence,
conviction upheld.
It is the prosecution case that PW 1 and PW 3 are E
sisters. On the fateful day, PW 1, her sons along with PW
3 and her son KS went to a village where PW 3 had a
house. When they reached there, the accused persons-
BS, HS, MS and BL were present near the house of PW 3
""' with deadly weapons. PW 1, her son and KS remained in F
the house while PW 3 along with her son and her nephew
went out to purchase vegetables. Meanwhile, accused
persons inflicted injuries to KS with deadly weapons. HS
inflicted injuries on the head and forehead of KS as a result
he fell down. BS inflicted injuries on the right ear of KS G
while MS on the right cheek and the ear of KS. PW 1 was
"-,. also inflicted injuries when she intervened to save KS.
When PW 3 and others returned to the house, they saw
KS lying on the ground and BL and MS giving gandasa
G7 H
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S~C.R. .

A blow to KS. Thereafter, all the accused gave thrust blows ~
as well as kick blows to KS. The motive was to usurp the
property of PW3 by killing KS. PW3 and others raised an
alarm. On hearing the same the accused persons ran
away. KS succumbed to his injuries. PW 1 lodged FIR.
B _ Investigations were carried out. Accused were arrested.
They made disclosure statement and weapons were
recovered. The trial court convicted the appellant-accused
persons under section 302 IPC. The High Court upheld _...
the order. Hence the present appeal.
C Appellant-accused persons contended that PW1
who lodged the FIR turned hostile as also PW2-son · of
PW 1 and as such only the testimony of PW3 and PWB-
the mother and the sister of deceased was left; that from
the evidence of PW 3 it appears that she did not see the
D main incident in which the fatal injuries were caused; and
that it was not clear which of the accused caused which
particular injury.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
E HELD: 1.1 Having gone through the testimony of PW3
and PWB-the mother and the sister of deceased, there is
no reason to disbelieve the same, especially since they
broadly corroborate each other. The evidence of PW 3 has
been corroborated by the evidence of the doctor and
F PWB-daughter of PW 3 and there is no reason to disbelieve
their evidence also. PWB stated in her evidence that she
saw the accused armed with kirpans and gandasas going
towards the house of her father. From this an inference
can be drawn that the accused armed with weapons were
G going with deadly intentions towards the house. PWB also
stated that when they came back after 30 to 45 minutes
they were armed with the same weapons with blood stains -r
and the clothes also had blood stains which they later
changed and ran away. This· evidence of PW 8
corroborates the evidence of PW 3 though it is true that
H
/
11111"'"
BALWANT SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF 499
. PUNJAB [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
.,._
she did not see the main incident in which the fatal A
injuries were caused. [Paras 9 and 12] [502-E, F; 504-G,
H; 505-A, B]
1.2 From the evidence of PW 3 it appears that she
did not see the main incident in which the fatal injuries
were caused. These fatal injuries are mentioned in the B
evidence of the doctor who conducted the post mortem .
• ..._Thus, it appears that there were three injuries on the head
of KS. It may be that PW 3 was not present when these
injuries were caused to KS, but there is strong
circumstantial evidence that they were caused by the c
accused. The circumstantial evidence mentioned therein
is sufficient to uphold the conviction because it contains
all the links in the chain which connect the accused with
the incident. [Paras 10 and 11] [503-D; 504-A, 8, C]
D
1.3 It will not matter that which of the accused caused
which particular injury because section 34 IPC is clearly
·-t attracted to the facts of the case. When persons go
together armed with deadly weapons and fatal injuries are
caused to the deceased, all of them are equally liable in
view of section 34 IPC. [Para 13] [505-C, D] E

CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 621 of 2006.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 4.5.2005 of the
...,... High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal F
Appeal No. 636-DB of 2002.
K.B. Sinha, Kawaljit Kochar, Sweta Rani and Kusum
Chaudhary for the Appellants.
Kuldip Singh and R.K. Pandey for the Respondent. G
·~ The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. 1. This appeal has been filed
against the impugned judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High
Court dated 4.5.2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 636-DB of 2002. H
500. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the ~
record.
3. The appellants are one Balwant Singh and his three
sons Balwinder Singh, Harbans Singh and Malkiat Singh. They
were convicted under section 302 and other provisions of the
8 Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda
on 30.7.2002. Against that judgment they filed an appeal in the
High Court which was dismissed and hence this appeal. ~

4. The prosecution case is that on 17. 7 .1998 at about 10/
c 10-30A.M., Bharpur Kaur(PW1) wife of Jarnail Singh r/o village
Khokhar, Police station Kalawali had along with her sons Vakil
Singh, Gurjant Singh and Nachhattar Singh gone to village Gill
Patti, Bathinda to meet her sister's daughter Amarjit Kaur (PW-
3), who was at that time residing in street No. 6, Janta Nagar,
Bathinda. From there along with Amarjit Kaur and her son
0
Kuldeep Singh alias Gurtej Singh they had gone to the house of
Amarjit Kaur in village Gill Patti. When they alighted from the
jeep in front of the house of Amarjit Kaur, they found the appellants ~
Balwant Singh and his sons Harbans Singh, Malkiat Singh and
Balwinder Singh armed with kirpans and gandasas sitting in
E the Deodi of the house of Natha Singh son of Wazir Singh.
Amarjit Kaur along with Gurjarlt Singh and Nachhattar Singh left
the house to bring milk and vegetable while Bharpur Kaur PW1,
deceased Kuldeep Singh and Vakil Singh remained in
thehouse. In the mean time, Balwant Singh and his son Harbans
F Singh armed with swords and Malkiat Singh and Balwi:ider ...,.
Singh armed with gandasas and Natha Singh empty handed
trespassed into Amrit Kaur's house. Natha Singh allegedly
raised a lalkara "Inna Noo Jaggar Singh Noo Katai Karan Atte
Ghar To Kabza Karan Da Maja Chakhaounde Haan, Ajj Ahe
G Bach Ke Na Jaan". Thereupon, Kuldeep Singh and Vakil Singh
sons of Bharpur Kaur tried to go out of the house in order to
--('
save themselves but Harbans Singh gave a blow with the kirpan
on the left side of the forehead and on the head of Kuldeep
Singh, as a result of which he fell down on the ground. Thereafter,
H Balwant Singh gave a kirpan blow which resulted.in infliction of
BALWANT SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF 501
PUNJAB [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.]

injury on his right ear. Malkiat Singh gave a gandasa blow from A
its reverse side on the right cheek and ear of Kuldeep Singh.
When Bharpur Kaur PW1 intervened to save Kuldeep Singh,
Balwinder Singh and Malkiat Singh gave gandasa blow from
reverse side, which resulted in injuries on her left wrist joint, left
knee joint and nose. Vakil Singh raised a shout "Na Maro Na B
Maro" whereupon Malkiat Singh and Balwinder Singh gave
gandasa blows on the person of Kuldeep Singh on his right and
....
~ left thigh and below the knee joint when he was lying on the
ground. In the meantime, Amarjit Kaur, mother of the deceased
Kuldeep Singh, Gurjant Singh and Nachhattar Singh returned c
to the scene of occurrence and they also raised an alarm on
hearing which the assailants fled away from the spot taking their
respective weapons with them. Kuldeep Singh succumbed to
the injuries.
5. Bharpur Kaur PW1 proceeded for the Police Station D
and on the way met SI Chand Singh SHO of Police Station
Sadar, Ba_thinda, who was present at Aeroplane Chowk,
Bathinda where he had set up a Naka for special checking of
vehicles and got reduced her statement into writing. On the basis
of the statement, which was completed at 12 .30 PM on E
17.7.1998, a formal FIR Ex PA/2 was recorded in Police Station
Thermal Bathinda at 12.45PM on the same day. He himself
proceeded to the spot where he prepared inquest report and
during the investigation took into possession blood stained earth
vide recovery memo Ex PR, recorded the statements of the F
witnesses and forwarded the dead body to Civil Hospital,
Bathinda through Constable Joginder Singh along with request
for Post Mortem Examination Ex PE. On 18.7.1998 he took
into possession clothes of the deceased, which were handed
over to him by Constable Joginder Singh.
G
6. On 21.7.1998 he arrested Balwant Singh and Malkiat
,)- Singh, who made disclosure statements pursuant whereof the
Kirpan Ex P12 and gandasa Ex P13 were taken into possession
through recovery memo Ex PU/2 and Ex PU/3. Harbans Singh
and Balwinder Singh were apprehended on 22.7.1998 and they H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 2 S.C.R.
-(

A too made disclosure statements Ex PU/4 and Ex PU/5
respectively pursuant whereof Kirpan Ex P/14 and gandasa Ex
P/15 respectively ~re taken into possession vide recovery
memo Ex P/6 and Ex PU/7 respectively. Balwant Singh and
Malkiat Singh, appellants made separate disclosure statements
B Ex PU/16 and Ex PU/17 pursuant whereof their shirts Ex P/16
and Ex P/17 which were blood stained were taken into
possession through recovery memos Ex PU/18 and Ex PU/19
.,
_>.
respectively. The same were forwarded to the Chemical
Examiner for examination and on receipt of the report of
c Chemical Examiner, the challan was put in Court against the
appellants before the lllaqa Magistrate, who upon finding that
the offences disclosed were exclusively triable by the Courts of
Sessions, committed the same to the Court of Sessions for trial.
7. The incident in question occurred on 17.7.1998at10.30
D AM and the FIR was filed at 12.45 PM. Hence there was no
delay in filing the FIR.
.,...,
8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that PW1
Bharpur Kaur who lodged the FIR turned hostile as is evident
from her statement in court on 28:2.2000. PW2 Gurjant Singh
E also turned hostile. Hence we are left only with the testimony of
PW3 Amarjit Kaur and PW8 Sukhjit Kaur. We have, therefore,
to see whether conviction on their testimonies would be safe.
9. We have carefully gone through the testimony of these
F two witnesses and we see no reason to disbelieve the same, ~·

especially since they broadly corroborate each other. Amarjit
Kaur stated in her evidence that Bharpur Kaur and her son came
to her house in Janta Nagar, Bathinda in a rented jeep and there
she and her son Kuldeep Singh (deceased) accompanied them
in the jeep and they went to village Gill Patti, where alsoAmarjit
G
Kaur has a house. The jeep was parked near the house of ~ ...
Amarjit Kaur where they saw all the accused persons sitting in
the Deodi of Natgha Singh. Balwant Singh and Harbans Singh
accused were armed with kirpan and Balwinder Singh and
Malkiat Singh were armed with gandasa. Amarjit Kaur, Gurjant
H
BALWANT SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF 503
PUNJAB [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.]

Singh and Nachattar Singh went out to purchase vegetables A
while Kuldeep Singh, Bharpur Kaur and her son Vakil Singh
remained present in the house of Amarjit Kaur. When Amarjit
Kaur and two others returned to the house at 10 or 10.30 AM
they saw her son Kuldeep Singh lying on the ground. In their
view Balwinder Singh gave gandasa blow on the leg of B
deceased Kuldeep Singh and Malkiat Singh gave a gandasa
\ blow from its blunt side in his abdomen. All the accused gave
~
thrust blows as well as kick blows to her son Kuldeep Singh.
The motive behind the occurrence was said to be the desire to
usurp the property of Amarjit Kaur by killing her son. c
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that from
the evidence of Amarjit Kaur it appears that she only saw
Balwinder Singh giving a gandasa blow on the leg of Kuldeep
Singh and Malkiat Singh giving a gandasa blow from the blunt
side in his abdomen. From this evidence learned counsel for D
the appellant has tried to infer that Amarjit Kaur did not see the
main incident in which the fatal injuries were caused. These fatal
injuries are mentioned in the evidence of the doctor who
conducted the post mortem. The doctor mentioned the following
injuries: E
1. Lacerated wound present on frontal region of head
10 x 5 cm underlying bone was fractured. Brain matter
exposed. On dissection multiple fracture were
..,. present pieces of the bone were present in the brain
matter. Haematoma was present on frontal region of F
head.
2. Fracture of mandible evident.
3. Incised wound 4 xm x 3 cm on right ear and back of
head. Loss of part of right ear. On dissection G
'}- underlying bone fractured. Haematoma was present.
4. Incise wound 4 cm x 2 cm on frontal region of lower
leg on right side. Underlying bone fractured. Clotted
blood present. Multiple abrasions on right leg.
H

.
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A 5. Multiple abrasion on right arm.
6. Bruise 8 cm x 4 cm lower abdomen below umbilicus.
..
7. Bruise 4 cm x 3cm on left writ joint.
11. Thus it appears that there were three injuries on the
8
head of Kuldeep Singh. It may be that Amarjit Kaur was not
present when these injuries were caused to Kuldeep Singh, but
in our opinion there is strong circumstantial evidence that they
were caused by the accused. In our opinion this circumstantial
evidence is sufficient to uphold the conviction because it
C contains all the links in the chain which connect the accused
with the incident. These links are :
(a) The accused persons were present with deadly
weapons near the house of Amarjit Kaur. When persons
D come armed with deadly weapons to someone's house,
it is a strong circumstance to indicate that they had came
with deadly intentions.
(b) When Amarjit Kaur and others returned to the house
at 10 or 10.30 AM, they saw Balwinder Singh giving
E gandasa blow to her son on the right leg and Malkiat Singh
giving gandasa blow from the blunt side of gandasa in his
abdomen. These blows were evidently given after the fatal
injuries on the head of Kuldeep Singh.
(c) All the accused thereafter gave thrust blows as well
F as kick blows to Kuldeep Singh who was lying on the ..,,. -..,.
ground. Hitting and kicking an injured man who is already !'--

lying on the ground shows the deadly intent of the accused. "--

(d) There was no one else other than the accused who is
....
G said to have been on the spot at the time of the incident. ~

12. The evidence of Amarjit Kaur has been corroborated -1'
by the evidence of the doctor and PW8 and we see no reason
to disbelieve their evidence also. PW8 Sukhjit Kaur has stated
in her evidence that she saw the accused armed with kirpans
H and gandasas going towards the house of her father Jaggar

I
~I~
BALWANT SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF 505
PUNJAB [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.]

Singh (deceased husband of Amarjit). From this an inference A .
can be drawn that the accused armed with weapons were going
·with deadly intentions towards the house. Sukhjit Kaur PW8 also
stated that when they came back after 30 to 45 minutes they
were armed with the same weapons with blood stains and the
clothes also had blood stains which they later changed and ran B
away. This evidence of Sukhjit Kaur corroborates the evidence
of Amarjit Kaur, though it is true that neither saw the main incident
in which the fatal injuries were caused. However, as already
stated above, there is strong circumstantial evidence to connect
the accused with the crime. c
13. Learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that
it is not clear which of the accused caused which parti(fular injury.
In our opinion that will not matter because section 34 IPC is
clearly attracted to the facts of the case. When persons go
together armed with deadly weapons and fatal injuries are D
caused to the deceased, all of them are equally liable in view of
section 34 IPC.
14. In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
E
N.J. Appeal dismissed.