Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s acquittal, holding that the evidence showed the death resulted from a road accident and the prosecution did not establish the requisite mens rea or causal link for murder under s.302 r/w s.34.

Summary

The State of Punjab charged six accused with murder under IPC s.302 read with s.34, alleging that after a jeep deliberately struck the deceased's scooter, the accused assaulted him with rods and hockey sticks, leading to his death after 55 days. The trial court convicted four of the accused, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court acquitted all, holding that the death was the result of a vehicular accident, not a homicidal attack. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the investigative report, eyewitness statements, and the medico‑legal findings, noting the absence of blood at the scene, the incorrect scooter number, and the shifting of the accident site. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of murder, including the intention to kill and a direct causal link between the assault and death. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s acquittal, concluding that the evidence supported a conclusion of accidental death rather than homicide.

Issues considered

Whether the death of the deceased was caused by a homicidal assault or by a vehicular accident.
Whether the prosecution proved the elements of murder under IPC s.302 read with s.34.
Whether the High Court erred in acquitting the accused on the basis that the death was accidental.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 173
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 307, s. 323, s. 34

Subjects

murdersection 302section 34vehicular accidenthomicidal deathacquittalevidence assessmentmedico‑legal reportjoint liability

Judgment

[2008) 14 S.C.R. 680

~~
~
A STATE OF PUNJAB
v.
GURDEV SINGH & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 349-350 of 2002)
OCTOBER 17, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
";!(
SHARMA, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302-rlw s. 34 - Murder - By six
c ·accused - Parties were in inimical terms - Investigating Of-
ficer stating that he did not fihd blood from the scene of occur-
rence and found no sign of homicidal attack - Medico-Legal
report stating the incident as a roadside accident - Convic-
tion of four accused by trial Court-Acquittal of all the accused
by High Court - On appeal, held: In the facts of the case, ac-
D
quittal justified - Prosecution tried to project a vehicular acci-
dent into a case of homicidal death. ~

Respondents-accused were prosecuted for causing
death of one person. According to prosecution, the six ac-
E cused who were in a jeep knowingly hit the scooter which
the deceased was driving. When the deceased fell down, all
the accused started attacking the deceased with their re-
spective weapons i.e. rods and hockey sticks. PW5 (com-
plainant) and PWB were the eye-witnesses to the incident.
.
~

F The victim was taken to the hospital by the eye-witnesses.
He died after 55 days of the occurrence. The motive behind \l
the occurrence alleged by was that the complainant (brother
of the deceased), pursuant to direction of the Court, had
taken possession of their land from the accused. In the
Medico-Legal Report it was mentioned that it was a road-
G
side accident. Trial Court convicted four of the six accused
for offence punishable uls. 302 r/w 34 IPC. High court ac- '.- -
quitted all the accused holding that the deceased died as a
result of vehicular accident. Hence the present appeals.
H 680
STATE OF PUNJAB v. GURDEV SINGH 681
& ORS.
~
Dismissing the appeals, the Court A
HELD: 1.1 The High Court has analysed the evidence
and come to the conclusion that the prosecution has tried
to make a vehicular accident'~ case into a case of homi-
cidal death. The aspects highlighted by the High Court

. are germane and relevant. That being so, there is no scope B
for interference in these appeals. The Investigating Officer
(PW12) clearly stated that he did n9t find any blood on
the scene of occ1:1rrence and also found no sign of the
homicidal attack as projected. Even the scooter number
was wrongly mentioned. The High Court further noticed c
that the scene of occurrence was shifted. [Para 8] [686-G-
H; 687-A-C]
1.2 PW8 stated that about 15 to 20 injuries were in-
flicted by each of the accused on the person of the de-
ceased. The High Court found it to be totally out of con- D
text and also highlighted unusual conduct of PWs 5 and
~ 8. It was pointed out that the accused persons and the
deceased, PWs. 5 and 8 were in inimical terms and some
of the litigation between them had travelled upto this
Court. The background facts highlighted by the defence E
to indicate false implication on the background facts was
accepted by the High Court. [Paras 5, 6 and 7] [686-B-D]
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 349-350 of 2002
F
~/ From the Judgment and final Order dated 14.3.2001 of
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl.
Appeal No. 192-08 of 1997 and 596-DB of 1997
Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, T.P. Mishra and H.S. Sandhu
for the Appellant. G
·~.
Kawaljit Kochar and Kusum Chaudhary for the Respon-
dents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in these appeals H
682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S. C.R.

A is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court directing acquittal of the respondents. It is to be noted
that four out of six respondents were found guilty of offence pun-
ishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentence of impris-
B onment for life and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation. It
was awarded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur.
2. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:
Gursewak Singh on 24.5.1994 reported to the police that
c he is the resident of village Gurdaspura and they are five broth-
ers and he is eldest to all. Bhupinder Singh (hereinafter referred
to as the 'deceased') is younger to him and Raj Kanwar Singh
is younger to Bhupinder Singh and Chitranjan Singh is young-
est to all. Being the eldest to all brothers, the complainant is the
head of the family and is responsible for looking after the entire
0
land belonging to them, situated in village Gurdaspura. They
took possession of 400 Bighas of land at village Gurdaspura
through the orders of the Court on 22.3.1994. The said land
was previously being cultivated by Mewa Singh son of Geja
Singh adopted son of Keeru Singh, now resident of village
E Kalaudi and by others. On 23.5.1994, he along with his brother
. Raj Kanwar Singh were going towards their village in Maruti
Car bearing registration No .PB 138/5659, whereas his brother
Bhupinder Singh was also going towards village Gurdaspura
after doing his domestic work on his scooter No.HI A-870,
F Bhupinder Singh was going ahead of the complainant, while he
and Raj Kanwar Singh were following Bhupinder Singh on the
car. When they reached near the passage going towards vil-
lage Nai Wala, within the area of village Khurana, at about 2.00
p.m. a Jeep bearing registration No.PYG351 came from the
G side of Sangrur, which was being driven by accused Mewa
Singh son of Geja Singh. Accused Mewa Singh overtook the
Car of the complainant and knowingly hit the scooter of
Bhupinder Singh with an intention to kill him, as a result of which
Bhupinder Singh fell down on the road and then accused Mewa
H Singh stopped his jeep. Accused Mewa Singh had a rod in his
STATE OF PUNJAB v. GURDEV SINGH 683
& OR3.

I __t.-, I hand. Accused Geja Singh son of Kartar Singh Jat, Resident of A
\

Village Kalaudi was armed with rod and accused Gurdev Singh
son of Geja Singh was armed with hockey stick, accused Ram
Singh son of Surjit Singh was armed with hockey stick, Jagtar
Singh accused son of Chhaju Singh Ghumar, resident of
Gurdaspura was armed with soti and accused Gurmit Singh B
alias Gala, son of Bachan Singh, Ghumar resident of
Gurdaspura was armed with rod. They got down from the jeep
k and at once started causing injuries to Bhupinder Singh. Ac-
cused Mewa Singh gave Rod blow on the head of Bhupinder
Singh. Accused Geja Singh also gave Rod blow on the fore- c
head of Bhupinder Singh. Thereafter, accused Gurdev Singh
gave hockey stick blow to Bhupinder Singh, which hit on his
chin. Accused Ram Singh then gave Hockey stick blow which
hit on the nose of Bhupinder Singh. Thereafter accused Jagtar
Singh gave soti blow to Bhupinder Singh, which hit on the right
D
side of his temple and then accused Gurmal Singh alias Gela,
_,, abovesaid, gave Rod blow, which hit in the left side of chest of
Bhupinder Singh. Accused Geja Singh, raised Lalkara that
Bhupinder Singh should not be left alive and he be killed and be
taught a lesson. Thereafter all the accused again caused inju-
ries to Bhupinder Singh with their respective weapons, which E
hit him on his legs, arms, hands, chest, abdomen also on the
abdomen, the complainant and his brother Raj Kanwar Singh
raised alarm, which attracted Charanpal Singh son of Har
Narain, resident of village Nai wala and he also raised alarm
"NA MARO NA MARO". On this all the accused ran away from F
~- the spot with their respective weapons towards Bhawani Garh
side in their jeep. Being afraid the complainant and his brother
Raj Kanwar Singh stood at a distance and watched the occur-
rence. Due to the injuries received by Bhupinder Singh, he be-
came unconscious and he was taken to Civil Hospital, Sangrur G
by the complainant and his brother Raj Kanwar Singh and
,,1 Charan Pal Singh in the car of the complainant for treatment,
but due to his serious condition, Bhupinder Singh was referred
to Rajindera Hospital, Patiala, but he was taken to D.M.C,
Ludhiana for better treatment by the complainant and his brother H
684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A Raj Kanwar Singh and Charan Pal Singh. They stayed to D.M.C. ~-r-;- I

Ludhiana as the condition of Bhupinder Singh was very serious
an9 they were to look after him. On 24.5.1994 the complainant
was going to give information to the police when S.I. Ashok
Mohan, S.M.O of Police Station, Sadar Sangrur met him and
B he got recorded his aforesaid statement. Further stated by the
complainant that in this connection security proceedings are
also pending in the Court of S.D.M. Sangrur. °The motive behind -).
the occurrence is that the complainant party had taken posses-
sion of their land from the accused in pursuance to the orders of
c tne Court in village Gurdaspura on 22.2.1994. After recording
the above statement (Ex. PE) of complainant Gursewak Singh, tc.
S.I. Ashok Mohan made his endorsement (Ex. PE/1) and sent
the same to the Police Station through Om Parkash, on the ba-
sis of which formed F.l.R. (Ex. PE/2) was registered by MMC
Swaran Singh under Sections 307/323/148/149 IPC. Thereat-
D
ter, S. I. Ashok Mohan along with the complainant went to the
place of occurrence, ·inspected the spot and prepared rough
site plan (Ex.PJ) with correct marginal notes. From the place of
occurrence, scooter bearing registration number HI A-870 with
1
E.
madguard having dents and broken back lights, was taken into r
possession through recovery memo (Ex. PF), which was at-
tested by ASI Lachhman Dass(P29) and Gursewak Singh
(PW6). Thereafter, the Investigating officer went to C.M.L.
Ludhiana, where the injured was declared unfit to make state-
.ment. On this, the investigating officer recorded the statement
F of Raj Kanwar Singh (PW6). He requested for opinion of the
Doctor vide his application (Ex. PW12). On 25.5.1994, another ~
application (Ex. PW12/B) was given before the doctor and the
Doctor declared injured Bhupinder Singh unfit to make state-
ment. On 5.6.1994 accused Geja Singh, Mewa Singh, Gurmal
G Singh and Jagtar Singh were arre~ted in the area of village
Kalwarh Kalan when they were going in Jeep No.HYG-351. The
personal search memo (Ex. PW9) was prepared and two rods .~
were recovered from the jeep. The said jeep along with its reg-
istration certificate and the rods (Ex.P1 and P2) were. taken
H into possession through recovery memo (Ex. PW9/A) attested
STATE OF PUNJAB v. GURDEV SINGH 685
& ORS.

by the aforesaid PWs. Statements of the recovery witnesses A
--0 were recorded by the investigating officer.
Further, the case of the prosecution is that Bhupinder Singh
died in C.M.C Ludhiana, on 17.7.1994.ASI KulwantSinghwent
to C.M.C. Ludhiana and prepared inquest report (Ex. PG) and
B
the offence was changed to under Sections 302/148/149 l.P.C.
The dead body of Bhupinder Singh was postmortemed in Civil
Hospital, Sangrur. Statements of P.W.s were recorded. Rough
site plan was prepared. Accused Gurdev Singh, Sh. Ram Singh
surrendered themselves in the Court of Shri S.M ..S. Mahial, Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur on 18.8.1994 and they were for- c
mally arrested by ASI Kulwant Singh. After· completion of the
investigation and other formalities, the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C.
was prepared by S.I. Ranjit Singh on 21.8.1994 and wa$ sub-
mitted in the Court on 1.9.1994.
D
Since the trial court had accepted the prosecution version
and had convicted the accused persons, appeals were filed by
·\ them before the High Court. Primary stand before the High Court
was that the evidence on record does not show that the de-
ceased lost his life on account of any homicidal attack, on the
contrary the evidence on record clearly establish that he died
E
as a result of vehicular accident. The High Court found the de-
fence version to be accepta~le and directed acquittal.
3. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appel-
lant-State submitted that the High Coµ rt has attached unneces- F
sary importance to certain notings made in the medical record
~,
at the time of admission of the deceased. It is stated that the
medical opinion did not rule out homici~al attack.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
submitted that the deceased lost his life after about 55 days of G
the alleged occurrence on account of Septicemia. It is pointed
,,,-1_ out that the High Court has referred to the evidence on record
and found that the prosecution has tried to project a death on
, account of vehicular accident to be homicidal death. It is to be
' noted that the High Court took note of several factors which have H
686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 14 S.C.R.

A considerable significance. Firstly it was noted that there was
delayed lodging of the First information report. PW 5 who is an ~
advocate even did not choose to make a statement either to .
the police or to the medical officer about the alleged homicidal
attacks. He actually appeared on the scene very late and tried
B to change the factual position_.

5. Raj Kunwar Singh PW 8 stated that about 15 to 20 inju-
ries were inflicted by eac~ of the accused persons on the per- --:).._
son of the deceased. The High Court found it to be totally out of ·
context and unusual conduct of PWs 5&8 was also highlighted.
c ,;
6. It was pointed out that the accused persons and the
deceased PWs. 5&8 were in inimical terms and some of the
litigation have been travelled upto this Court.

7. The background facts highlighted by the defence to in-
D
dicate false implication on the background facts was accepted
by the High Court. It is to be noted that one of the factors was
the following entry:

"In the entry in the Medico Legal Report Ex.PW6/A, it is
1
E mentioned that it was a road side accident case when the
deceased was taken to the hospital first of all. So according
to the learned cou.nsel for the c;ippellants, the occurrence
right from the beginning was d~scribed as a case of
accident. He has read over the portion of the bed head
F ticket Ex.PD which is repr?duced hereunder:
"40 years old male came with closed head injury, blunt ''f
trauma chest and abdomen following RTA at about 2.30
PM near Sangrur. Details of accident not known but he
was going on a scooter. He was taken to Civil hospital,
G
Sangrur by labourers from where he is referred here."
'8. The Investigating Officer (PW 12) clearly stated that he f-,,
did not find any blood on the scene of occurrence and also found
no s.ign of the homicidal attack as projected. Even the scooter
H number was wrongly mentioned. The High Court further noticed
STATE OF PUNJAB v. GURDEV SINGH 687
& ORS.

that the scene of occurrence was shifted. With reference to the A
--7 evidence on record the High Court concluded that this was a
case where injuries were received in a motor accident and it
was given the colour of homicidal death. The High Court has
analysed the evidence and, as noted above, came to the con-
clusion that the prosecution has tried to make a vehicular B
accident's case into a case of homicidal death. The aspects
highlighted by the High Court are germane and relevant. That
)< being so we find no scope for interference in these appeals,
which are accordingly dismissed.
K.K.T. Appeals dismissed.
c