Holding

Both appellants had the requisite intention and common intention to commit murder, and the dying declaration is admissible, so the convictions under Section 302 IPC (and related statutes) stand.

Summary

Paramjit and Inderjit assaulted Rambhaj after he reprimanded Paramjit for indecent remarks, inflicting fatal knife wounds. The victim gave a dying declaration describing the assault, which was corroborated by an eyewitness (PW5) and medical evidence showing the injuries were sufficient to cause death. The trial court convicted both appellants under Section 302 IPC, with Paramjit also under the Arms Act and TADA, and sentenced them to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the accused had the requisite intention for murder, whether Inderjit shared a common intention under Section 34, and the admissibility of the dying declaration despite later medical findings. The Court held that the intent to kill was present, that Inderjit aided the assault by restraining the victim, and that the dying declaration was valid, thereby upholding the convictions. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the accused possessed the intention to cause death of the victim, attracting Section 302 IPC.
Whether the second accused shared a common intention with the first under Section 34 IPC.
Whether the dying declaration recorded at 3.45 p.m. is admissible despite the victim's later unrecordable blood pressure.
Whether the injuries inflicted were sufficient to constitute murder under Explanation 2 to Section 299 IPC.
Whether the non‑production of certain witnesses (Sunder Lal, Kela) defeats the prosecution case.

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959s. 25, s. 27
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 32
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 299, s. 302, s. 307, s. 323, s. 324, s. 34
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985s. 16, s. 6

Subjects

murdercommon intentiondying declarationSection 302 IPCSection 34 IPCArms ActTADAevidencemedical evidenceintent

Judgment

A PARAMJIT AND ANR.
v.
STATE OF HARYANA

SEPTEMBER 26, 1996

B (DR. A. S. ANAND AND K. T. THOMAS, JJ.]

Indian Penal Code, 1860--Sections 302 and 299 Expl.2--Murder-ln-
tention--lnjuries caused on vital parts of the body with a sharp edged
kllife--Dying declaration narrating not only about motive but also about the
..
C manner in which the assault was committed on him--Injwies found on the
deceased. sufficient to cause death-Evidence of eyewitness corroborated by
dying declaration and medical evidence--Held, the appellant had requisite
intention to cause death of the deceased.

Sections 34 and 302/34--Common illtention-Appellant 2 taking the
D deceased in his grip to render him immobile and giving no chance to escape
Appellant 1 inflicting fatal inju:ies with a knife--Held, Appellant 2 can be
said to have shared the common intention with Appellant 1 to commit murder

E
of the deceased-Situation may have been somewhat different had Appellant
2 not been aware that Appellant 1 was anned with a knife. -
Indian Evidence Act, 1872--Section 32--Dying declaration recorded by
AS! at 3.45 p.m.-Held, Fact that his blood pressure not recordable at 4.20
p.m. does not lead to inference that he could not have made the dying
declaration at 3.45 p.m. •

F According to the prosecution case, on 25-12-85 Appellant No.1
passed some indecent remarks on some girls near the village well. When
the deceased reprimanded hitm for this misconduct, the Appellants
declared that they would teach a lesson to deceased for becoming a 'dada'.
On seeing deceased washing his clothes near the radewala well, in the
G afternoon, the appellants rushed towards him and announced that they
had come to teach him a lesso111. Appellant no. 2 took the deceased in his
grip while Appellant no.1 inflicted fatal injuries with a sharp edged knife
on the chest and thigh of the deceased.

The occurence was witnessed by PW 5 and Sunder Lal. The deceased
H was taken to village Sampla where his statement was recorded by ASI at
10
PARAMJITv. STATE 11

abott 3.45 p.m., on the basis of which a case was registered. On examination A
of the deceased by PW 1 at 4.20 p.m. at hospital, Sampla, the deceased'$
condition was found to be serious and deceased was referred to Medical
college at Rohtak where he succumed to his injuries.

On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Designated Court
convicted Appellant no.1 for offences under Section 302 IPC and under B
Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 6 of TADA and
sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and
to 2 years RI on each of the two counts under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act
./I> and Section 6 of TADA. Appellant No.2 was convicted under Section 302/34
IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Hence this statutory C
appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD: 1. Appellant 1 had the requisite intention to commit the
• > murder of the deceased and his offence, therefore, would squarely fall D
under Section 302 IPC, as rightly held by the trial court. [17-C]

2. Appellant 2 shared the common intention with Appellant 1 to
commit the murder of the deceased. [17-D]

3. PW 5 supported the prosecution case in its entirety. The evidence E
of PW 5 is fully corroborated by the dying declaration Ex. PO and his name
i;.. finds a mention in the said dying declaration. The medical evidence
rendered by PW 1 and PW 3 also fully supports the ocular testimony of
PW 5. [14-H; 15-B]

4. The non-examination of S who witnessed the occurence alongwith
F
PW 5, does not affect the prosecution case. He was given up as won over.
Since the evidence of PW 5 has impressed the court and his evidence has
remained totally unshaken, the non-production of S is of no Consequence.
[15-D]
5. Besides the evidence of PW 5, there is also the dying declaration
G
Ex.PO on the record. That dying declaration fully supports the evidence
of PW 5. [15-E]

6. The conviction and sentence of both the appellants is Well merited.
[17-G] H
12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
243 of 1987.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.4.87 of the Designated Court
at Rohtak, Haryana in Session Case No.124 of 1986.

B K.B. Rohtagi for the Appellants.

Prem Malhotra for the Respondent.

R.C. Verma for complainant. ..
c The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ANAND, J. This appeal under Section 16 of the Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (hereinafter 'TADA') is
directed against the judgment and order of the Judge, Designated Court,
Rohtak dated 18.4.1987/20.4.1987, vide which appellant No. 1 Paramjit was
D convicted for offences under Section 302 IPC and under Section 25/27 of
the Arms Act, 1959 readwith Section 6 of TADA. He has been sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC
and to 2 years RI on each of the two counts under Section 25/27 of the
Arms Act and Section 6 of TADA. Appellant No. 2 Inderjit Singh was
convicted for an offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to
E
undergo imprisonment for life. Through this statutory appeal, they have
called in question their conviction and sentence.
..;

According to the prosecution case, appellant Paramjit passed some
indecent remarks on some young girls near the village well when the
F deceased, a co-villager of the appellant, reprimanded him for this miscon-
duct. On 25.12.1985, some time after the reprimand, the appellants
declared that they would teach a lesson to Rambhaj, deceased for becom-
ing a 'dada'. On seeing Rambhaj washing his clothes near the radewala
well, in the afternoon, the appellants rushed towards him. On reaching near
Rambhaj, deceased, they announced that they had come to teach him a
G lesson. Rambhaj, got up and came down the perapet of the well. Inderjit
took the deceased in his grip while Paramjit gave him one blow with a knife ..
on the left side of the chest and another blow on the left side of the thigh.
He also hit the deceased with the blunt side of the knife on the right side
of the chest. Chander Bhan, PW 5 and Sunder Lal saw the occurence and
H ran to rescue the deceased. On seeing them coming towards the place of
PARAMJITv. S1ATE[DR.ANAND,J.] 13

occurence, the appellants left carrying the weapon of offence with them. A
Sunder Lal took Rambhaj to his house and from there to village Sampla.
At Sampla they met ASI Rattan Singh, PW6 in the main bazar at about
3.45 p.m., Rambhaj, deceased made a statement, Ex. PO, to the said ASI
about the assault on him. After recording the statement, the ASI sent the
same to the police station for registration of the formal FIR Ex. PO/C and
.. a case under Section 307/324/323/34 IPC was thereupon registered against
B
the appellants. Rambhaj, deceased wa~ sent to the hospital at Sampla and
was medically examined by Dr. B. D. Kalra, PWl at about 4.20 p.m. The
following injuries were found on his person:

"l. Incised wound 1 cm x 5 cm., in the left exillary region, with cut c
in the shirt. There was fresh bleeding from the wound. The margins
of the wound were sharp. There was surgical emphysema in sur-
rounding nipple to lower side in the four inches area medial to the
left side.
...
• 2. Reddish bruise, 2 inches x 1/2 inch on the right side of the front
D •
of chest extending laterally.

-~
3. Incised wound 1 cm x .5 cm with sharp everted margins, with
corresponding cut in the underwear on the left side of lateral side
of thigh. There was fresh bleeding from the wound. Wound was E
four inches below and left to enterior superior illiae spine. Injuries
.... No. 1 and 2 were kept under x-ray observation .

Dr. Kalra, PWl found the condition of Rambhaj to be serious and referred
him to Medical College at Rohtak where the injured reached at about 5.35 F
p.m. Dr. Ashok Arora, PW2 medically examined the injured at the hospital.
The deceased, however, succumbed to his injuries at about 6.20 p.m.
Information about the death of Rambhaj was sent to police post through
ruqqa Ex. PD. The offence was altered and investigation taken in hand.
The investigating officer, PW6 recorded the statement of the eyewitnesses
and took into possession the clothes of the deceased from the hospital. An G
•" )I
inquest was conducted by PW6 and the dead body of Rambhaj was sent
for post-mortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Juneja PW3.
According to PW3, death of Rambhaj was caused due to shock and
haemorrhage, resulting from injury No. 1 and that the injury No. 1 was
found sufficient tci cause death. H
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A ASI Rattan Singh, PW6 on receiving telephonic information that the
appellants were present in Sampla Mandi, rushed there and arrested them.
On interrogation, Paramjit appellant disclosed that he had concealed a
knife and bushirt in a cattle shed in his house and pursuant to the said
disclosure statement, he led the police party to the recovery of the knife
and the bushirt. Inderjit, appellant, also made a statement under Section
B 27 of the Evidence Act and got recovered a bushirt from his house. Both
the bushirts were found to be stained with blood. The blood stained clothes
of the deceased and the accused were sent to forensic science laboratory,
Madhuban and as per the reports Ex. PN and PN/1 of the Serologist and
Chemical Examiner all the articles were found to be stained with human
C blood. On completion of the investigation, the appellants were sent up for
trial and tried and convicted in the manner already noticed.

The prosecution examined Chander Bhan, PWS and five other wit-
nesses. The statement made by the deceased, Ex. PO to ASI Rattan Singh,
• D PW6, which formed the basis of the FIR, was treated as the dying decla-
ration of Rambhaj. That statement reads as follows:

"I am a student of Xth Class. Today, it was holiday, I was washing
my clothes at Radhewala well, which is near the pond. Paramjit
-son of Kali Ram, Jat, resident of Kharawar was also present there.
E He was passing indecent remarks at the girls passing that way. I
raprimanded him. On hearing exchange of words between us, my
grand-mother, who is wife of Ant Ram, separated us. After a little
time, at about 1.30 p.m., Paramjit alongwith Inderjit, who is the
son of his tau (father's elder brother), came there. Both of them
F said to me that they would teach me a lesson for becoming a dada.
Tnderjit caught hold of me by the hands and Paramjit, who was
carrying in his hand a knife-like iron object, gave me one blow in
the left side and one blow on the left thigh from the sharp side of
the weapon, and one blow from the wooden side on the right side
of the chest. Seeing this, Chander Bhan and Sunder Lal, Brah-
G mand, rescued me. Otherwise, the accused would had inflicted
further blows on me. Sunder Lal was taking me to the Police
Station when you met us at Sampla and I have made statement
before you. I have heard it. It is correct. Action may be taken."

H PWS, Chander Bhan is the eyewitness. He supported the prosecution
PARAMJ1Tv. STATE[DR.ANAND,J.] 15
case, in its entirety. Despite lengthy cross-examination, the defence was not A
able to create any dent in his evidence and his credibility has remained
unshaken. The evidence of PW5 is fully corroborated by the dying decla-
ration Ex. PO and his name finds a mention in the said dying declaration.
The medical evidence rendered by PWl and PW3 also fully supports the
ocular testimony of PW5. We have carefully scrutinised the evidence of B
PW5 and are of the opinion that he is a truthful witness and his evidence
inspires confidence.

The argument of learned counsel for the appellants that the non-
,. examination of Sunder Lal and Smt. Kela has rendered the prosecution
case doubtful does not appeal to us. Smt. Kela admittedly, had not wit- C
nessed the occurence and, therefore, her non-examination does not affect
the credibility of the prosecution case. The non-examination of Sunder Lal,
who witnessed the occurence alongwith PW5, also does not affect the
prosecution case. He was given up as won over. Since, the evidence of
Chander Bhan, PW5 has impressed us and his evidence has remained D
totally unshaken, the non-production of Sunder Lal is of no consequence.

Besides, the evidence of PW5, Chander Bhan, there is also the dying
declaration of Rambhaj Ex. PO on the record. That dying declaration
extracted elsewhere, fully supports the evidence of PW5. Learned counsel
for the appellants, however, submitted that the dying declaration Ex P.O. E
was a doubtful document and appeared to be a case of police padding. In
.
this connection, learned counsel referred to the statement of Dr. B. D .
Kalra, PWl, who has deposed that when Rambhaj was brought to the
hospital, his pulse rate was 144 per minute and his blood pressure was not
recordable. On this basis, it was convassed that Rambhaj could not have F
made the statement Ex. PO. We find ourselves unable to agree with the
learned counsel for the appellant. The evidence of Dr. Kalra, PWl refers
to the point of time, when he examined the deceased at Sampla Hospital.
It was at about 4.20 p.m. that PWl had found that the blood pressure of
Rambhaj was not recordable. From that it cannot be assumed that the
statement made by him more than half an hour before, could not have been G
made by the deceased. The very fact that the statement Ex. PO has been
signed by Rambhaj, deceased, shows that he was in a proper state of health
and mind not only to make a statement but also to sign it. There is no
challenge to the authenticity and genuineness of the signatures of Rambhaj
on Ex. PO. The condition of Rambhaj was continuously deteriorating and H
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A therefore the fact that his blood pressure was not recordable at about 4.20
p.m. cannot lead to the inference that he could not have made the state-
ment Ex.PO at about 3.45 p.m.. We, therefore, do not find any reason to
doubt the genuineness of the dying declaration Ex. PO. The deceased has
narrated clearly not only about the motive for the assault on him but also
about the manner in which the assault was committed on him. The dying
B declaration coupled with the evidence of Chander Bhan, PW5 and the
medical evidence clearly connects the appellants with the crime.

Learned counsel for the appellants then submitted that since Dr.
Juneja PW3, had opined that injury No.1 could result in death "if sufficient .,
C and proper medical care was not given in time", therefore the offence for
which the appellants could be convicted would not fall under Section 302
IPC. Learned Counsel in this connection also submitted that there was an
altercation between the deceased and appellant Paramjit shortly before the
occurence in which Paramjit had been reprimanded by the deceased and
that on seeing Rambhaj, the appellants had shouted that they were going
D to teach him a lesson for becoming a Dada, implying thereby that they
wanted to give him some beating and as such it could not be said that the
appellants had the requisite intention to commit murder of the deceased.
The argument is more attractive than sound.

E A reference to Explanation II to Section 299 IPC at this stage is
relevant. It reads thus:

Explanation 2. Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person
who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the
death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treat-
F ment the death might have been prevented."

This explanation is a complete answer to the submission of the
learned counsel based on the medical opinion furnished by Dr. Juneja
PW3. The offence committed by the appellants was of culpable homicide
as death of the deceased was a direct consequence of their act. There is
G ample evidence on the record to show that the offence was committed with
the requisite intention to cause death of the deceased, squarely bringing
his case within the ambit of Section 302 IPC. In this connection, it deserves
a notice that the deceased died in less than 4 hours after the receipt of
...
injuries, though in less than 3 hours he had been administered medical aid
H at Sampla hospital. The injuries found on the deceased were sufficient to
PARAMJITv.STATE[DR.ANAND,J.] 17
cause his death. The weapon with which the injuries were caused on the A
deceased is a sharp edged knife with the blade measuring 13-1/2" in length.
It is a formidable weapon. Paramjit appellant was armed with this weapon
when he rushed towards Rambhaj and caused a number of injuries on a
vital part of the body of the deceased. The nature of injury No.1 and the
extent of the damage it caused to the internal organs shows the force with
B
which it was caused on the deceased, apparently who had been taken
unawares and was empty handed. All these established facts go to show
that Paramjit appellant had the requisite intention to commit the murder
of the deceased and his offence, therefore, would squarely fall under
Section 302 IPC, as rightly held by the trial court.
c
The presence of Inderjit appellant at the time of the assault is also
fully established. The argument that since he caused no injury to the
deceased, therefore he could not be said to have shared the common
intention with Paramjit has no merits. But, for the fact that Inderjit appel-
lant took the deceased in his grip, perhaps it may not have been possible D
for Paramjit appellant to inflict the injuries on the deceased who was a
. youngman. The action of lnderjit was, obviously, aimed to render the victim
immobile and give him no chance to escape, and thereby facilitate the
inflication of injuries by his co-accused on the deceased. He therefore,
definitely can be said to have shared the common intention with Paramjit
appellant to commit the murder of the deceased. He was not merely E
present at the time of assault but had actually taken part in the same. The
situation may have been somewhat different had appellant Inderjit not been
aware that Paramjit was armed with a knife when they went towards the
well but the evidence on the record shows that Paramjit came armed,
holding the knife, alongwith his cousin Inderjit to the place of occurrence F
and assaulted the deceased. His conviction, therefore, for an offence under
Section 302/34 IPC does not suffer from any error either.
I
I
After giving our careful consideration to the evidence on the record
and the submissions made at the bar, we are of the opinion that the
conviction and sentence of both the appellants is well merited and there is G
no merit in this appeal. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. The
appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled and they shall
be taken into custody to undergo the remaining part of their sentences.

K.B.N.S. Appeal dismissed.