Gursharan Singh vs State of Punjab

S.D. Bajaj, J.

Three accused in Karam Singh, Karamjit Singh and Gursharan Singh were charged for abetment of criminal trespass into the house and Haveli of Geja Singh in village Sangojla or getting Naranjan Singh, Karnail Singh and Sukhvinder Singh murdered therein through a hired assassin named Jagtar Singh alias Billa under Sections 449/109, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and for abetment of the murders aforesaid under Section 30 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Substantive charge for criminal trespass, conspiracy and murder was not framed against convicted accused appellant Gursharan Singh at all. Vide its impugned judgment dated June 4, 1990 learned trial Court convicted him of the commisison of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murders of three persons aforesaid and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay Rs. 1000/ as fine. In default of payment of fine, the accused was oldered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. Feeling aggrieved there from Gursharan Singh has filed Criminal Appeal No. 161DB of 1990 in this Court.

We have heard Shri A.S. Chahal, Advocate, for the appellant, Shri S.S. Kang, DAG Punjab for the State and have perused the entire relevant material on record very carefully.

From the statement of Shrimati Harjinder Kaur PW 10 learned trial Court held that accused Gursharan Singh was responsible for the murder of three persons. According to the witness convicted accusedappellant as also one more persons fired at Naranjan Singh. It cannot be concluded that the fire aimed by Gursharan Singh really hit Naranjan Singh and proved fatal. At the most it creates a doubt and the benefit of this doubt is to go to the convicted accusedappellant. Besies it Karnail Singh and Sukhvinder Singh were also murdered, Shrimati Harjinder Kaur PW 10 has not fastened the liability of those killings upon the convicted accusedappellant. In result the appeal succeeds and is allowed. Gursharan Singh is given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.

Furthermore as already observed there was no charge for murder against the convicted accusedappellant. Conspiracy and abetment were the only charges against him. It has repeatedly been held by their lordships of the Supreme Court in Nanak Chand v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 216; Suraj Pal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1955 SC 419 and Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P., AIR 1956 SC 116 :

"If there is a conviction for a charge not framed, it is an illegality and not irregularity curable by the provisions of Section 535 or 537 Cr.P.C. The police did not commit themselves as to who out of the members of the unlawful assembly was the author of the pistol fire. The presence of only those accused shall be held to have been proved who have been assigned definite part by the proxecution or whose present has been corroborated. There was no sufficient evidence to convict the appellant for committing murder as there were no direct and specific charge against the appellant accused. The omission to frame a charge is a grave defect and should be vigilantly guarded against. In some cases, it may be so serious that by itself it would vitiately the trial and render it illegal, prejudice to the accused being taken for granted". The accused, therefore, earns an acquittal on this score as well.

For the reasons given above Criminal Appeal No. 161DB of 1990 filed by the convicted accusedappellant succeeds and is allowed. Accused Gursharan Singh is given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. The accused is on bail from this Court vide order dated August 6, 1990. Bail bond furnished by his surety and personal bond put in by the accused himself shall both stand discharged.