http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SURJAN SINGH & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       13/08/1998

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, S.P. KURDUKAR.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          J U D G M E N T        The  two  appellants  and  one  Kashmir  Singh   were convicted  by  the  trial  court  for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 506 both read with Section 34 IPC, by the  court  of  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Faridabad,  in Sessions Case No.    31/88.  The H igh Court confirmed their conviction.  All the convicted accused then filed a  Special leave petition  in  this  court.    Leave was not granted to Kashmir Singh.  It was granted to the appellants only. The prosecution case against  the  appellants  was  that  on 31.8.88  at  about  6.00  p.m.,  they  went  to the house of Bhagwan Singh and enquired from him whether he  was  willing or not to vacate the house in his possession.  Bhagwan Singh told  them  that  as he was the real owner of the house, the question of vacating it did not  arise.    There  upon,  the appellants  exhorted  Kashmir singh to finish Bhagwan Singh. Kashmir Singh fired two shots from his  pistol  and  causeed injuries to Bhagwan Singh and Malkiat S ingh. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the two injured eye-witnesses  and  also  led other evidence.  After appreciating their evidence, the trial court thought it safe to rely upon it and also upon the evidence of Lattkan  singh -  P.W.7  and  Jagir  Singh  - P.W.8, who hadd rushed to the place of the incident on hearing the cries of  the  injured. The  trial  court disbelieved tthe defence case that someone else and fired at them and caused  injuries  and  that  they were falsely  involved  because  o  f property dispute.  The trial court convicted them as stated above. The High Court on re-appreciation  of  the  evidence  agreed with  findings recorded by the trial court and confirmed the conviction. What was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant  was that  the  evidence  of  the  eye-witnesses was not properly appreciated by  courts  below  and  the  reasons  given  for accepting their evidence inspite of many infirmities therein are not  proper.    H  aving gone through their evidence, we find that it does not suffer  from  any  serious  infirmity. Their  evidence was correctly appreciated by the trial court and the High Court was  right  in  confirming  the  findings recorded by the trial court.  All the three accused had gone

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

together  to  the  house  of  Bhagwan Singh and the way they acted thereafter leaves  no  doubt  about  their  acting  in furtherance of  theeir  common intention.  As they have been rightly convicted under Sections 307 and 506 both read  with Section 34 IPC, this appeal is dismissed. The appellants are  on bail.  Their bail is cancelled.  They are ordered  to  surrender  to  custody  to  serve  out  the remaining part of their sentence. end