Jagga Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Markandey Katju
Gyan Sudha Misra
Judgment Date: 2011-02-03
Court Decision / Holding: The Supreme Court acquits the appellants on the 302 IPC charge for lack of credible evidence of a gunshot wound on Hoshiar Singh and grants benefit of doubt on that count. It holds them guilty under Section 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC for firing a gunshot at Baggar Singh. The impugned High Court judgment is modified accordingly; the sentence already undergone is counted; bonds furnished earlier are discharged following the suspension order during the appeal. The appeal is disposed of.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Jagga Singh
Anr.

Respondents

State of Punjab

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Rajiv Garg
• Ashish Garg
• Annam D.N. Rao

Counsels for Respondents

• Kuldip Singh

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal concerns three accused—Jagga Singh, Jagtar Singh and Kaka Singh—charged in a gruesome 1992 incident in which they allegedly assaulted Baggar Singh and abducted Hoshiar Singh. According to the prosecution, one of the assailants fired at Baggar Singh on his right thigh, the men took away Hoshiar Singh, and about 20 minutes later three or four gunshots were heard; the next morning Hoshiar Singh’s body was found. The Trial Court convicted Jagga Singh, Jagtar Singh, and Kaka Singh under Section 307 IPC; the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed their appeals but allowed the State’s appeal challenging acquittal under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, resulting in a conviction under Section 302. However, the Supreme Court, after reviewing the post-mortem findings showing only lacerated wounds on Hoshiar Singh and no gunshot wound, held that the benefit of doubt should be given to the appellants regarding the Section 302 charge and acquitted them on that count. It nonetheless found that a gunshot was fired at Baggar Singh, hitting his leg, making them guilty under Section 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The Court modified the High Court judgment accordingly; the sentence already undergone was to be counted, and the bonds furnished earlier remained controlled by a suspension order. The appeal is disposed of.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 302 IPCSection 307 IPCSection 325 IPCSection 34 IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that the prosecution failed to prove the offence under Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt since the post‑mortem report on Hoshiar Singh showed only lacerated wounds and no gunshot wounds. The alleged sequence—abduction followed by gunshots after about 15–20 minutes—lacks reliable corroboration, creating reasonable doubt about the 302 charge. Consequently, they seek acquittal on the 302 count, while acknowledging the possibility of conviction under Section 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC for the shooting incident.

Contentions of Respondents

The State argues for upholding or restoring the conviction on the 302 IPC count (or at least affirming the High Court’s reversal on that point) and relies on the sequence of events and the initial gunshot injury to Baggar Singh to justify a 302 conviction. They challenge the acquittal on 302 and maintain the position that the evidence supports a section 302 offence, while agreeing that the 325/34 count remains supported by the facts.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A ## [2011) 2 S.C.R. 483 ## JAGGA SINGH AND ANR. . _V._ STATE OF PUNJAB (Criminal Appeal No. 807 of 2007) FEBRUARY 03, 2011 B - "' [MARKANDEY KATJU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.) - _Penal Code, 1860: s.302, s.325 Three accused- Two_ - _victims Gunshot injury to first victim which hit him on the_ c - - _leg Second victim taken away by the accused 20 minutes_ - _later, the sound of 3 or 4 gun shots heard Dead body of the_ - _second victim found next morning Conviction by trial court_ - - _u/s.307 High Court, however, convicting them u/s.302 Held: As per the post mortem report, there were only lacerated_ D - _wounds on the dead body of the second victim There was_ - _no gun shot wound on his body Accused entitled to benefit of doubt and consequently acquitted of charge u/s.302, however, they were guilty uls. 325 rlw s.34 as admittedly_ a _gun shot was fired at first victim which hit him on the leg._ E CRIMINAL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 807 of 2007. From the Judgment &. Order dated 4.12.2006 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal F No. 740-SB/1997 and Criminal Appeal No. 213 DBN1998. Rajiv Garg, Ashish Garg and Annam D.N. Rao for the Appellant. ## Kuldip Singh for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered 483 H 484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 2 S.C.R. ## A ## **ORDER** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 04.12.2006. B The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here except where necessary. C In brief, the prosecution case is that on 24.4.92 at about 8.30 p.m., the 3 accused came to the house of Raja Singh. Later, one of them fired at Baggar Singh on his right thigh. Baggar Singh fell down. Then the accused took away the deceased Hoshiar Singh towards village Heerawala. After _ about 20 minutes the sound of 3 or 4 shots was heard. Next D morning the dead body of Hoshiar Singh was found. The trial Court convicted Jagga Singh to 7 years R.I. and a fine under Section 307 IPC. Jagtar Singh and Kaka Singh were also sentenced to 7 years R.I. and a fine. The appeals of E the accused to the High Court were dismissed, but the appeal of the State regarding acquittal of the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 was allowed, and they were convicted under Section 302. Hence, this appeal. F On the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the appellants are entitled to get the benefit of doubt so far as offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code is concerned because the prosecution case was that Hoshiar Singh was taken away by the accused and after 15/20 minutes gun shots were heard. However, the post mortem examination on the G dead body of the deceased found that there were only lacerated wounds. There was no gun shot wound on the body of the deceased. Hence, some doubt is created in the prosecution version regarding the charge under Section 302 IPC whose benefit will go to the accused. Thus the appellants H JAGGA SINGH AND ANR. _v._ STATE OF PUNJAB 485 are en~itled to get the benefit of doubt on that charge and consequently they are acquitted of charge under Section 302 IPC. A However, we are of the opinion ·that the appellants are guilty under Section 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC because admittedly a gun shot was fired at Baggar Singh which hit him in the leg. On that count we award the sentence of the period already undergone by the appellants. 8 The impugned judgment of the High Court is modified to the extent stated above. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly. C On 14.09.2007 this Court had ordered that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellants shall remain suspended during the pendency of the Appeal provided each of them furnishes personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/D (Twenty Thousand Only) with two sureties in the sum of Rs~ . 10,000/- (Ten Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the trial court. Their bonds are discharged accordingly. D.G. Appeal disposed of.