Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Baljinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (25 September 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 25 September 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 738

Judges: Dipankar Datta, J., Augustine George Masih, J.

Can a conviction for murder be upheld when the initial charge under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is converted to Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a criminal appeal where the appellants challenged their conviction for murder and related offenses. The core issue revolved around the application of common intention versus common object in a case involving multiple accused. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih, with Justice Dipankar Datta authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case originated from an incident on 12th December 1997, when the appellant A-1, while riding a scooter, bumped into the victim P.W.3 (Puran Singh @ Bhola), causing minor injuries to his fingers. Following this, P.W.3 slapped A-1, who retaliated with abuses. P.W.3 then slapped A-1 again. This initial altercation was witnessed by P.W.4 (Jit Singh), deceased victim Karam Singh, deceased victim Laddi, and P.W.5 (Jagga @ Jagjit Singh), who intervened to separate them.

Within 15 minutes, A-1, along with A-2 and A-3 (all sons of A-4), armed with dangs and sofas, accompanied by A-4 (who carried a 12 bore double-barrel gun) and A-5 (armed with a dang), returned to the scene. They attacked P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, and the deceased victims. A-1, A-2, and A-3 began throwing bricks, while A-4 fired five shots, resulting in minor injuries to P.W.3 and serious injuries to P.W.4, P.W.5, and the deceased victims.

An FIR was registered on the same day for offenses under Sections 307 and 148 of the IPC, along with Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Subsequently, Section 302 of the IPC was added after the death of one of the victims on 13th December 1997, and another victim on 10th January 1998. Charges were framed against A-4 under Sections 148, 302 (two counts), 307 (three counts), and 324 of the IPC, and against A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-5 under Sections 148, 302 read with 149 (two counts), 307 read with 149 (three counts), and 324 read with 149 of the IPC.

The Trial Court convicted A-4 under Sections 148, 302, and 307 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, while A-1, A-2, and A-3, and A-5 were convicted under Sections 148, 302, and 307 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. All the accused were sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld the convictions of A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4, while acquitting A-5. A-4 died during the pendency of the appeal, and his appeal was abated. The Supreme Court overruled the juvenility claim of A-1 and A-3.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of several key sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. PC):

• Section 34 of the IPC: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
• Section 148 of the IPC: This section defines the offense of rioting, which involves being a member of an unlawful assembly and using force or violence.
• Section 302 of the IPC: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 307 of the IPC: This section defines the punishment for attempt to murder.
• Section 464 of the Cr. PC: This section addresses the effect of errors, omissions, or irregularities in the charge. It states that no finding, sentence, or order by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission, or irregularity in the charge, including any misjoinder of charges, unless a failure of justice has been caused.

Arguments

Appellants’ Submissions:

• The High Court did not properly distinguish between common object and common intention while altering the conviction from Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC to Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
• The absence of brick bat injuries on the victims’ bodies suggests that A-1, A-2, and A-3 were not present at the crime scene.
• Witnesses tend to exaggerate the role of the assailant while downplaying their own.
• Bir Singh, uncle of P.W.3, was hostile towards the appellants because an FIR was filed against his son by A-4’s daughter.
• A-4 may have acted in self-defense, exceeding the right of private defense, and the other appellants were falsely implicated.
• The initial injury to P.W.3’s fingers was not recorded in medical records, making the testimony of P.W.3, P.W.4, and P.W.5 unreliable.
• No independent witnesses were examined, despite the crime scene being near shops and residences.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent supported the Trial Court’s judgment, which was affirmed by the High Court, denying all grounds taken by the appellants.

Sub-Submissions by Parties:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the conviction of A-1, A-2, and A-3 and the sentence imposed on them warrant interdiction.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Balu Sudam Khalde and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra [2023 SCC OnLine SC 355]*: The Court relied on this case to affirm the reliability of injured eyewitnesses’ testimonies, stating that they should not be discarded unless there are significant contradictions.
• Krishnamurthy alias Gunodu and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka [(2022) 7 SCC 521]*: The Court used this case to explain the concept of common intention under Section 34 of the IPC, stating that it can be formed even moments before the act.
• Chittarmal vs. State of Rajasthan [(2003) 2 SCC 266]*: The Court cited this case to distinguish between common intention and common object, and to explain the overlapping nature of Section 34 and Section 149 of the IPC.
• Chandra Pratap Singh vs. State of M.P. [(2023) 10 SCC 181]*: The Court cited this case to support the conversion of the charge from Section 302 read with Section 149 to Section 302 read with Section 34.
• Dalbir Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2004) 5 SCC 334]*: The Court referenced this case to clarify that a failure of justice must be demonstrated by the accused to invalidate a charge under Section 464 of the Cr. PC.
• State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Paras Nath Singh [(2009) 6 SCC 372]*: The Court cited this case to emphasize that the burden to prove a failure of justice lies on the accused.
• Guru Dutt Pathak vs. State of U.P. [(2021) 6 SCC 116]*: The Court used this case to rule that the examination of independent witnesses is not mandatory if the testimonies of other witnesses are trustworthy.
• Manjit Singh vs. State of Punjab [(2019) 8 SCC 529]*: The Court cited this case to support that reliable evidence of injured eye-witnesses cannot be discarded merely because no independent witness was examined.
• Surinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab [(2020) 2 SCC 563]*: The Court cited this case to support that merely because the prosecution did not examine any independent witness, would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the accused was falsely implicated.
• Rizwan Khan vs. State of Chhattisgarh [(2020) 9 SCC 627]*: The Court cited this case to support that the examination of independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the reliability of the injured witnesses’ testimonies (P.W.3, P.W.4, and P.W.5), the sequence of events, and the conduct of the appellants. The Court emphasized that the testimonies of injured witnesses hold significant evidentiary weight and cannot be disregarded unless there are substantial contradictions. The Court also inferred common intention from the actions of the appellants, who arrived at the scene together, armed, and attacked the victims shortly after the initial altercation.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that A-4 acted in self-defense, but rejected it because there was no evidence to support this claim. The Court also rejected the argument that the appellants were falsely implicated, as the testimonies of P.W.3, P.W.4, and P.W.5 were consistent and credible. The Court upheld the High Court’s decision to convert the charge from Section 302 read with Section 149 to Section 302 read with Section 34, noting that the evidence demonstrated a common intention among the appellants to commit the crime.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s decision to convict A-1, A-2, and A-3 under Sections 148, 302, and 307 of the IPC read with Section 34 was correct and upheld it. The Court emphasized that the testimonies of the injured witnesses were consistent and reliable, and that the appellants acted with a common intention to commit the crime.

“The presence of an injured eye -witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.”

“Common intention can be formed just a minute before the actual act happens.”

“It is well settled by a catena of decisions that Section 34 as well as Section 149 deal with liability for constructive criminality i.e. vicarious liability of a person for acts of others.”

Key Takeaways

• The testimonies of injured witnesses are highly reliable and should not be discarded unless there are significant contradictions.
• Common intention under Section 34 of the IPC can be formed even moments before the act and can be inferred from the conduct of the perpetrators.
• The absence of independent witnesses does not invalidate the prosecution’s case if other testimonies are credible.
• The burden to prove a failure of justice lies on the accused.
• Section 34 of the IPC makes all participants in a crime with a common intention equally liable.

Directions

There were no specific directions given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the testimonies of injured witnesses are highly reliable, and common intention under Section 34 of the IPC can be inferred from the conduct of the perpetrators even if formed moments before the act. This judgment reinforces the principles of vicarious liability in criminal law and upholds the importance of credible eyewitness testimony. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but this case reiterates the established legal principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of A-1, A-2, and A-3 under Sections 148, 302, and 307 of the IPC read with Section 34. The Court found the testimonies of the injured witnesses reliable and the prosecution’s version credible. The judgment reaffirms the principles of common intention and the evidentiary value of injured witnesses in criminal cases.