http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9

PETITIONER:

NARINDER SINGH & ANOTHER

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/04/2000

BENCH:

Ruma Pal, D.P.Wadhwa

JUDGMENT:

D.P. WADHWA, J.

The two appellants were tried for offence under

Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). They

were acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar by judgment

dated January 8, 1991. Against their acquittal State of

Punjab filed appeal in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The complainant also filed revision in the High Court

assailing the order of acquittal by the Sessions Judge.

High Court by the impugned judgment dated January 20, 1998

allowed the appeal as well as the revision and set aside the

acquittal of the appellants. High Court convicted the

second appellant Ravinder Singh alias Khanna under Section

302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life

and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of

fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six

months. First appellant was convicted under Section 302/34

IPC and similarly sentenced.

It is submitted before us that the High Court wrongly

exercised its jurisdiction in setting aside the acquittal of

the appellants, when Sessions Judge in a well considered

judgment, having weighed all the pros and cons of the case,

had rightly acquitted the appellants. It could not be said

that the conclusions arrived at by the Sessions Judge were

perverse for the High Court to intervene.

To appreciate the submissions of the appellants we may

examine the record of the case.

It is not disputed that Gurdev Singh died a homicidal

death on November 6, 1989. He was a Granthi of Gurudwara of

village Talwandi Fattu. A fortnight or so before the

fateful day when Gurdev Singh was murdered the appellants

had visited him. They told him to vacate the office of

Granthi of Gurudwara of that village as they themselves

wanted to assume the charge of office of Granthi of that

Gurudwara. Gurdev Singh was threatened that in case he did

not heed to their demand he would be done to death.

On November 6, 1989 Gurdev Singh with his son Hardip

Singh (PW-2) was going on a bicycle to village Jagatpur in

order to withdraw the money from his account in the

Cooperative Bank there. Hardip Singh was pedaling the cycle

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9

while Gurdev Singh was sitting on its carrier. Around 12

O'clock when they reached the metalled road near the field

of one Gurmej Singh resident of Jagatpur, they saw the

appellants sitting near a tree. They got up and intercepted

Gurdev Singh and Hardip Singh. Both got down from their

cycle. Appellant Narinder Singh proclaimed that they would

teach Gurdev Singh a lesson, as he had not vacated the

office of Granthi of the Gurudwara as per their demand. He

grabbed Gurdev Singh from his arms while the second

appellant Ravinder Singh alias Khanna took out a gatra

kirpan, which he was wearing and stabbed Gurdev Singh with

gatra kirpan on the left side of his neck. Gurdev Singh

after receiving the kirpan blow fell down. Appellants then

advanced towards Hardip Singh menacingly. Hardip Singh ran

away in order to save himself. Appellants chased him for a

while and then abandoned the chase after some distance.

Hardip Singh looked back and when he found that chase had

been given up he returned to the spot where his father had

been stabbed. He found his father Gurdev Singh dead. At

that time Bikar Singh Lambardar (PW-3) came there. Hardip

Singh left Bikar Singh at the spot to guard the dead body of

his father and he himself went to the Police Station, Banga

to lodge a report. However, Hardip Singh met Sub- Inspector

Man Singh (PW-6) at the bus stand, Gunachaur. S.I. Man

Singh was the Additional S.H.O. of Police Station, Banga.

Hardip Singh made statement (Ex. PD) before S.I. Man Singh

on the basis of which a case under Section 302/34 IPC was

registered at Police Station, Banga and a formal FIR

registered against the appellants. Thereafter S.I. Man

Singh accompanied by Hardip Singh came to the place of the

occurrence. He prepared the inquest report on the dead body

of Gurdev Singh. He inspected the spot, lifted blood

stained earth from the place where the dead body was lying.

Turban of the deceased Gurdev Singh was lying towards the

head of his dead body which was also made into sealed parcel

and taken into possession. After completing usual

investigation S.I. Man Singh sent the dead body of Gurdev

Singh for post mortem examination. Dr. Gurvinder Singh

Chhatwal, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Nawanshahar,

conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Gurdev

Singh on November 7, 1989. According to him injuries

suffered by Gurdev Singh were sufficient to cause death in

the ordinary course of nature. On November 10, 1989 both

the appellants were produced before S.I. Man Singh by

Harinder Singh (PW-4), Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Talwandi

Fattu. They were taken into custody. In pursuance to the

disclosure statement by the appellant Ravinder Singh alias

Khanna gatra kirpan (Ex. P-1) was recovered by S.I. Man

Singh on November 11, 1989, which was lying concealed in the

bushes near the canal minor in the area of village Bika.

Kirpan (Ex. P-1) measured 5.2 inches along with gatra was

made into a sealed parcel and was taken into possession.

Sealed parcels containing kirpan and blood stained earth,

where the kirpan was found concealed, were sent to the

chemical examiner who gave his report (Ex. PL) and opined

that there were blood stains on the kirpan and earth. After

completion of the investigation police submitted the challan

against both the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC. By

order dated February 16, 1990 of the Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Nawanshahar the appellants were committed to

the court of sessions to stand their trial. Sessions Judge

charged the appellant Ravinder Singh alias Khanna under

Section 302 IPC and appellant Narinder Singh under Section

302/34 IPC. Both the appellants pleaded not guilty to the

charges framed against them and claimed to be tried. After

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9

the conclusion of the evidence the appellants were examined

under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. They

denied the allegations in the evidence against them and said

that it was a false case. They did not lead any defence.

Dr. Gurvinder Singh Chhatwal (PW-1) in his deposition

stated that he had conducted the post mortem examination on

the dead body of Gurdev Singh and he found the following

injuries: -

"There was an incised wound 8cm x 5cm spindle shape on

left lateral side of the neck. 6cm above the clavicle. On

dissection underlying muscles were found cut, caroted

vessels were cut partially. Trachea was partially cut, and,

the apex of right lung had a wound of 2 x 3cms. The track

of wound was obliquely placed from left side to right side

in a backward and downward direction. Pleural cavity was

full of blood. Rest of the organs were found to be healthy

and normal."

In his opinion death was due to massive haemorrhage on

account of injuries which led to shock and death. The

probable time between the injuries and death was immediate

and between the death and post mortem 24 hours. When his

statement was recorded on the first day Dr. Chhatwal said

that in his opinion injury in question could not be possible

by mini kirpan which is worn by an Amritdhari Sikh. It is

not disputed that both the appellants are Amritdhari Sikhs.

On the request of the learned Public Prosecutor the case was

adjourned for further statement of Dr. Chhatwal as on that

day case property including the 'kirpan', weapon of the

alleged offence, had not been brought to the court from the

police station. Statement of Dr. Chhatwal was continued on

the adjourned date. He said he had seen mini sword (Ex.

P-1) and that possibility of the injury in question on the

body of Gurdev Singh having been caused by that weapon could

not be ruled out. He said it was correct that when mini

sword (Ex. P-1) would be taken out from the wound it would

enlarge the wound. He was questioned in the

cross-examination as to why on the last date in the court he

made a statement that in his opinion injury in question

could not be possible by a mini kirpan worn by an Amritdhari

Sikh, Dr. Chhatwal said that he had made the statement on

the basis of conjunctures. He said he would stick to that

opinion given that the injury in question could be possible

with 'kirpan' (Exh. P-1).

Hardip Singh (PW-2) is the son of deceased Gurdev

Singh. He said both the appellants had come to his father

10-15 days prior to the date of occurrence when he was also

present in the Gurudwara. Both the appellants told his

father to give up the job of Granthi since appellant

Narinder Singh was desirous of becoming Granthi of that

Gurudwara. He said his father did not agree with the

proposal. Both the appellants went away after holding a

threat to the life of his father in case he did not give up

the job of Granthi of Gurudwara Talwandi Fattu. He

supported the prosecution version as noticed above. Nothing

has been elicited in his cross-examination which would cause

any doubt as to his testimony. Hardip Singh said that the

money was in the name of his father in the bank and that the

pass book of the bank was in a bag which was slung to the

handle of the cycle. He said he did not produce the pass

book before the police. He denied the suggestion that he

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9

never witnessed the occurrence and that he came to know the

murder of his father at about 8.00 A.M. on November 6,

1989. If we accept the suggestion of the appellants as put

to Hardip Singh it would certainly run counter to the

statement of Dr. Chhatwal as to the time of death of Gurdev

Singh.

Bikar Singh (PW-3) is Lambardar of Village Talwandi

Fattu. He said deceased Gurdev Singh had come to him and

complained to him that the appellant Narinder Singh had been

holding threats to him by saying that he wanted to be the

Granthi of Gurudwara of village Talwandi Fattu, which post

Gurdev Singh had allegedly usurped and that he would face

the music for the same. Bikar Singh said that he counselled

the deceased that the matter would be put before the village

Panchayat and they would also go to the father of the

appellant Narinder Singh to tell him to restrain his son

Narinder Singh. Bikar Singh said that due to his being busy

he could not find time to place the matter before the

village Panchayat and in the meantime Gurdev Singh was done

to death. He said on the date of the occurrence when he was

going to village Jagatpur and had crossed village Mukandpur

he saw both the appellants approaching him from the opposite

direction and that they appeared to be in hurry. He saw

that appellant Ravinder Singh alias Khanna was holding a

mini kirpan, which was stained with blood. Bikar Singh

called them but they ignored him and went towards village

Mukandpur. After covering some distance he found Hardip

Singh (PW-2) crying. He inquired from him the cause of his

wailing and was told that the appellants had done his father

to death. This part of the statement of Bikar Singh was

objected to during the recording of his statement on the

ground that Hardip Singh had not said anything like that in

his deposition. Bikar Singh said he found the dead body of

Gurdev Singh lying on the metalled road. He deputed Hardip

Singh to go to the police station to report the occurrence

while he remained at the spot to guard the dead body.

Police arrived at the spot at about 2.30 P.M. and completed

the necessary formalities. Statement of Bikar Singh has

almost gone unchallenged in the cross-examination. Harinder

Singh (PW-4) deposed to the alleged extra judicial

confession made by the appellants in having murdered Gurdev

Singh. This part of testimony of the witness has not been

believed either by the trial court or by the High Court.

S.I. Man Singh (PW-6) in his deposition narrated the steps

taken by him during the course of investigation and his

filing of the charge-sheet against the appellants in the

court. With this evidence on record the Sessions Judge

acquitted the appellants holding: -

i) The prosecution has failed to establish motive.

The prosecution has failed to show any relation between

Ravinder Singh alias Khanna and Narinder Singh. The motive

if any of Narinder Singh i.e. his aspiration to become

Granthi cannot be attributed to Ravinder Singh who has

allegedly caused the injury.

ii) Hardip Singh is a got up witness. Neither the

cycle on which Hardip Singh and Gurdev Singh were travelling

nor the pass book of Bank were taken into custody by police.

They were going to Bank to withdraw money from the account

of Gurdev Singh. These two articles are not recovered from

spot. There is no reason for Hardip Singh to accompany

Gurdev Singh.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9

iii) Recovery of weapon from Ravinder Singh by S.I.

Man Singh is not a sufficient circumstance.

iv) The medical evidence contradicts ocular evidence.

The doctor only later tried to improve upon his evidence in

a manner favourable to the prosecution.

v) Prosecution case with regard to role attributed to

Ravinder Singh alias Khanna even if accepted to be correct,

Narinder Singh would not be made responsible for the injury

allegedly inflicted by Ravinder Singh alias Khanna to Gurdev

Singh.

Division Bench of the High Court considered whole

aspect of the matter afresh. It examined the statements of

prosecution witnesses and other evidence which had been

brought on record. High Court also considered the

submissions of the appellants that it could at best be a

case under Section 304 Part I or Part II, IPC. High Court

found the evidence led by the prosecution completely

trustworthy. It examined the contentions of the appellants:

(1) conviction could not be based on the solitary statement

of Hardip Singh, son of the deceased, who being prone to be

actuated by sense of revenge; (2) Hardip Singh was not

residing with his father at the relevant time but was living

in his native village Jagatpur, situated at a distance of 3

Kms. from village Talwandi Fattu; (3) there was no

evidence on record to show if the deceased Gurdev Singh had

any account in the bank; (4) Hardip Singh would not have

taken to heels if he witnessed his father being done to

death; he would have rather tried to save his father; (5)

it had not been shown if the FIR was recorded on the day of

the occurrence at 2.30 p.m. and there was no evidence at

what time special report was sent to the Illaqa Magistrate;

(6) there was no motive to commit the murder of Gurdev

Singh, Granthi of Gurudwara, Village Talwandi Fattu as a

Granthi is appointed by a committee in the village and

resignation of Gurdev Singh as Granthi would have been of no

consequence for the appellants; and finally that (7) there

was no evidence if the threat given to Gurdev Singh by the

appellants were brought to the notice of the Panchayat of

the village Talwandi Fattu, when Bikar Singh had told Gurdev

Singh that the matter would be brought to the notice of the

Panchayat. High Court did not find any merit in any of

these submissions. Statement of Hardip Singh stood

corroborated by other evidence. High Court found that

acquittal of the appellants was not justified by the

evidence on record and it, therefore, overturned the

judgment of the trial court, set aside the acquittal of the

appellants and sentenced them as aforesaid.

Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, who appeared for appellant

Narinder Singh, raised similar pleas as were made in the

High Court. His principal argument was that in the impugned

judgment the High Court did not consider that there was no

common intention shared by appellant Narinder Singh to

commit murder of Gurdev Singh. He said in the whole of the

judgment Section 34 does not find mention except when the

High Court convicts Narinder Singh under Section 302/34 IPC

and awards him punishment. In any case, he said, Narinder

Singh did not share the common intention to commit the

murder of Gurdev Singh. He said there was no evidence that

the murder of Gurdev Singh was planned. It was a per chance

meeting on a public road. Narinder Singh, when he grabbed

Gurdev Singh of his hands, merely said he would be taught a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9

lesson as he had not resigned as Granthi in accordance with

their demand. The appellants were not carrying any weapon.

What they were wearing were mini kirpans, which their

religion ordains and is normal for them to wear the same on

their body. Common intention has to be proved by direct or

circumstantial evidence and in the present case it has

neither been shown to exist. Mr. Gupta then said that the

statement of Hardip Singh (PW-2) has not been corroborated

with material particulars. The allegation that both Gurdev

Singh and Hardip Singh were going on cycle to the bank to

draw money could be corroborated only if the pass book and

the cycle on which they were riding were seized and brought

in as evidence. This non- production of pass book and the

cycle was fatal to the story of the prosecution. Lastly,

Mr. Gupta again stressed that it has not been shown as to

how both the appellants could be said to have shared the

common intention to commit the murder of Gurdev Singh as

alleged by the prosecution.

Ms. Amita Gupta, appearing for the second appellant

Ravinder Singh alias Khanna, similarly pointed out what she

called loopholes in the prosecution version on the basis of

which learned Sessions Judge had acquitted the appellants.

She submitted on the basis of the evidence it could not be

said that the accused could be the cause of death of Gurdev

Singh as they never knew that Gurdev Singh and his son would

be passing that way on the date of the occurrence. Only one

single injury inflicted on Gurdev Singh which could at best

bring the case under Section 304 Part-II IPC and not Section

302 IPC. It would, therefore, appear that same arguments

had been repeated in the trial court, then in High Court and

now before us. Ms. Gupta lastly said that the High Court

exercised its jurisdiction wrongly in upsetting the judgment

of the Trial Court of acquittal against the well-settled

principles. The High Court while considering the appeal

against acquittal is not exercising any extra ordinary

jurisdiction. Its power to consider and decide the appeal

against the judgment of acquittal is same as against the

judgment of conviction. However, there are certain

guidelines. One is that if there are two views on evidence

which are reasonably possible one supporting acquittal and

the other indicating conviction, High Court in an appeal

against judgment of acquittal should not interfere merely

because it feels that it would as a trial court have taken a

different view. High Court will certainly interfere if it

finds that the judgment of acquittal is manifestly erroneous

and that the trial court was acted with material

irregularity or its appreciation of evidence lacks coherence

or it has made assumptions which are unwarranted or its

evaluation of evidence is such as to shock the sense of

justice and which has led to miscarriage of justice or its

reasoning is unintelligible or defies logic or its

conclusions are against the weight of the evidence. We have

examined evidence in this case and we are of the view that

the High Court was right in overturning the judgment of

acquittal of the Court of Sessions. Perversity is writ

large on the face of the judgment of the trial court. Its

appreciation of evidence is wholly inappropriate and it has

acted with material irregularity. It has taken into

consideration inconsequential circumstances to record

acquittal of the appellants. It was submitted that Hardip

Singh resided in Jagatpur, native village of the deceased

Gurdev Singh while Gurdev Singh himself was residing in

Village Talwandi Fattu being Granthi of the Gurudwara there.

Mr. Gupta said that it was improbable that Hardip Singh

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9

would meet Gurdev Singh on the date of the occurrence and

would take him to Jagatpur. We do not find there is

anything unnatural about it. When Gurdev Singh deceased had

to withdraw money from the Co-operative Bank in Village

Jagatpur, his son was taking him there on cycle. This

version of Hardip Singh is disputed on the ground that cycle

as well as the passbook of the bank were not taken into

possession by the police and that no evidence had been led

if Gurdev had any account in the Co-operative Bank. Hardip

Singh was not cross-examined if he was not telling the truth

that his father had an account in the bank in Jagatpur. He

was not questioned if he was not going on the cycle with

Gurdev Singh sitting on the carrier. He was asked a

question about the passbook of the bank and his reply was

that the passbook was in the bag which was slung to the

handle of the cycle and that he did not produce the passbook

before the Police. No question was asked from Sub-Inspector

Man Singh, Investigating Officer as to why he did not take

into possession the cycle or the passbook. In fact, there

has been no cross-examination by the appellant of the

statement of Sub- Inspector Man Singh. Nothing has come out

from the cross-examination of Sub-Inspector Man Singh by

appellant Ravinder Singh alias Khanna. Sub-Inspector Man

Singh gave a coherent picture of the investigation conducted

by him, his recording of the FIR and the statement of the

witnesses and recovery of Kirpan on disclosure statement

made by the appellant Ravinder Singh alias Khanna under

Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Sub-Inspector Man Singh

(PW-6) stated that in connection with election duty, he was

going to village Mukandpur accompanied by other Police

Officers. At the bus stand of Gunachaur Hardip Singh (PW-2)

met him. Sub-Inspector Man Singh recorded the statement of

Hardip Singh (Exh. PD), made an endorsement on it (Exh.

PD/1) and sent the same to the Police Station, Banga for

registration of the formal FIR (Exh. PE) He then proceeded

to the spot along with police officers and Hardip Singh.

Dead body of Gurdev Singh was found lying on one side of the

metalled road. He prepared inquest report. Bikar Singh

(PW-3) and some other persons were present at the spot. He

inspected the spot lifted blood stained earth from the place

where the dead body was lying and made that into a sealed

parcel. Towards the head of the dead body a turban was

found which was also lifted and made into sealed parcel.

Both the sealed parcels were taken into possession after

getting the recovery memos duly attested. Sub-Inspector Man

Singh prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence. He

recorded statement of witnesses and sent the dead body with

inquest report for post mortem examination. Wearing

apparels of the deceased were also taken into possession

which included a turban bracelet and a gatra. Sub-Inspector

Man Singh then stated that both the accused were produced

before him by Harinder Singh (PW-4) on November 10, 1989

whom he arrested. Next morning, i.e., November 11, 1989 he

took out Ravinder Singh alias Khanna from the Police lockup

for interrogation. He disclosed that he had kept concealed

one kirpan at a particular place. His statement (Exh. PK)

was recorded which was attested by Shiv Singh and Head

Constable Ranjit Singh. Then Ravinder Singh alias Khanna

led the Police party to the disclosed place from where he

produced kirpan (Exh. P-1). Trace of kirpan was made (Exh.

PK/2) and the kirpan was taken into possession. Site plan

of the place of recovery was also prepared. He completed

investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the accused

in the court. Accused Narinder Singh did not cross-examine

Sub-Inspector Man Singh except for asking a question that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9

request for remand (Exh.DB) bore the endorsement of the

Illaqa Magistrate. There is nothing much in the

cross-examination by accused Ravinder Singh alias Khanna.

Sub-Inspector Man Singh denied the suggestion that Gurdev

Singh deceased was murdered during the night intervening

5/6.11.1989 by some unknown assailant and that information

regarding his murdered reached him early morning and that he

reached the spot at 8.00 a.m. He also denied the suggestion

that time of murder was designedly changed to explain the

delay and to make probable and natural evidence of the

alleged eyewitnesses. Sub- Inspector Man Singh also denied

suggestion that accused Ravinder Singh alias Khanna never

made disclosure statement and that he also did not get the

kirpan (Exh.P-1) recovered. That is all to the statement of

Sub- Inspector Man Singh. His testimony has gone

unchallenged. We have noted above that a question was put

to Hardip Singh in cross-examination that he did not witness

the occurrence. A suggestion was given to Hardip Singh that

Gurdev Singh was murdered during the darkness of the night

by unknown assailant and that the information regarding his

murder was known to him early morning and that he reached

the spot at 8.00 a.m. This suggestion of the appellants

does not find support if we refer to the statement of Dr.

Gurvinder Singh Chhatwal who conducted post mortem of the

body of Gurdev Singh. Comment of the trial court on the

statement of Dr. Gurvinder Singh Chhatwal that he tried to

improve upon his evidence in a manner favouring to the

prosecution is unjustified to say the least. On the first

day when he made the statement, Dr. Gurvinder Singh

Chhatwal said that the injury in question on the body of

Gurdev Singh could not be possible by mini-kirpan worn by an

Amritdhari Sikh. It is not that there is any standard size

of such mini- kirpan. Further statement of Dr. Gurvinder

Singh Chhatwal could not be recorded as case property had

not been brought on that day. On the adjourned day, when

kirpan (Exh. P-1) was shown to Dr. Gurvinder Singh

Chhatwal, he stated that there was possibility of the injury

having been caused with the weapon like mini-kirpan (Exh.

P-1) and that when this would have been taken out from the

wound, it would enlarge the wound. In the

cross-examination, Dr. Gurvinder Singh Chhatwal stuck to

his statement. There is nothing in his evidence which can

even remotely suggest that he made a statement favouring to

the prosecution. Dr. Gurvinder Singh Chhatwal was

forthright that when he made a statement on the first day,

it was merely by guesswork. Both the appellants were acting

in concert. Their intention to do away Gurdev Singh,

Granthi was manifest when a couple of days before the

occurrence they openly threatened him to kill him in case he

did not give up the post of Granthi of the Gurudwara of

village Talwandi Fattu. This is no argument for the defence

that since the Granthi is appointed by the Management

Committee of the Gurudwara, appointment of the appellant

Narinder Singh as Granthi of Gurudwara would not have been

automatic and, therefore, there was no occasion to hold a

threat to Gurdev Singh. It was then submitted that it was

dangerous to return the finding of guilt merely on the sole

statement of one witness, Hardip Singh in the present case.

It is contended that the conduct of Hardip Singh was not

natural. He took to his heels when his father was being

assaulted and he made no efforts to protect his father which

was natural for a son. But then Hardip Singh has stated

that accused also wanted to assault him and to protect

himself, he ran from the spot. Statement of Hardip Singh is

cogent and reliable. He gets corroboration from Bikar Singh

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9

(PW-3). Both Hardip Singh (PW-2) and Bikar Singh (PW-3) are

natural witnesses. Statement of Harinder Singh, Sarpanch

(PW-4) has been disbelieved to the extent that any extra

judicial confession was made to him by the appellants and in

our opinion rightly so. That, however, does not in any way

deviate from the evidence on record which is cogent clearly

pointing to the murder of Gurdev Singh by the appellants

with a common intention. It has to be held that Narinder

Singh, appellant grabbed Gurdev Singh by his arms and the

second appellant stabbed him. When appellant Narinder Singh

grabbed Gurdev Singh, he said in so many words that Gurdev

Singh would now be taught a lesson as he did not resign as

Granthi of the Gurudwara of village Talwandi Fattu. It is

not disputed that Amritdhari Sikh always carry Kirpan on

their body and in that view of the matter it is not

necessary for the appellants to carry any other arm or

weapon. Kirpan (Exh.P-1) was used to commit the murder.

Trial Court totally went wrong when it said that the

recovery of kirpan from the second appellant was of no

consequence and was not sufficient to connect the appellants

with the crime. Both the appellants committed the murder of

Gurdev Singh, Granthi in furtherance to their common

intention. It was submitted by Mr. Gupta that Narinder

Singh could not have convicted with the aid of Section 34 as

this section is nowhere mentioned in the impugned judgment.

Mention of section in the judgment is not the requirement of

law to convict a person. If the ingredients of the offence

are present, conviction can be made. It is not material to

bring the case under Section 34 IPC as to who, in fact,

inflicted the fatal blow. High Court has rightly interfered

in the matter and sentenced the appellants accordingly. We

do not find any merit in the appeal. It is dismissed.

Appellant Narinder Singh was ordered to be released on bail.

His bail bond shall be cancelled and he shall be taken into

custody forthwith.