GURPAL SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

                       [2016] 8 S.C.R. 139



                           GURPAL SINGH                             A
                                   v.
                         STATE OF PUNJAB
                   (Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of2016)
                         DECEMBER 02, 2016                          B

               [DIPAK MISRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.]
      Penal Code, 1860: s.302 and s.307 - Family dispute over
land between informant and appellant who were brothers - On the
fateful day, when son of the informant was working in fields,
appellant started abusing hi111 - Informants son ca111e home and
                                                                      c
complained to the informant - Informant went to the terrace of his
house and sum111oned appellant - Appellant and his son responded
to his call and proclai111ed that they would continue to do same -
Thereafter appellant rushed downstairs and brought his gun and
opened fire which hit the informant on the side of his head - Wife of D
the informant and friends of the informant rushed to the terrace -
On seeing the111, appellant fired towards them which hit one of the
friends resulting in his death and injury to another - Conviction of
appellant by courts below and acquittal of co-accused-son -
Conviction challenged - Held: Evidence of eye-witnesses was
                                                                      E
consistent, coherent and reliable - Medical evidence also proved
prosecution case beyond doubt - Acquittal of co-accused has no
bearing on the inculpatory involvement of the appellant - The
involvement of appellant in the crime was proved beyond doubt -
However, the facts do not lead to the inference that the appellant
had the intention of eliminating any one of those fired at, though he F
had the knowledge of the likely fatal consequences thereof - In
view of the fact situation and also the time lag in between,
conviction of the appellant 111oderated to one uls.304 Part 1 and
307 and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.
      Partly allowing the appeal, the Court                          G
      HELD: 1. The eye-witnesses including the informant have
offered a consistent, coherent and convincing narration thereof
which docs not admit of any doubt of their trustworthiness. The
plea of their family relationship to discredit them does not
                                                                     H
                                139
140            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2016] 8 S.C.R.


A     commend for acceptance in the attendant facts and circumstances.
      Noticeably, in course of the investigation, amongst others, the
      12 bore DBBL gun loaded with two live cartridges used for the
      offence had been recovered from the appellant. The site plan
      prepared by the investigating officer also pins the place of
      occurrence as deposed by the witnesses. Further four cartridge
B
      shells have also been recovered from the said spot. [Para 8][143-
      B-C]
             2. The medical evidence reveals injuries on the deceased
      and the injured compatible with the weapon used. The charges
      levelled against the appellant thus have been proved beyond
c     doubt. The co-accused has been acquitted in view of absence of
      any incriminating evidence against him. His acquittal, having
      regard to the state of evidence has no bearing on the inculpatory
      involvement of the appellant somuch so, that his conviction in
      isolation is sustainable. The occurrence is of the year 2004 and
D     meanwhile twelve years have elapsed. Further, having regard to
      the root cause of the incident and the events that sequentially
      unfolded thereafter, the appellant might have been overpowered
      by an uncontrollable fit of anger somuch so that he was deprived
      of his power of self-control and being drawn in a web of action
      reflexes, fired at the deceased and the injured, who were within
E     his sight. The facts do not commend to conclude that the appellant
      had the intention of eliminating any one of those fired at, though
      he had the knowledge of the likely fatal consequences thereof.
      On an overall consideration of the fact situation and also the time
      lag in between, the conviction of the appellant moderated to one
 F    under Section 304 Part 1 IPC and 307 IPC. Further, considering
      the facts of the case in particular, it would meet the ends of justice,
      if the sentence for the offences is reduced to the period already
      undergone. The conviction of the appellant is converted to one
      under Section 304 Part 1 and 307 IPC and the sentence is reduced
      to the period already undergone. [Paras 9, 10 and 11][143-D,E-
G     G; 144-A]
         CRIMIN AL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
   1145of2016.
         From the Judgment and Order dated 01.10.2008 of the High Court
   of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 378-DB
 H of2004.
                 GURPAL SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                             141


      Yatinder Singh, Sr. Adv.( AC), Arijeet Singh, Ms. Apraj ita            A
Anvita, Ad vs. for the Appellant.
     SaurabhAjay Gupta, AAG., Ms. Naresh Bakshi, Saurabh Singhal,
Nishant Bishnoi, Advs. for the Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                             B
       AMITAVA ROY, J. 1. The subject matter of scrutiny is the
judgment and order dated 01.10.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 378-DB of 2004
concurring with the verdict of the Trial Court in convicting the appellant
for the offence under Sections 302 and 307 IPC while acquitting the co-
accused Harpartap Singh, his son. Following his conviction, the appellant    C
had been awarded sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-
with default sentence under Section 302 IPC and five years rigorous
imprisonment and fine ofRs.2,000/-with default sentence under Section
307 IPC. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
The High Court has concurred with the sentence as well.                       D
      2. We have heard Mr. Yatindra Singh, Senior Advocate, learned
Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Saurabh Ajay Gupta, learned
counse I for the respondent.
       3. The incident witnessing the death of Jatinder Singh and the
injuries sustained by Lakhwinder has the genesis in a trifle. On a statement E
rendered with regard thereto by Gurdial Singh(PW 1), the First Information
Report was registered against the appellant and his son Harpartap. It
was alleged that over a lingering land dispute between the informant and
the appellant, who are brothers, on 06.07 .2002, while Jugraj, the son of
the informant was in his fields, the appellant had hurled abuses to him. F
Jugraj having felt humiliated and anguished, on returning home, complained
about the same to his father Gurdial, the informant. The houses of the
brothers were adjacent to each other. When the appellant returned
home from his fields, the infonnant went to the terrace of the roof of his
house and summoned the former to that of his. The appellant and his
son Harpartap responded to the call whereafter informant enquired of G
Gurpal as to why he had abused his son. This enraged the appellant and
while arrogantly proclaiming that he was not only justified to do so but
that he would continue to conduct himself as done, rushed downstairs of
 his house and brought his DBBL gun. His son Harpartap, the acquitted
co-accused was also with him. It is alleged by the prosecution that on
                                                                             H
142             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] 8 S.C.R.



A     the exhortation of Harpartap, the appellant opened fire, which hit the
      informant on the side of his head. Meanwhile drawn by the commotion,
      Paramjit Kaur, the wife of the informant, Jatinder Singh and Lakhwinder
      Singh, friends of Jugraj rushed to the terrace. On seeing them, the
      appellant fired from his gun towards them, which hit Paramjit and Jatinder
      on their abdomen and Lakhwinder on his mouth and head. On hue and
B
      cry being raised, the appellant and the accused fled the scene.
              4. The injured were rushed to the Guru Nanak Dev Hospital,
      Amritsar where they were treated. However, Jatinder succumbed to
      the inj Liries sustained. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet
      was laid against both the accused persons under Sections 302 and 307
c     IPC.
             5. The accused persons denied the charge and, therefore were
      tried. The prosecution examined several witnesses including the
      informant, the injured and the doctor who had performed the post-mortem
      examination and had attended the injuries of others involved. The accused
D     persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on the completion
      of the trial, the Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302,
      307 IPC but acquitted the co-accused Harpartap. Tore iterate, the High
      Court has affirmed the conviction and the sentence recorded by the
      Trial Court.
 E            6. The learned Amicus Curiae has persuasively argued that the
      prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charge against the appellant
      which is patently deducible amongst others from the exoneration of the
      co-accused Harpartap, who allegedly had instigated the former to open
      fire on the deceased and the injured. Apart from contending that all the
 F    purported eye-witnesses are relatives inter se, and therefore inherently
      partisan and thus are wanting in creditability, the learned senior counsel
      in the alternative has urged without prejudice that even if the prosecution
      case, as projected, is accepted in its entirety, no case for murder or
      attempt therefor has been proved and, therefore in any view of the matter,
      the sentence needs to be reduced appropriately.
G
            7. The learned counsel for the respondent, as against this, has
      urged that in the face of telltale testimony of the injured eye-witnesses,
      supported on all fours by the medical evidence, the charge levelled against
      the appel Iant stands proved beyond reasonable doubt and thus the
      concurrent determinations of the courts below do not warrant any
H
                GURPAL SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                                  143
                       fAMITAVA ROY, J.l

 interference in the appeal.                                                     A
        8. We have examined the evidence pertaining to the incident as
 available on records. The eye-witnesses including the informant have
 offered a consistent, coherent and convincing narration thereof which
 does not admit of any doubt of their trustworthiness. The plea of their
 family relationship to discredit them does not commend for acceptance           B
 in the attendant facts and circumstances. Noticeably, in course of the
 investigation, amongst others, the 12 bore DBBL gun loaded with two
 live cartridges used for the offence had been recovered from the appellant.
 The site plan prepared by the investigating officer also pins the place of
 occurrence as deposed by the witnesses. Further four cartridge shells
 have also been recovered from the said spot.
                                                                                 c
        9. The medical evidence reveals injuries on the deceased and the
 injured compatible with the weapon used. The charges levelled against
 the appellant thus have been proved beyond doubt. The co-accused
 Harpartap has been acquitted in view of absence of any incriminating
 evidence against him. His acquittal, having regard to the state of evidence     D
 has no bearing on the inculpatory involvement of the appellant somuch
 so, that his conviction in isolation is sustainable.
          I 0. However, in the singular facts of the case and noticing in
  particular, the progression of events culminating in the tragic incident,
  we are inclined to reduce the sentence awarded to him. Incidentally, the       E
  occurrence is of the year 2004 and meanwhile twelve years have elapsed.
  Further, having regard to the root cause of the incident and the events
  that sequentially unfolded thereafter, we are of the comprehension that
  the appellant was overpowered by an uncontrollable fit of anger somuch
  so that he was deprived of his power of self-control and being drawn in         F
  a web of action reflexes, fired at the deceased and the injured, who
· were within his sight. The facts do not commend to conclude that the
  appellant had the intention of eliminating any one of those fired at, though
  he had the knowledge of the likely fatal consequences thereof. Be that
  as it may, on an overall consideration of the fact situation and also the
  time lag in between, we are of the view that the conviction of the appellant   G
  ought to be moderated to one under Section 304 Part 1 IPC and 307
  IPC. Further, considering the facts of the case in particular, according
  to us, it would meet the ends of justice, if the sentence for the offences
  is reduced to the period already undergone. We order accordingly.
                                                                                 H
144              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2016] 8 S.C.R.



A             11. Ex-consequenti, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction
      of the appellant is converted to one under Section 304 Part I and 307
      IPC and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. In
      this view of the matter, as a corollary, the appellant is hereby ordered to
      be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in connection
      with any other case.
8

      Dcvika Gujral                                               Appeal partly allowed.