Holding

A conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is valid when an accused, armed with a deadly weapon and having inflicted injuries, acts in furtherance of a common intention to murder, irrespective of whether his injuries were fatal, and procedural irregularities such as FIR delay or DDR discrepancies do not invalidate the trial.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the murder of Harnek Singh by four of his brothers, who attacked him with gandasas and a dang, leading to his death. The appellant, Mithu Singh, challenged his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, arguing that his injuries were not fatal, that there was an unreasonable delay in lodging the FIR, and that discrepancies in the Daily Diary Record (DDR) and the alleged absence of eyewitnesses undermined the prosecution case. The Court held that the FIR was timely, the DDR photocopy was unreliable, and the eyewitnesses were indeed present at the scene. It further ruled that for conviction under Section 34, it is not necessary for each accused to inflict the fatal injury; participation with a deadly weapon in furtherance of a common intention to kill suffices. Consequently, the appellant's conviction and sentence of life imprisonment with a fine were upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Issues considered

Was there an unreasonable delay in lodging the First Information Report that warranted acquittal?
Do the entries in the Daily Diary Record that the accused were armed with 'sotis' falsify the FIR and affect the prosecution case?
Were the eyewitnesses (PW-3 and PW-4) present at the scene and is their testimony reliable?
Did the injuries inflicted by the appellant constitute sufficient participation to establish common intention to murder under Section 34 IPC?
Can a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC be sustained when the appellant did not deliver the fatal blow?

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 154, s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34

Subjects

murdercommon intentionSection 34 IPCFIR delayDaily Diary Recordeyewitness testimonyvicarious liabilitycriminal procedureevidencepost-mortem

Judgment

-r-. -
A PARAMllT SINGH@ MITHU SINGH
v_
STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY (HOME)

OCTOBER 31, 2007
B
[P.P. NAOLEKAR AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860:
C S. 302134-Murder-Four accused attacking victim with
'gandas '-Death of victim-HELD: In order to convict an accused
vicariously u/s 34, it is not necessary to prove that each and every
one of the accused had indulged in inflicting deadly injuries-It is
enough if evidence discloses that overt act of any of the accused in
the group was done in furtherance of common intention-On facts,
D common intention of appellant is evident from the fact that he was
armed with 'gandas ', a deadly weapon, and inflicted two injuries on i ;.___
the victim-All accused attacked the victim and caused injuries in
furtherance of common intention to murder him-Thus, nature .of
injuries caused by appellant and their sufficiency in ordinary course
E to cause death pales into insignificance.
Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973:
S.154-FIR-Delay in lodging-HELD: Sequence of events
clearly reveals that there was no unexplained or unreasonable delay_
F in lodging FIR. · . r.,
FIR and DDR maintained under Punjab Police Rules-Difference
in contents of-HELD: Photocopy ofDDR indicating different version
and filed four years after closure of evidence cannot be relied on-
G Besides, the Punjab Police Rules whereunder DDR is prepared cannot
override provisions of Cr PC-Version ofcontents of FIR cannot in
all cases be tested with reference to entries made in DDR.

Evidence:

H 776
A

PARAMJITSINGH@MITHUSINGHv. STATEOF 777
PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY (HOME)
~-;-

Oral evidence of eye witness not corresponding to number and A
situs ofinjuries found on dead body ofvictim-HELD: would not make
presence of witness at scene ofoccurrence doubtful.
Investigation-HELD: A defect or procedural irregularity in
investigation itselfcannot vitiate or nullify the trial.
B
,,;., The appellant (A-4), his two brothers (A-1 and A-2) and a
nephew (A-3) were prosecuted for offence punishable under s.302/
34 IPC for causing death of their own brother. The prosecution case
was that father of A-3 wanted to sell his house which was resisted
by the deceased. On this, the accused developed a grudge against c
him. On 6-5-1989 about 7 P.M. the accused attacked the deceased
with 'gandasas' and a 'Sumewali Dang' in the presence of PW-3 who
raised an alarm whereupon PW-4 and a female member of the family
reached the place of occurrence. The accused fled away. The victim
was first taken to his farm house and then to the primary health D
centre. The doctor (PW-6) referred the victim to the Civil Hospital.
J t Later, the victim died in the Civil Hospital the same night and
thereafter PW-3 lodged an FIR at about 1.15 A.M. en 7.5.1989. The
trial court acquitted all the accused holding, inter alia, that there was
delay in lodging the FIR; the prosecution version that the accused
E
were armed with 'gandasas' was not supported by the contents of
the DDR which mentioned that accused were armed with 'sotis';
presence of PW-3 and PW-4 at the place of occurrence was unlikely
as they did not intervene when the victim was being assaulted; and
ocular version of PW-4 did not correspond with the medical evidence
. .... as regards the number and the situs of the injuries on the dead body.
F
On appeal, the High Court reversed the findings of the trial court
and convicted A-3 u/s 302 and A-4 u/s 302/34 IPC.

In the instant appeal filed by A-4, supporting the findings of the
trial court, it was additionally contended for the appellant that the G
,,... ~
injuries inflicted by him were not sufficient to cause death of the victim
and, as such, the common intention to kill was not evident and,
therefore, the appellant could not be convicted u/s 302 with the aid
ofs.34 IPC.
H
)

778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The sequence of the events clearly reveals that
there was no unexplained and unreasonable delay in lodging the FIR.
The evidence available on record reveals that the incident took place
on 6.5.1989 at 7.00 p.m in a village. The injured was first taken to
B his farm house a1;1d thereafter to the Primary Health Center, in a
bullock cart at 9.10 p.m.. PW-6, the doctor, who attended the injured
sent the ruqa to the police station at 9.25 p.m., and referred the
injured to the Civil Hospital. The evidence of PW-6 in this regard
remains unimpeached and there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve ·
C any portion of his evidence. The injured succumbed to injuries in the
Civil Hospital. It is only thereafter that PW-3 went to police station
which is at a distance of about 9-10 kms. from the hospital and lodged
First Information Report at 1.15 A.M. on 7.5.1989. The special
report sent by the police reached the lllaqa Magistrate at 5.00 a.m.
D . [Para 11) [786-E; 785-E-H; 786-A-B)

1.2. In order to determine whether the :flR was lodged at the
time it is alleged to have been recorded, the courts normally look
for certain external checks. One of the checks is the receipt of the
E copy of the FIR, called a special report, by the Illaqa Magistrate.
The second external check equally important is the sending of the
copy of the FIR along with the dead body and its reference in the
inquest report. Both the requirements are complied with in the
instant case. The inquest report clearly refers to the lodging of the
F First Information Report by PW-3at1.15 a.m. on 7.5.1989 in the
Police Station and the dispatch of special report to the Illaqua
Magistrate in time. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the
FIR was ante-timed and brought into existence after some
deliberations. [Para 11) [786-B-E) ·
G 2.1. The entries made in the DDR in which it has been mentioned
that the accused were armed with 'Sotis' cannot be said to falsify
the First Information Report lodged by PW-3. It is clearly evident
from the statements of PW 3 and PW-7 that the First Information
Report was recorded first and the DDR thereafter, and entries in
H DDR were recorded on the basis of facts given in the FIR. The
PARAMJITSINGH@MITHUSINGHv. STATEOF 779
PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY (HOME)
original of the DDR has not been filed in the court and it is difficult A
to place any reliance upon the photocopy of the DDR that was
produced before the court after four years of the closure of evidence.
There is no explanation as to the fate of original DDR. It is not
possible to doubt the timing and contents of FIR based on the entries
made in DDR. The genuineness of the very document DDR itself 'B
raises serious doubts. Besides, even a defect, if any, found in
investigation, however, serious has no direct bearing on the
competence or the procedure relating to the cognizance or the trial. ,
A defect or procedural irregularity, if any, in investigation itself
cannot vitiate and nullify the trial based on such erroneous C
investigation. [Paras 12and14) [786-F-H-G; 787-A; 788-A-B, C, D)
2.2. The procedure as regards the registration of information
relating to the commission of a cognizable offence and the procedure
for investigation is structured and regulated by Chapter XII of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The procedure prescribed is D
.> }- required to be followed scrupulously by the Officer-in-charge of the
Police Station. The Punjab Police Rules do not in any manner
override the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said •
rules are meant for the guidance of the Police Officers in the State
and supplement the provisions of the Code but not supplant them. E
The truth and veracity of contents of the FIR cannot in all cases be
tested with a reference to the entries made in the police station daily
diary which is maintained under the Punjab Police Rules.
[Para 13) [787-F-H]
3.1. There is no basis to contend that PW-3 and PW-4 were not F
present at the scene of offence and did not witness the incident. The
evidence available on record reveals that PW-3 and the deceased
had almost reached their house when they were way-laid by the
accused. The appellant and A-3 were armed with 'gandasas' and
A-1 with a dang. As has been rightly observed by the High Court, it G
,,. ~ would be well nigh impossible to apply a universal yardstick as to !

how a person would react to a given situation. The presence of PW-
3 and PW-4 cannot be doubted on the ground that they have not
made any attempt to rescue the deceased. The fact that the accused ,
were armed with deadly weapons and the same may have deterred H
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R. ----
A PW-3 and PW-4 in making any attempt to rescue the victim when
he was under attack, cannot be ignored. [Para 15] [788-E-G]
3.2. It is true that PW-4 had not been able to spell out accurately
the situs of the injuries on the dead body, but the same would not
make his presence doubtful. The victim was under attack from a
B group of persons armed with deadly weapons. One cannot expect
that in such a situation the witness would graphically describe the
nature ofinjuries and spell out accurately the situs of the injuries
on the body of the victim. The fact remains that the four accused
way-laid the deceased and thereafter inflicted several blows with
C gandasas and dang. It is required to notice that the doctor, PW-1
had found six injuries on the dead body at the time of post-mortem
examination. [Paras 16 and 17] [788-H; 789-A-B-C]
4. It is in the evidence of PW-3 that A-3 inflicted injury no.1 by
D giving a gandasa blow on the head of the victim whereas the appellant
inflicted injuries nos. 3 and 4 by gandasa on his right leg below the
knee and another blow on the left side of the chest using the reverse
side of the gandasa. In order to convict the person vicariously under
Section 34, it is not necessary to prove that each and every one of
E the accused had indulged in such overt act inflicting deadly injuries.
It is enough if the material available on record discloses that the overt
act of one or more of the accused was done in furtherance of common
intention. The common intention shared by the appellant is evident
from the fact that he was armed with 'gandasa', a deadly weapon,
F and inflicted two injuries on the victim. All the accused attacked the ·
deceased and caused injuries in furtherance of the common intention
to murder him. In such a situation the nature ofinjuries inflicted by ·i
the appellant on the victim and whether those injuries were sufficient
in the ordinary course to cause death, pales into insignificance.· .. ,
[Paras 17 and 18) [790-B-C; E-H]
G
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1474of2005.

From the final Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2004 of the High
H Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 25-
l
PARAMJlTSINGH@MITHUSINGHv. STATEOFPUNJAB 781
_...., THROUGH SECRETARY (HOME) [REDDY, J.]
DBAof 1995. A
Jana Kalyan Das and Avijeet Bhujabal for the Appellant.
Kuldip Singh for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. 1. The appellant has preferred this
appeal under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with
provisions of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate
Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 impugning the judgment and order ofthe High Court
of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 25-DBA of 1995 whereby c
the High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal against the appellant,
who was tried along with three other co-accused, recorded by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur in Sessions Case No. 44of1989.
The High Court accordingly convicted the appellant for the offence
punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) D
.J )- and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.
5,0001-, in default of payment, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six
months.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused Mukhtiar Singh
E
(A-1) and Gurdial Singh (A-2) and deceased Hamek Singh were real
brothers. The family consists of eight brothers altogether. Deceased Hamek
Singh along with his wife Tej Kaur and son Gurmail Singh (PW-4) were
living jointly with one of his brother Amar Singh (PW-3). Gurdev Singh
and Dalbara Singh, two other brothers were residing together whereas
-...( F
~ the others were residing separately in their respective houses located in
their agricultural lands. Dalip Singh, father of Gurcharan Singh (A-3) and
Mithu Singh (A-4) were residing separately. Dalip Singh is stated to have
entered into an agreement to sell his house to Babu Singh, Balak Singh
and their sons but the same could not be fructified into regular sale as '
G
Hamek Singh had interfered in the deal. The accused accordingly
developed grudge as against Harnek Singh over his unwarranted
"" '" interference in the sale transaction.
3. On 6.5. I 989 about 7.00 p.m. Amar Singh (PW-3) and deceased
Harnek Singh were going towards their houses in the fields whereas Tej H
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A Kaur and Gurmail Singh (PW-4) were already present in the house. The
deceased Harnek Singh and Amar Singh (PW-3) saw all the four accused
standing outside the house ofMukhtiar Singh(A-1). Mukhtiar Singh(A-
1) was armed with a Sumewali Dang, both Gurcharan Singh @Chama
(A-3)and the appellant were armed with a gandasa each. Gurdial Singh
B (A-2) shouted a lalkara that Harnek Singh should be taught a lesson for
interfering in Dalip Singh's property deal and he should be killed, on which
the rest of the three accused inflicted several injuries on Harnek Singh.
Amar Singh (PW-3) raised an alarm, which attracted Tej Kaur and
Gurmail Singh to the spot and they too witnessed the incident. The ace~
c ran away from the scene of occurrence. Harnek Singh was first removed
to his farm house and then to the Civil Hospital, Longowal by Amar Singh
(PW-3). It was about 9.10 p.m. Dr. Rakesh Jain (PW-6) having noticed
the qitical condition ofHarnek Singh immediately referred him to the Civil
Hospital, Sangrur. Dr. Rakesh Jain (PW-6) sent information to SHO,
D Police Station, Longowal at about 9.25 p.m. Harnek Singh, however, died
soon after reaching the Civil Hospital, Sangrur. Amar Singh (PW-3) along
with his broth~r Gurdev Singh left the hospital and reached the police
station, Longowal at about 1.15 a.m. on 7.5.1989 and lodged First
Information Report. Gurmail Singh (PW-4) was at the hospital near the
E dead body. The special report sent to the Illaqa Magistrate, Sangrur
reached at 5.00 a.m. The police on the completion of the investigation
filed charge sheet against Gurcharan Singh@ Chama (A-3) for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC whereas the other
accused were charged under Section 302/34 of the IPC. The accused·
F pleaded not guilty. . ~-, .1q
4. The prosecution in order to establish its case relied on the evid~hte
, I I I
of Dr. KS. Raikhy (PW-1 ), who performed the post-mortem examination
on the dead body and found six injuries thereon, three incised and t:h:fee
lacerated; Amar Singh (PW-3) and Gurmail Singh (PW-4), the t~o.'e~~
G witnesses; ASI, Malikat Singh (PW-5), the Investigating Officer~~ Dr.
Rakesh Jain (PW-6) who first received the injured at Civil Hospital,
Longowal.
5. The trial court upon appreciation of evidence available on record
-H acquitted all the accused of the charges. The trial court recorded finding
-- PARAMJITSINGH@MITHUSINGHv. STATEOFPUNJAB 783
THROUGHSECRETARY(HOME)[REDDY,J.]
that the presence of the eye-witnesses Amar Singh (PW-3) and Gunnail A
Singh (PW-4) was unlikely as they were not stamped witnesses and had
not intervened at the time when Harnek Singh was being belaboured. The
court also found that Gurmail Singh (PW-4) had apparently not been
present at the spot as his ocular version did not correspond with the
medical evidence with regard to the number and situs of the injuries on ' B
the dead body. The trial court also referred to the contents in the DDR
(Exh. DX/l) in which it is stated that the accused were armed with Sotis
and there was no reference to any of the accused armed with gandasa
and accordingly held this important circumstance itself nullify the
prosecution story. The trial court also held that there was delay in lodging c
the First Information Report. The trial court accordingly acquitted all the
accused giving them the benefit of doubt.
6. The High Court upon re-appreciation of evidence found that there '
was no delay in lodging the First Information Report. The High Court also
reversed the finding recorded by the trial court as regards the presence 'D
of the eye-witnesses as it came to the conclusion that there is no reason
to doubt the presence of Amar Singh (PW-3) and Gurmail Singh
(PW-4) at the scene of occurrence. The High Court took the view that
the presence of eye-witnesses was absolutely natural and they had good
reason for being present at the scene of offence. The High Court relied E
upon the First Information Report in which it has been mentioned that
the accused were armed with gandasas and dangs. The High Court found
the DDR (Exh. DX/l) is the photocopy of the original which was not
produced in the court. Be it noted that the prosecution had closed its
evidence on 22.9.1993 and the statements of all the accused under Section F
313 Cr.P.C. ha.d thereafter been recorded and it is only thereafter the
accused moved an application to recall Amar Singh (PW-3) and Iqbal
Rai (PW-7) who had recorded the DDR (Exh. DX/1) which was allowed
by the trial court. The application was ordered about 4 years after the
closure of evidence. The High Court upon appreciation of the evidence, G
..... .,.
however, found that the so-called entry made in the DDR (Exh. DX/1)
by itself may not make any difference to the prosecution case inasmuch
as the evidence of Iqbal Rai (PW-7) clearly reveals that the First
Information Report had been recorded first and entries in the DDR were
H
'
)

784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A made thereafter. The High Court also found that the injuries found on the
body of the deceased were inflicted by sharp cutting weapons which finds
support from the medical evidence. The High Court in conclusion held:
"As per the ocular version, injuries 1,3 and 4 ~re incised wounds,
which had allegedly been caused by Gurcharan Singh and Mithu
B
accused and injury No. 2 by Gurcharan Singh whereas injury No.
5 had been attributed to Mukhtiar Singh accused. There is no clear
cut evidence as to who had caused injury No. 6, which had been
detected by Dr. K.S. Raikhy (PW-1) at the time of post-mortem
examination. We also observe that the Gandasa is a cutting weapon
c with a Lathi attached to it. It is, therefore, possible that a Gandasa
could have been used Lathiwise as well while causing the lacerated
injuries. Mukh!iar Singh, who was armed with a Dang, has been
attributed one simple lacerated wound 3 cm x 3 cm in dimension.
He is, therefore, entitled to claim some benefit in an appeal against
D acquittal for an incident, which happened in the year 1989. Gurdial
Singh was unarmed and only a Lalkara has been attributed to him.
To be on the safe side, he too must be dealt with in the same
manner as Mukhtiar Singh.

E We accordingly dismiss the appeal qua Mukhtiar Singh and
Gmdial Singh. We, however, find that case against Gurcharan
Singh and Mithu stands proved beyond doubt. The appeal qua
them is allowed. Gurcharan Singh is held guilty for an offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code where~
F Mithu Singh is held guilty for the offence punishable under S~tibh
' . f. 'l
302/34 thereof They are sentenced to undergo imprisonmel!t f.or
life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment
of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each.' Th~
fine, if paid, shall be paid to Tej Kaur, the widow of the d~."
G
..
7. This appeal has been preferred by Mithu Singh (A-4) alone.:
i1 '
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
the entries made in the DDR in which it has. been mentioned that the
.

accused were armed with Sotis completely falsify the prosecution story.
H The learned counsel made an attempt to contend that the entries were
"'
PARAMJIT SINGH@MITHU SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 785
-·-----y-;
.f THROUGHSECRETARY(HOME)[REDDY,J.]
first made in the DDR based on the First Information Report made by A
Amar Singh (PW-3) and only thereafter the First Information Report has
been recorded making improvements to implicate the accused in the case.
The learned counsel also contended that the presence of Amar Singh (PW~
3) and Gurmail Singh (PW-4) at the scene of occurrence is highly doubtful
for they did not intervene when the deceased was being attacked. It was B
)., also contended that two injuries were simple in nature out of which one
is alleged to have been caused by the appellant herein and, therefore, there
is no evidence of any common intention to kill the deceased.
9. The learned counsel for the State of Punjab submitted that tht;
common intention is evident from the fact that the appellant was armed c
with deadly weapon and it is immaterial as to the nature of the injuries'
4 inflicted by the appellant on the body of the deceased. The learned counsel,
supported the findings of the High Court.
10. We have considered the submissions made during the course of D
,J ~ hearing of the appeal and perused the evidence available on record.
11. We shall first deal with the contention with regard to delay in
lodging the First Information Report. The evidence available on record 1

reveals that the incident took place on 6.5.1989 at 7.00 p.m in village
Longowal. The distance between village and police station is about 3 kms. · E
It is in the evidence of Amar Singh (PW-3) and Gurcharan Singh ,
(PW-4) that they had immediately removed critically injured Harnek Singh ,
to their farm house and thereafter to the Primary Health Center, Longowal
- .... in a bullock cart and reached there at 9.10 p.m. Dr. Rakesh Jain ·.
~
(PW-6) who attended the injured sent the ruqa (Exh. PN) to the police F
station, Longowal at 9.25 p.m .. Having regard to the grievous nature of
injuries and condition of the victim Dr. Rakesh Jain (PW-6) referred the '
injured to the Civil Hospital, Sangrur. The evidence of Dr. Rakesh Jain
(PW-6) in this regard remains unimpeached and there is absolutely no
reason to disbelieve any portion of his evidence. It is Amar Singh G
A ~ (PW-3) who took the injured to the Civil Hospital at Longowal and
thereafter to the Hospital at Sangrur where the injured succumbed to
iitiuries. It is only thereafter Amar Singh (PW-3) went to police station
which is at a distance of about 9-10 kms. from the hospital and lodged
H
786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 11 S.C.R.

A First Information Report. Amar Singh (PW-3) was present not only at
the scene of offence but accompanied the injured to Civil Hospital,
Longowal and thereafter to the Hospital at Sangrur. It is only after Harnek
Singh died in the hospital Amar Singh (PW-3) left to police station to
lodge First Information Report at 1.15 a.m on 7.5.1989. The special report
B sent by the police reached the Illaqa Magistrate at 5.00 a.m. In order to
determine whether the FIR was lodged at the time it is alleged to have
been recorded, the courts normally look for certain external checks. One
of the checks is the receipt of the copy of the FIR, called a special report,
by the Illaqa Magistrate~ In this case, the report has been received by
C the Illaqa Magistrate in time. The second external check equally important
is the sending of the copy of the FIR along with the dead body and its
reference in the inquest report. This requirement is also complied with in
the present case. The inquest report dearly refers to the lodging of the
First Information Report by Amar Singh (PW-3) at 1.15 am. on 7.5.1989
D in Police Station, Longowal and it also refers to the registration of the
First Information Report and dispatch of special report for their delivery
to the concerned authorities. Thereafter, Malkiat Singh, ASI (PW-5) along
with some constables and Amar Singh (PW-3) rushed to the Civil
Hospital, Sangrur where the inquest report has been prepared. The
E sequence of events clearly reveals that there was any unexplained and
unreasonable delay in lodging the FIR. In the circumstances, it cannot be
said that the FIR was ante-timed and brought into existence after some
deliberations.
12. We do not find any merit in the contention that the entries made
F in the DDR (Exh. DX/I) in which it has been mentioned that the accused
were armed with Sotis falsify the First Information Report lodged by Amar
Singh (PW-3). We have already noted that the original of the DDR has
not been filed into the court and what has been filed was only a photocopy
and that too at the instance of the accused after four years of the closure
G of evidence. It is clearly evident from the statement oflqbal Rai (PW-7)
that the First Information Report was recorded first and the DDR
thereafter. He further stated that the DOR had been recorded on the basis
of the facts recorded in the First Information Report. We find it difficult
to comprehend as to how totally a different version is found in DOR which
H
j
/
PARAMJITSINGH@MITHUSINGHv. STATEOF 787
PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY (HOME) [REDDY, J.]
is said to be a photocopy ofDDR. There is obviously something more A
than meets the eye. The contention that under the Punjab Police Rules
information must be reduced to writing and be entered in the police station
daily diary and only thereafter the First Information Report is to be issued
is absolutely untenable. The relevant rule says:
"Every information covered by Section 154 Criminal Procedure B
Code must be reduced to writing as provided in that Section and
the substance thereof must be entered in the police station daily
diary which is the book provided for the purpose."
A bare reading of the rule makes it clear that every information relating C
to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer-in-
charge of a police station shall be reduced to writing and the substance
thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept in such form as may be
prescribed and only thereafter in the Police Station diary.
D
13. Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals
with information to the police and their powers to investigate. Investigation
into allegations relating to commission of a cognizable offence starts on
information given to an Officer-in-charge of a Police Station and recorded
under Section 154 of the Code. If from information so received or
otherwise, the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station, if satisfied that such E
information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either
investigate the case himself or direct the investigation to any police officer
subordinate to him, in the manner provided by the Code. The procedure
as regards the registration of information relating to the commission of a
cognizable offence and the procedure for investigation is structured and F
regulated by Chapter XII of the Code. The procedure prescribed is
required to be followed scrupulously by the Officer-in-charge of the Police
Station. The Punjab Police Rules do not in any manner override the
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said rules are meant
for the guidance of the Police Officers in the State and supplement the G
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure but not supplant them. In
our considered opinion the truth and veracity of contents of the FIR cannot
in all cases be tested with a reference to the entries made in the police
station daily diary which is maintained under the Punjab Police Rules. This
H
\

788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A avoidable controversy need not detain us any further since it is well settled
that even a defect, if any, found in investigation, however, serious has no
direct bearing on the competence or the procedure relating to the
cognizance or the trial. A defect or procedural irregularity, if any, in
investigation itself cannot vitiate and nullify the trial based on such
B erroneous investigation.
14. Amar Singh (PW-3) clearly and categorically stated that the
entries in the DDR had been recorded on the basis of the facts given in
the First Information Report. It is difficult to place any reliance upon the
C photocopy of the DDR that was produced before the court after four years
of the closure of evidence. There is no explanation as to the fate of original
DDR. It is not possible to doubt the timing and contents of FIR based
on the entries made in DDR. We have serious doubts about the
genuineness of the very document DDR. We wish to say no more on this
D aspect of the matter.
15. In our considered opinion there is no basis to contend that Amar
Singh (PW-3) and Gurmail Singh (PW-4) were not present at the scene
of offence and did not witness the incident. The contention was that Amar
Singh (PW-3) and Gurmail Singh (PW-4) had not intervened to save
E Harnek Singh when he was being attacked by the accused. The evidence
available on record reveals that Amar Singh (PW-3) and deceased
Harnek Singh had almost reached their house when they had been way
laid by the accused. The appellant and Gurcharan Singh (A-3) were armed
with gandasas and Mukhtiar Singh (A-1) with a dang. As has been rightly
F observed by the High Court that it would be well nigh impossible to apply
a universal yard stick as to how a person would react to a given situation.
The presence of Amar Singh (PW-3) and Gurmail Singh (PW-4) cannot
be doubted on the ground that they have not made any attempt to rescue
the deceased. We cannot ignore the fact that the accused were armed
G with deadly weapons and the same may have deterred PW-3 and PW-
4 in making any attempt to rescue the victim when he was under attack.
16. It is true that Gurmail Singh (PW-4) had not been able to spell
out accurately the situs of the injuries on the dead body but the same
would not make his presence doubtful. The victim was under attack from
H
~

PARAMJIT SINGH@MITHU SINGH v. STATE OF 789
... -, PUNJABTHROUGHSECRETARY(HOME)[REDDY,J.]
a group of persons armed with deadly weapons. He must have made A
attempts to save himself from the attack and in the process may have not
remained static without moving one way or the other. One cannot expect
that in such a situation the witness would graphically describe the nature
of injuries and spell out accurately the situs of the injuries on the body of
the victim. Their presence at the scene of offence is evident from the First B
).. Information Report itself which was lodged by Amar Singh (PW-3)
himself. The fact remains Harnek Singh had been way laid by the four
accused and thereafter inflicted several blows with the gandasas and dang.
17. It is required to notice that Dr. K.S. Raikhy (PW-1) had found
six injuries on the dead body at the time of post-mortem examination. c
The injuries found on the body were:
1. Incised wound 12 ems x 5 ems x bone deep on the right
parieto-temporal region, wound placed obliquely bone cut and
brain matter and mengis protruding through the wound; dark D .
~ clotted blood was present on the wound. On dissection
underlying bone was cut, mengis cut. The brain matter
protruding through the wound haematoma was present.
2. Lacerated wound 3 ems x 2 ems on the left clevicular region.
The wound was skin deep. On dissection underlying bone was E
intact. Haematoma was present.
3. Incised wound 3 ems x 2 ems x 1 cm on the posterior lateral
aspect of left forearm 2 ems above the wrist joint. Dark blood
. ..( clot was present. On dissection the underlying bone was intact
F
haematoma was present.
4. Incised wound 10 ems x3 ems x bone deep on the antero
lateral aspect of left leg, wound placed obliquely 3 ems below
the knee joint. Dark blood clot was present in the wound. On
dissection the underlying tibia bone was cut. Haematoma was G
). present.
""
5. Lacerated wound 3 ems x 3 ems x skin deep on the anterior
aspect ofleft leg 10 ems below the tibial tuberosity. Dark blood
clot was present. On dissection the underlying bone was intact.
H
)

790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A 6. Lacerated wound 4 ems x 2 ems x bone deep on the antero
lateral aspect of right leg 3 ems below the tibial tuberosity.
Dark blood clot was present. On dissection the underlying
bone was intact.
B It is in the evidence of PW-3 that Gurcharan Singh inflicted injury No. l
by giving a gandasa blow on the head of the victim and ;whereas the
appellant herein inflicted injury Nos. 3 and 4 gandasa blows on his right
leg below the knee and another blow on the left side of the chest using
the reverse side of the gandasa. The appellant was armed with deadly
C weapon namely gandasa. Dr. K.S. Raikhy (PW-1) stated in his evidence
that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage and all the injuries
were ate-mortem in nature. It is further stated by him that injury No. 1
itself was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
18. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the
D injuries inflicted by the appellant were not sufficient to cause the death of
the victim and, therefore, the common intention to kill is not evident and
therefore, he cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section
302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. We are unable to agree. The
evidence of PW-3 and 4 the direct witnesses is consistent and they had
E deposed that the appellant inflicted injuries with gandasa to kill the
deceased. The fact that the appellant inflicted injuries with the deadly
weapon itself shows that he had also shared the common intention. In
order to convict the person vicariously under Section 34, it is not necessary
to prove that each and every one of them had indulged in such overt act
F inflicting deadly injuries. It is enough ifthe material available on record
discloses that the overt act of one or more of the accused was or were
done in furtherance of common intention. The common intention shared
by the appellant is evident from the fact that he was armed with deadly
weapon and inflicted two injuries on the victim. All the accused attacked '";-
G the deceased and caused injuries in furtherance of the common intention
to murder the deceased. In such a situation the nature of injuries inflicted --1

by the appellant on the victim and whether those injuries were sufficient
in the ordinary course to cause death pales into insignificance. The
appellant was not a curious onlooker and had not accompanied the
H
PARAMJITSINGH@MITHUSINGHv. STATEOF 791
T", PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY (HOME) [REDDY,J.]
assailant who gave a deadly blow out of any ideal curiosity. Each one of·. A
them is liable for that act of murder as if the act of murder was done by
each one of them. It is true that if the High Court had adopted this reasoning
even Mukhtiar Singh (A-1) and Gurdial Singh (A-2) could not have
escaped from conviction. However, we do not propose to express any
firm opinion on that aspect of the matter since there is no appeal by the B
State against their acquittal.
19. For the aforesaid reasons we find no merit in this appeal. The
appeal shall accordingly stand dismissed.
RP. Appeal Dismissed. C

'