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

PETITIONER: HARPAL SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF HARYANA (WITH CRL. M.P. NO.1482/85)

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/12/1997

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T Nanavati,J.      The appellant  and one Teja Singh were convicted by the Court of  Sessions Judge,  Ambala in Sessions Case No. 10 of 1981/Sessions Trial  No. 27  of 1981.  Their Conviction  was confirmed by  the High  Court. Teja  Singh and  Harpal Singh challenged their  conviction by  filing separate  appeals in this Court.  Criminal Appeal  No. 576  of 1982 filed by Teja Singh abated  as result  of only  with Criminal  Appeal  No. 71/83 filed by Harpal Singh.      The case of the prosecution was Teja Singh had borrowed Rs.500/- from one Balbir Singh two Months before the date of the data  of the occurrence. As Teja Singh was not returning the said  amount, Balbir  Singh, along  with Gulab Singh and Gurdev Singh,  went to  Teja Singh’s  house for getting back the said amount. They had gone to the house of Teja Singh on 22.11.19980 at about 10 p.m. From near the gate of his house they shouted  for Teja  Singh. Teja  Singh came  out of  his house armed  with a  DBBL .  12 bore  gun along  with Harpal singh. Balbir  Singh  Demanded  return  of  the  amount  and insisted that  it should  be paid  on that  day itself.  The demand led  to an  exchange of  words followed  by grappling between Teja  Singh and  Balbir Singh.  At that  time Harpal Caught Balbir Singh. At that time Harpal Singh Caught Balbir Singh by  has hair  and gave a lalkara to Teja Singh that he should not  wait any  more and  fire a shot at Balbir Singh. Thereupon Teja  Singh fired a shot at Balbir Singh which hit him on  his chest.  Thereafter Teja  Singh and  Harpal Singh went inside  their house.  Gulab Singh  went to  the  police station and lodged a complaint.      The trial  Court believed  the evidence  of  PW4  Gulab Singh and  PW11 Gurdev Singh and held that Balbir Singh died as a  result of  the shot  fired by  Teja Singh from him gun that Harpal  Singh had  caught hold  of Balbir  Singh by his long hairs and given a lalkara to Teja Singh. It, therefore, convicted  Teja  Singh  for  the  offence  punishable  under Section 302 IPC and Harpal Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34  IPC. Both  were ordered  to undergo imprisonment for life.      The  High   Court,  on   re-appreciation  of  evidence,

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

confirmed the  findings recorded  by the Trial Court. It has also found  that the evidence of evidence of Gulab Singh and Gurdev Singh  is consistent  and inspite  of thorough cross- examination nothing  could be  elicited by the defence which would create  any  doubt  regarding  truthfulness  of  their version. The  High Court rejected the defence version on the ground that  it stood  falsified by  the evidence of the two doctors Dr.Y.K.  Bajaj and  Dr.P. Sinha  who  had  medically examined both the accused.      The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that  so far  as Harpal  Singh is concerned, it cannot be said he  entertained a  common intention with Singh to cause the death  of Balbir  Singh. It  was submitted  by her  that merely   giving a  lalkara by  itself cannot  be regarded as sufficient to  come to  that conclusion.  As  stated  above, Harpal Singh  had not  only come  out of  the house  of Teja Singh along  with him but had also taken part in the assault on Singh   even  though he was not attacked either by Balbir Singh or  any other  person accompanying  him. It not Harpal Singh’s case  that he  had intervened in that manner to Teja Singh and  Balbir Singh  from fighting.  Moreover  from  the words uttered  by Harpal  Singh,  namely,  that  Teja  Singh should not wait any more and fire at Balbir Singh it becomes apparent that  both Teja  Singh and  Hardev Singh  share the common intention  that a  shot be  fired by  Teja  Singh  at Balbir Singh.  It was  in pursuance of this common intention that Teja  Singh had  fired the  shot  which  killed  Balbir Singh. Both  the Courts were, Therefore, right in drawing an inference from  these facts  that both Harpal Singh and Teja Singh had  entertained a  common intention to cause death of Balbir Singh.      As we  find that  the view  taken by  the High Court is correct, this  appeal is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the  appeal filed  by appellant Harpal Singh, no order is required to be passed in the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by  the wife  of deceased balbir Singh. It also stands disposed of  accordingly.  The  appellant  Harpal  Singh  is directed to  surrender to custody immediately so as to serve out the remaining part of his sentence.